Absolute Truth

Absolute Truth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics

Message

jonfortean6 -> Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 12:40:11 PM)
Hey guys, I really wanted to start a thread about absolute truth. So many people today are saying that there is no standard of truth; truth is what people make it. Everytime I hear that argument, I just shake my head. So this thread is for different techniques about refuting this argument. Here is a short script below: Teacher: Class, there is no such thing as absolute truth! Whenever someone tries to tell you that something is wrong, it may be wrong for them, but it isn't necessarily wrong for you. It is up to us to make our own truth, because there is no such thing as truth! So don't listen to people, especially Christians, who try to tell you that there is truth. Do you understand, class? Class:Yes, Teacher. Smart Student:Excuse me teacher, but you want us to believe that there is no standard of truth? Teacher: That's right, there is no truth, we cannot be sure of anything. Smart Student: Are you sure about that, teacher? Teacher: Of course! Smart Student: but I thought you just said that we can't be sure of anything? Teacher We can't! Smart Student: Then how can you be sure that we can't be sure of anything? Is it a true statement that there is no such thing as absolute truth? Teacher: Come on... That's semantics! Smart Student: Is it? How can it be if there is no truth? Teacher: Listen, there is no truth, but if society agrees on something, we can make it true, because it is socially accepted. Only when society accepts something does it become true. Understand? Class: Yes, teacher. Smart Student: Okay, what about Christopher Columbus? He believed that the earth is round, but nobody believed him. Was he still right, even though society hadn't accepted his belief? Class: Yes teacher, what about that? Teacher: umm... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnng! Teacher: Heh Heh... would you look at that, class is over guys!

SuccessinTruth -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 1:33:52 PM)
Great thread. By making that statement, she is stating that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. Therefore her statement is contradictory. This is one of the most foolish philosophies of our time. Shaking my head at is one of the things I do at our culture as a whole daily. It is so sad, we must pray for it without ceasing and spread the Gospel wherever there are ears to hear.

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 2:07:23 PM)
quote: It is so sad, we must pray for it without ceasing and spread the Gospel wherever there are ears to hear. Amen SuccessinTruth. Also, do you have any other techniques to refute this argument?

cow451 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 2:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jonfortean6 quote: It is so sad, we must pray for it without ceasing and spread the Gospel wherever there are ears to hear. Amen SuccessinTruth. Also, do you have any other techniques to refute this argument? The student did a successful bait-and-switch by going from a discussion of values to measurable data.

GroupW -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 2:50:13 PM)
One thing to be careful of... Commonly, people will take the position that there is no absolute truth. This, however, isn't what most post-modern philosophers are actually advocating. I think the question as you've phrased it was adequately refuted in the first post. The more difficult position to deal with is the idea of the perception of truth and the idea of the unbiased interpreter. Modern philosophers don't doubt the existence of truth as much as they doubt our ability to understand, interpret, and communicate it. In this view, all propositions of truth are suspect and should be handled with great skepticism. This is the more difficult thing to deal with, because at heart it's a failure of faith. People are so disappointed in the human capability to understand, interpret, use, and communicate truth that they would have no faith in truth even if it ran up and gave them big wet sloppy kisses. It's a crisis of faith and intellectual disillusionment. Your first statement is easy to deal with. This second one I believe is beastly difficult.

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 3:19:05 PM)
quote: Your first statement is easy to deal with. This second one I believe is beastly difficult. What was my second statement?

GroupW -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 5:18:24 PM)
Sorry - thinking faster than I'm typing. The first statement - that there is no absolute truth - is easy to deal with. The second statement (mine) - that there is absolute truth but it is not knowable with any certainty and can't be communicated in a trustworth fashion - is the one that's beastly hard to deal with and the one more applicable to today's thinker. BT

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 6:05:49 PM)
Ah. Let me think on that one for a bit.

earthless -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 6:14:59 PM)
Read some Ravi Zacharias.... you will like it.

GroupW -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 6:21:46 PM)
Looks interesting. One more thing on the reading list.

Bluethread -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 6:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW Sorry - thinking faster than I'm typing. The first statement - that there is no absolute truth - is easy to deal with. The second statement (mine) - that there is absolute truth but it is not knowable with any certainty and can't be communicated in a trustworth fashion - is the one that's beastly hard to deal with and the one more applicable to today's thinker. BT The"defense" against this second is. "Then I guess I can't trust you with regard to anything we have not discussed and agreed upon. So, shall we begin? By the way, can I have my tuition back until you prove you are qualified to teach this class?"

SuccessinTruth -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 8:29:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW Sorry - thinking faster than I'm typing. The first statement - that there is no absolute truth - is easy to deal with. The second statement (mine) - that there is absolute truth but it is not knowable with any certainty and can't be communicated in a trustworth fashion - is the one that's beastly hard to deal with and the one more applicable to today's thinker. BT Unfortunately. That one is hard to refute. Therefore no one knows anything, so they should really just stop writing their books and shut up. Oops, that was unkind. Fortunately, for me, God left His Holy Word for me to turn to at all times for absolute truth and though there are some things that can be interpreted in different ways, the basics are clear. And for that I am truly thankful.

