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

[Spacetime]

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.

Thanks for the reply.  I think what I'm asking is something separate from individual beliefs.  What I am trying to convey is a truth that transcends environmental conditions... like space and time.  Something completely (absolute) independent of personal beliefs or quantum physics or anything else (not to put personal beliefs in the same playing field as quantum physics).

[Kingpin]

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.

Thanks for the reply.  I think what I'm asking is something separate from individual beliefs.  What I am trying to convey is a truth that transcends environmental conditions... like space and time.  Something completely (absolute) independent of personal beliefs or quantum physics or anything else (not to put personal beliefs in the same playing field as quantum physics).

Of course that is really the definition of "absolute truth", a statement that equates to reality and transcends personal beliefs.  If it is absolute, it is unwavering, without question, etc.

[Spacetime]

Absolutes truth is to claim certainty, and certainty is dangerous when not tempered with reason.

The law of God is absolute, it cannot be challenged, you can't argue with God, it can't be reasoned with. That kind of law is by definition immoral, it has nothing to do with being decent, it's about obedience, adherence to the law whatever the law happens to be, this kind of absolutist thinking is what causes members of certain sects to deny their children life saving treatments like blood transfusions, they will passively euthanize their own children because of a vague passage in a book, it is a slave mentality.

To claim to an absolute is to deny yourself the ability to question your actions, to abandon reason. If you're certain, then you don't need a reason.

Given the definitions I have, do you suppose that absolute truth is still a claim to certainty?  Can something comport with reality without the possibility of being diminished?

[Spacetime]

Of course that is really the definition of "absolute truth", a statement that equates to reality and transcends personal beliefs.  If it is absolute, it is unwavering, without question, etc.

I agree, but it seemed like your argument was dependent on personal beliefs, at least in the examples you gave.

[Kingpin]

Of course that is really the definition of "absolute truth", a statement that equates to reality and transcends personal beliefs.  If it is absolute, it is unwavering, without question, etc.

I agree, but it seemed like your argument was dependent on personal beliefs, at least in the examples you gave.

Understood, but in my examples I did use personal beliefs as the subject, but it really can be anything:

"the color of this pen is blue"

"The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth"

Are these claims to absolute truth or are they relative statements?

[Spacetime]

Yeah, I agree.  Wouldn't the conversation need to be about a specific truth claim?

Only to determine if the subject is true or not (that is if you accept truth is not relative but can be known), but your question was about absolute truths existing or not.  This can be addressed regardless of the subject.

Yup, yup.  

This is exactly why I can't help but have the internal dialogue of;

"Can something be true if you can't know it?"

"Yes, but it wouldn't matter, would it?"

[Spacetime]

Understood, but in my examples I did use personal beliefs as the subject, but it really can be anything:

"the color of this pen is blue"

"The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth"

Are these claims to absolute truth or are they relative statements?

They are relative to the best measure of what we can know. They're definitely not absolute in the sense that they are transcendent. After all, a pen, the color blue, the sun, Earth, and the measure of miles are all, as far as we can tell, non-transcendent.

[Longhorn]

Understood, but in my examples I did use personal beliefs as the subject, but it really can be anything:

"the color of this pen is blue"

"The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth"

Are these claims to absolute truth or are they relative statements?

Um.... That depends how you define blue. And how you perceive colors. Exhibit A, The Dress.

And as for the second one.... That's a round estimate, isn't it? And it doesn't have any meaning to someone not familiar with the unit of measurement used.

The Sun is 23,000 Nemos sunny. Is that objective truth?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The best you can do is have axioms without which knowledge is not possible.

[Exian]

It seems like 100% absolute knowledge of some thing must exist, but how would we even know when we've reached that point?

Luckily, approximate knowledge lets us do a lot of work.