Absolute Truth (I know, but I need some help)

[Kingpin]

Are you absolutely sure?

Not 100% kingy.... Not even that statement can be 100%.

So would you say the physical laws of the universe are not absolute?  I can agree that we may not know with 100% certainty, but our knowledge, or capacity thereof, does not equate to said law not being universally valid or absolute, just our ability to know.

[Pyrrho]

So if you deny absolute truths exist, then what you would be saying is truth is relative.  The statement, "truth is relative" is self-defeating.  It either includes itself or excludes itself.  If it includes itself then that statement is also relative and not always true.  If it excludes itself it's positing an absolute while denying their existence.  

I've seen statements like:  

“Although Christianity may be true for you, it isn’t true for me.”

“You may believe in God and that’s okay for you, but it’s not true for me.”

“All religions are just different paths leading to truth.”

Each of these statements assumes truth can be different for different people at the same time.  This violates that law of non-contradiction.  Christian apologists maintain that although people are free to believe whatever they want to believe about the claims of Christianity, those beliefs have no logical bearing on whether the claims of Christianity are actually true or not true. Regardless of what people believe, God’s existence and Christianity are either really true or really false. If the God of the Bible exists, then what the Bible teaches about God’s existence is true and what an atheist believes about God is false. Conversely, if God does not exist, then what an atheist believes about God is true and what a Christian believes is false. It is logically impossible for both Christianity and atheism to be true, even though people on both sides of the issue may firmly believe their beliefs are true.

I may end up regretting participating in this thread, but here goes anyway.  It would be good for a precise definition to be given for "absolute truth" before comments begin, but as that is not likely to be forthcoming in a satisfactory manner, I will proceed without it.


You have given an excellent start.  Many people confuse beliefs, knowledge, and truth, but they are three different things (for anyone who needs it, just look them up in an ordinary dictionary; Oxford is usually a good choice).

Instead of "self-defeating," I prefer to say that it is self-contradictory to say that there is no truth.  If there were no truth, then it must be false to say that there is no truth.  It could not possibly be true to say that there is no truth.

As for examples of truths, there are many that are much easier to deal with than what you have suggested.  I know some truths, and will list a few of them.  Whether everyone who reads this post knows them or not is something about which I will not presently comment.  Nor will I offer any proof, as that will get us into the question of what constitutes a proof, which gets us more in the direction of knowledge than truth, which would be getting us a bit off topic.  Here are some truths:

1 + 1 = 2

All bachelors are unmarried.

If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Some statements are true.

Anyone who has trouble with the above is someone with whom I do not want to bother having a conversation.  So I will offer no proof of any of them, and let others, if they wish to do so, argue about them with whoever has a problem with them.

[robvalue]

If there is such a thing as absolute truth, I don't think it's possible to ever be certain you know an absolute truth.

No matter how obvious the truth may be, no matter how well tested, you can't ever prove that everyone hasn't somehow made a mistake. Any method you use to prove you haven't made a mistake is subject to the same problem... and so it goes on endlessly. (Ironically, this is the argument from ignorance which is the most common theist fallacy when used to try and demonstrate the truth of a statement, but it undoes them here!)

Of course, from the point of view of science, this is irrelevant. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth, it deals with models that fit reality beyond all reasonable doubt.

So whether or not absolute truth exists is kind of irrelevant from our point of view. It's untestable, because we are fallible. So someone simply announcing that they have it, no matter what evidence they present, is making an impossible claim in my opinion. They are claiming to be infallible.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Not 100% kingy.... Not even that statement can be 100%.

So would you say the physical laws of the universe are not absolute?  I can agree that we may not know with 100% certainty, but our knowledge, or capacity thereof, does not equate to said law not being universally valid or absolute, just our ability to know.

You can't make absolute claims about physics, it would go against the laws of physics.

[brewer]

There is none. Truth is subjective.

So for you that statement is true, for me it is false.

And Curly says Nuk-Nuk-Nuk-Nuk-Nuk!

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Well, I hope you have a good time, but if most of them are theists then, be prepared for presuppositions and fallacies. If lkingpinl shows up, sit next to him.

You make me blush Sal.  

I didn't mean it like that

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well, I hope you have a good time, but if most of them are theists then, be prepared for presuppositions and fallacies. If lkingpinl shows up, sit next to him.

This is actually a good point. In the debate, since you're using Robert's Rules of Order, it may do well to learn what the common fallacies are (and how to spot presuppositions), then watch for those presuppositions and fallacies, and continually point them out. Be as stubborn and pedantic as you like on this angle, since so many of the common arguments I've heard Christians put forward in arguments are presuppositionalist.

For example, the common argument seen here is "We cannot be moral without a Moral Lawgiver" presupposes that there is no known mechanism for morality among social animals (there is, in fact) and that there exists such a thing as a universally-accepted Moral Lawgiver (you would, in this case, raise a Point of Information and ask the speaker to clarify how they can operate from that premise, since a ML is not established as factual, and ask them to specify why any one ML should be followed or believed as moral in the face of competing claims from other).

[Spacetime]

Well, I hope you have a good time, but if most of them are theists then, be prepared for presuppositions and fallacies. If lkingpinl shows up, sit next to him.

