As Kyu has pointed out, I didn't mean truth as an absolute, I meant truth as in the scientific sense of the word. For something to be believed, it has to have evidence behind it. This rule applies for global warming, evolution, thermodynamics, etc. It even applies for people who claim to have won the lottery. Why would I believe someone who claimed to have won the lottery when they have presented no evidence? More importantly, all evidence presented must be open to challenge. Psychics have presented evidence that has convinced millions they can talk to the dead, but when that evidence is examined (as James Randi has done on countless occasions) it turns out to be subtle trickery, whether the "psychic" knows they are doing it or not.
I certainly think there are absolute truths, but science is not the method for determining them. Science can only be used to ascertain the most likely laws, theories, facts, etc that operate in our universe. Only an omnipotent mind could know absolute truths, and such a mind does not exist (as far as we know - our knowledge being limited).
I certainly think there are absolute truths, but science is not the method for determining them. Science can only be used to ascertain the most likely laws, theories, facts, etc that operate in our universe. Only an omnipotent mind could know absolute truths, and such a mind does not exist (as far as we know - our knowledge being limited).