Absolute Truth

[Anomalocaris]

@Chuck
I personally don't have a good written definition for what truth is, or at least a definition that doesn't use some derivative of the word truth.

My father would say that truth is whatever God says.

And I know my father is a brilliant debater because I've watched him debate people on other topics. Nowhere did I say that he was simply a brilliant religious debater. One can debate well and still be wrong about religion.

I think you will need to work out a working definition of what IS truth first, before even thinking about what is THE truth, or whether THE truth is wholly, partially or not at all absolute.

People like CG, and from what I gather you dad, have no conception of the difference between the meaning of the word truth and what is the truth. This is why they can sprout drivel like "truth is whatever God says".

A person with a great degree of ignorance may argue logically that what god says perfectly reflects THE truth, But it is always logically nonsense to say what god says IS truth.

[elunico13]

You're right.

And your father seemed to want to provoke some thought, which he has.

Saying that there is no absolute truth refutes itself. Its called relativism.
If that statement were true it would prove itself false. It self refutes.

Premise 1) Thruth does exist
Premise 2) Truth is not absolute
Conclusion:
Truth is relative

Although the chain of reasoning is correct, the second premise is false.

[Ben Davis]

My father is a brilliant debater and, unfortunately, a die-hard fundie. When I was younger he used to take me for walks outside and talk about god and the nature of god, etc.
One thing he said stuck with me and, because all I've ever heard was his side of the debate, I'd really love to hear what you would say in response.

His question was this: does there exist absolute truth? Is truth absolute? If yes, where does it come from? If no, is your answer true absolutely?

Writing it down seems to make it make less sense somehow...eh. Thoughts?

The only absolute truths exist in facts; that is absolutely true. Everything else is opinion, perception, perspective or value-judgements.

[elunico13]

"There is a god": Prove it..

"Nothing comes from nothing" : Who/what made God? To claim God is the exception is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'

Empiricism commits the fallacy of special pleading.

If all knowledge were obtained by observation than how could we empirically verify by it's own standard that the statement was true? It self refutes.

[Anomalocaris]

"There is a god": Prove it..

"Nothing comes from nothing" : Who/what made God? To claim God is the exception is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'

Empiricism commits the fallacy of special pleading.

If all knowledge were obtained by observation than how could we empirically verify by it's own standard that the statement was true? It self refutes.

Christians go through the motion of asking questions so it might appear As if there is an excuse for them to make up something and call it an answer.

[Angrboda]

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
— H.L. Mencken


I think Chuck has the right of it: the first question, foremost, is "What is truth?" Whether it's relative or absolute cannot be answered, indeed has no definition, until the first question is answered.

And as regards that first question, philosophers are still trading a round of 'lolwut's'. Much as I love me some Cinjin, I must respectfully disagree about the value of philosophy. The utility of a field is not always measured in how many new toasters it puts out per minute. Philosophy has been wrestling with hard questions, and there is no shame, even after all this time, to admit, "we just don't know." If more people could, we'd have a saner world. I think the anti-philosophy views are a valid reflection of the maxim that people are happier with a simple lie than a complex truth. Though perhaps it is a simple matter of professional allegiance; I am not in an ideal position to judge.

A year or so back, I suggested to my philosophy group that we hold a discussion on the various theories of truth, because I wanted to know more about them. Somehow, I ended up chairing the meeting, and had to become a three minute expert on all the major theories, and I'm still trying to catch up to where I should have been that night in terms of competence and depth. My hobbyist's take on the field is, all the different theories of truth have good things to commend them, mostly. The dark side is that all theories of truth seem to have deep, jagged cracks in their edifice. And if you are one of those who spurns philosophy and its confusions, all that likely means is that you have embraced defective notions without knowing it in your eagerness to spurn us eggheads, and to cling to your ignorance.

What's the solution? As with any other science: keep working the problem, and hope the answers come sooner than later.

[Cato]

"There is a god": Prove it..

"Nothing comes from nothing" : Who/what made God? To claim God is the exception is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'

Empiricism commits the fallacy of special pleading.

If all knowledge were obtained by observation than how could we empirically verify by it's own standard that the statement was true? It self refutes.

If I threw a rock at your head would you then lie on the ground and deny that it was me throwing the rock that caused the painful lump? You suggest that you would need some non-sensory means of validating the experience.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

"There is a god": Prove it..

"Nothing comes from nothing" : Who/what made God? To claim God is the exception is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'

Empiricism commits the fallacy of special pleading.

If all knowledge were obtained by observation than how could we empirically verify by it's own standard that the statement was true? It self refutes.

Even if that weren't the most ridiculous piece of horseshit ever dropped in a public forum, your assertion of a sky fairy that came from nothing is STILL a Special Pleading Fallacy. Padriac's argument stands.

---

@Chuck
I personally don't have a good written definition for what truth is, or at least a definition that doesn't use some derivative of the word truth.

My father would say that truth is whatever God says.

And I know my father is a brilliant debater because I've watched him debate people on other topics. Nowhere did I say that he was simply a brilliant religious debater. One can debate well and still be wrong about religion.

I'm sorry. "truth is whatever my sky fairy says" and "brilliant debater" are mutually exclusive.

---

This would be the same god that told Adam & Eve they would die on the day they ate from that infamous tree?

Your lying God did not say that....

Good that you admit the deceitful nature of your sky fairy. It can only be yours: we don't have one.

---

You're right.

And your father seemed to want to provoke some thought, which he has.

Great. So it's a Good Thing if I go run nekkid through the town square; it "provokes thought".

Saying that there is no absolute truth refutes itself.

Not any more than claiming that there is absolute truth does. However, "There is absolute truth" is an extraordinary positive claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Of which you have none. All you have is an assertion. We point out that your positive claim is a bald and unsupported assertion, and advise that you back it up or GTFO.

Its called relativism.

I love the way asshole armchair philosophers try to pigeonhole everyone who refutes their bullshit assertions with a silly-sounding word, and think that tacking a label on the refutation somehow dismisses them.

If that statement were true it would prove itself false. It self refutes.

Even if it did -- which it doesn't -- it is still a straw man.

Premise 1) Thruth does exist
Premise 2) Truth is not absolute
Conclusion:
Truth is relative

Although the chain of reasoning is correct, the second premise is false.

Even if this were our argument, your claim that the second premise is false is mere bald and unsupported assertion. Just like your claim of the existence of a great sky fairy or of unicorns or any other mythical creatures, yours is the positive claim and the burden of proof is on you.

---

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

"There is a god": Prove it..

"Nothing comes from nothing" : Who/what made God? To claim God is the exception is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'

Empiricism commits the fallacy of special pleading.

[Angrboda]

Love the post, Taqiyya. However, the first step of "Debating A Christian" can be reformulated as a variant of the liar's paradox, which is not a good thing, I don't think.....