This is actually a good point. In the debate, since you're using Robert's Rules of Order, it may do well to learn what the common fallacies are (and how to spot presuppositions), then watch for those presuppositions and fallacies, and continually point them out. Be as stubborn and pedantic as you like on this angle, since so many of the common arguments I've heard Christians put forward in arguments are presuppositionalist.

For example, the common argument seen here is "We cannot be moral without a Moral Lawgiver" presupposes that there is no known mechanism for morality among social animals (there is, in fact) and that there exists such a thing as a universally-accepted Moral Lawgiver (you would, in this case, raise a Point of Information and ask the speaker to clarify how they can operate from that premise, since a ML is not established as factual, and ask them to specify why any one ML should be followed or believed as moral in the face of competing claims from other).

Thank you for your reply.  I was first worried about using the rules of order in this discussion, for the very same reason that the first two pages of this thread demonstrates; that term-defining is important on this particular topic.  Constantly making points of information to have the chair require the speaker to clarify terms makes for very little progress.  It could be a long night.  So, I'm preparing by printing a list of important definitions to submit as an amendment to any proposition.  That, though, could take too much time if anyone decides they have a problem with an Oxford American dictionary.

On using argumentation theory, I'm going to be reserved.  I don't want to present myself as dismissing points only because they're fallacious.  I'd rather try to discover, as you've suggested, how they accept those precepts.  I also afraid that pointing out fallacies (a lot) will make me appear ignorant on the topic.  I'm doing my best to draft good points (by also trying to tear them apart), but I'd like to think that the conversation can go on without resorting to that.  It does help that I'm familiar with a lot of modern Christian apologetics.

I also think you hit the nail on the head when you bring up morality.  I think a conversation about absolute truth is destined to return to absolute morality when talking to a theist.

Thanks again, bro.

[Spacetime]

I may end up regretting participating in this thread, but here goes anyway.  It would be good for a precise definition to be given for "absolute truth" before comments begin, but as that is not likely to be forthcoming in a satisfactory manner, I will proceed without it.


You have given an excellent start.  Many people confuse beliefs, knowledge, and truth, but they are three different things (for anyone who needs it, just look them up in an ordinary dictionary; Oxford is usually a good choice).

Instead of "self-defeating," I prefer to say that it is self-contradictory to say that there is no truth.  If there were no truth, then it must be false to say that there is no truth.  It could not possibly be true to say that there is no truth.

As for examples of truths, there are many that are much easier to deal with than what you have suggested.  I know some truths, and will list a few of them.  Whether everyone who reads this post knows them or not is something about which I will not presently comment.  Nor will I offer any proof, as that will get us into the question of what constitutes a proof, which gets us more in the direction of knowledge than truth, which would be getting us a bit off topic.  Here are some truths:

1 + 1 = 2

All bachelors are unmarried.

If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Some statements are true.

Anyone who has trouble with the above is someone with whom I do not want to bother having a conversation.  So I will offer no proof of any of them, and let others, if they wish to do so, argue about them with whoever has a problem with them.

Thank you for these points. In my previous post I mentioned that I was already doing exactly what you suggested. I don't think it would be healthy to constructive conversation to slap a giant dictionary on the table just after introducing myself... lol... so I've been printing out some pertinent definitions that I can carry in my notebook.

I don't think I know how to argue with someone who cannot accept the sort of "simple truths" that you've mentioned. It's like talking about "nothing" when we've never had a "nothing" with which to compare "something".

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Hey all,

I posted here for the first time in July, I believe it was, having recently given up my "faith".  Since then I've been doing my best to immerse myself in unlearning all the presuppositions that religion infected me with.  I've recently been invited to a formal gentlemen's discussion group to participate in some very deep conversation (hopefully).  They are young guys, like myself, who get together formally, following Robert's Rules of Order and a dress code, to have religious and philosophical discussions.  I've had some limited experience with these types of formats when I was a bit younger.  

Here, however, most of them (if not all?) are theists.  They, as a group, had concluded that they believe that absolute truths exist.  The person who invited me to the group made a caveat that this was because they all believed in a god.  Now, since giving up my "faith", I've studied morality to some degree, and have adopted the opinion that |m| (absolute morality) is a non-sensical thing or doesn't exist.  However, absolute truth is a very different thing.  If this is brought up again, and I hope it is because I'd love to hear their opinions on it, I would like to be more conversant on the topic.

At present, I think it's possible that absolute truths exist.  BUT I can imagine alternate universes where the fundamental mechanics of our universe are absent, lessening the probability of any one truth's survival in transcendence.  In physics, we see these mechanics breaking down the closer we get to anomalies like "black holes".   

Maybe a meaningful answer to the question "do absolute truths exist?" is "it doesn't matter if they do, because they wouldn't benefit us unless we can measure and apply them to our own benefit in THIS existence."

Because truth matters to me, I'd like to know if truth is transcendent or absolute in anyway.  But I can't help but think I'm projecting myself wishfully onto a fruitless endeavor.

I also can't help but apply my arguments against absolute morality to absolute truth.  I'd rather not derail this thread with morality, as I am more concerned with absolute truth at the moment, given my soon-approaching meeting with this group.

Can you please offer a good argument one way or the other?  Or provide me with something that I can digest rather quickly to make me more conversant on the topic (this meeting is in the next few days)?

I thought it was nice of them to invite an atheist... though I'm still skeptical.    ... as always.    Thanks for the help in advance!

What do you think are some of things that constitute absolute truth?