Does objective truth mean the existence of absolute truth?

[rybak303]

Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective. Likewise, to claim that truth is unknowable is also self-contradictory because to claim to know that truth is unknowable is making a claim to know truth. What we believe can change but truth itself does not change. One can believe that 2+2=5 but the truth will remain that 2+2=4. If truth is objective and does not change depending upon our beliefs then doesn't that imply that an absolute truth that is knowable does in fact exist even if we are unable to understand it in its totality. And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.

[KichigaiNeko]

Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective. Likewise, to claim that truth is unknowable is also self-contradictory because to claim to know that truth is unknowable is making a claim to know truth. What we believe can change but truth itself does not change. One can believe that 2+2=5 but the truth will remain that 2+2=4. If truth is objective and does not change depending upon our beliefs then doesn't that imply that an absolute truth that is knowable does in fact exist even if we are unable to understand it in its totality. And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.

Short answer ...no

Read the multitude responses on other threads and stop being a lazy theist poe

[solja247]

Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective. Likewise, to claim that truth is unknowable is also self-contradictory because to claim to know that truth is unknowable is making a claim to know truth. What we believe can change but truth itself does not change. One can believe that 2+2=5 but the truth will remain that 2+2=4. If truth is objective and does not change depending upon our beliefs then doesn't that imply that an absolute truth that is knowable does in fact exist even if we are unable to understand it in its totality. And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.

Absolute truth can be attainable when we know everything. And I mean everything. So maybe it is, maybe not.

[Zen Badger]

I have the uncanny feeling you're not going last very long here.

So I'll take the opportunity to say good bye now.

[Tiberius]

Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective.

...

And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.

All true until you reach the last bit. Whilst logical truth does exist, and as such so does absolute truth, it does not imply the existence of God, nor does it imply a realm of absolute truth.

Truth is a concept of the mind; absolute truths are simply truths that accurately reflect reality in such a way that they cannot be disproved. Examples being the laws of logic.

[The Skeptic]

Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective. Likewise, to claim that truth is unknowable is also self-contradictory because to claim to know that truth is unknowable is making a claim to know truth. What we believe can change but truth itself does not change. One can believe that 2+2=5 but the truth will remain that 2+2=4. If truth is objective and does not change depending upon our beliefs then doesn't that imply that an absolute truth that is knowable does in fact exist even if we are unable to understand it in its totality. And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.

Not really. That's a very Platonic account or rationalist account. Specifically, what you have said there is called the Ontological argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

The problem with that is pure logic alone isn't always enough. That was the whole problem with the rationalist/empiricist debate that had it's roots in the rivalry in Plato vs Aristotle and continues today even. A "state of being or realm of absolute truth" as you put it is exactly the same as Plato's forms. For him, the forms exist in an objective, higher world than ours, and we are just the shadow of it. I believe Plotinus later applied this to Christian theology.

[theVOID]

Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective. Likewise, to claim that truth is unknowable is also self-contradictory because to claim to know that truth is unknowable is making a claim to know truth. What we believe can change but truth itself does not change. One can believe that 2+2=5 but the truth will remain that 2+2=4. If truth is objective and does not change depending upon our beliefs then doesn't that imply that an absolute truth that is knowable does in fact exist even if we are unable to understand it in its totality. And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.

No, an objective truth is not necessarily absolute thought all absolutes are necessarily Objective, relational measurements, such as the distance between the Earth and the Sun, are objectively true or false, but are not absolute (unchanging).

Objective, put simply, means not grounded in the opinion of person(s).

And the only 'truth' that is necessarily objective is the one with the capital T, implying absolute certainty. Other truths can be subjective truths, like 'Textures are the best band ever' is subjectively true (grounded in my opinion).

For something to be absolutely true only means that it cannot logically be any other way. A tautology is an example, like the law of non-contradiction, A is not =/= A, is an absolute truth, but it certainly isn't contingent on some absolute being or extra realm.

[Edwardo Piet]

Logical truths are absolute truths and logic has to exist if anything at all is said to exist, because it's not possible to have an illogical existence because that would mean an existence that is not itself and hence couldn't exist. Because for something to be what it is and not what it isn't (the law of non-contradiction) is the very basic principle of logic. It's the only possible kind of existence. And there can't even be any possibility besides logical possibility because an illogical possibility can't exist by definition because it would require for it to not be itself (or IOW to be not itself and hence not be an illogical possibility).