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 8:57:57 PM)
Now what about people who say that there is truth, but it is relative? For instance, people who say that it is wrong to steal an umbrella, but if someone steals something from you, then you are allowed to steal something back.

FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 9:40:21 PM)
Statement one... quote: There is no such thing as absolute truth Answer: There has to be at least one truth... namely, the definition of Truth. If the definition of truth is perfectly non-absolute, then truth can be absolute for one person and non-absolute for another person. However, that is a complete destruction of the entire idea of what "Truth" is. Second Statement... quote: there is absolute truth but it is not knowable with any certainty and can't be communicated in a trustworthy fashion. The communication, debate, authorship, and science are completely irrelevant and worthless endeavors. The very fact that we search things out scientifically and philosophically shows that we believe that (A) there is absolute truth and (B) that it can be found out by searching for it. Third Statement... quote: Now what about people who say that there is truth, but it is relative? For instance, people who say that it is wrong to steal an umbrella, but if someone steals something from you, then you are allowed to steal something back. This is a rephrasing of the first statement. With the example of theft, as given, is not an example of "Truth" but is rather a defining of "Justice". Adam

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/18/2008 9:48:23 PM)
quote: Now what about people who say that there is truth, but it is relative? For instance, people who say that it is wrong to steal an umbrella, but if someone steals something from you, then you are allowed to steal something back. quote: This is a rephrasing of the first statement. With the example of theft, as given, is not an example of "Truth" but is rather a defining of "Justice". Actually, it's different, but I might have used a cheap example. Okay, stealing something from the store. Someone might say that it is wrong to steal something from the store usually, but if you are starving and you need some bread, it is okay.

FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/19/2008 1:14:44 AM)
quote: Okay, stealing something from the store. Someone might say that it is wrong to steal something from the store usually, but if you are starving and you need some bread, it is okay. Extenuating circumstances will get you some wiggle room in the legal system of our nation... but once again, it depends on how "truth" is defined. If truth is defined as "code of ethics", then it has to be relative. If truth is defined as a universally binding set of "right and wrong", then it can't be relative. The dividing marker there seems pretty thin, but it makes a world of difference. The fact is that if stealing is universally wrong, then it is always wrong. If, however, your code of ethics is trained to accept extenuating circumstances, you are no longer looking at a set of universal "Right and Wrong". So the question I would ask would be to define Truth. Adam

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/19/2008 10:12:55 AM)
quote: Extenuating circumstances will get you some wiggle room in the legal system of our nation... but once again, it depends on how "truth" is defined. If truth is defined as "code of ethics", then it has to be relative. If truth is defined as a universally binding set of "right and wrong", then it can't be relative. The dividing marker there seems pretty thin, but it makes a world of difference. The fact is that if stealing is universally wrong, then it is always wrong. If, however, your code of ethics is trained to accept extenuating circumstances, you are no longer looking at a set of universal "Right and Wrong". So the question I would ask would be to define Truth. Okay, thanks, I see what you're saying. One of the things I think people just don't understand(because they don't stop to think about it) is that without truth, there could be no wrong. And they have to consider what is truth, like you said. The answer, of course, is God. God is truth, God's standard is truth. Another thing that I think a lot of people do, is they put God in a box and view morality as this high set of rules that everyone, including God, has to follow. But that isn't true, because, even though God does follow the standard, He is the standard. If there was a higher standard than God, then God wouldn't be God.

deliveredarling -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 9:38:01 AM)
Truth can be defined as interpretation in spiritual matters. It's done all the time here on CW. My "truth" can be based on how I see scripture XXXXX and a misinterpretation comes from another person viewing the same scripture. What I can view as right or wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that is is right or wrong for another. Truth is perception. It can be a wrong perception, but it is still the truth for that person.

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 9:59:25 AM)
quote: Truth can be defined as interpretation in spiritual matters. It's done all the time here on CW. My "truth" can be based on how I see scripture XXXXX and a misinterpretation comes from another person viewing the same scripture. What I can view as right or wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that is is right or wrong for another. Truth is perception. It can be a wrong perception, but it is still the truth for that person. I disagree with that, because there is only one truth. Truth isn't perception, truth comes from God. There is only one truth, there cannot be more. If someone has a wrong perception, it isn't true for that person. They may believe that they are true, but in reality they aren't.

zamdad -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 10:04:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deliveredarling Truth can be defined as interpretation in spiritual matters. It's done all the time here on CW. My "truth" can be based on how I see scripture XXXXX and a misinterpretation comes from another person viewing the same scripture. What I can view as right or wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that is is right or wrong for another. Truth is perception. It can be a wrong perception, but it is still the truth for that person. What? This post seems to be open to moral relativism. While I think I understand what you are trying to get, DD, it seems that if there is disagreement about interpretation of scripture, then a discussion should ensue to explore the matter further. Some folks have different interpretations as a result of imposing self into the passage. And, we all come to the same thing from different life experience. To ignore what we perceive to be misintrpretation is to allow error to continu and spread. If we are misinterpreting something, then we need correction. Failure to address matters of absolute truth has led us to the relativistic, ambivalent, nation we have become.

deliveredarling -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 11:25:34 AM)
Ok, a little clarification is needed here. Scripture- (I'm just going to use this as an example) Some will see grace as a free for all in sin, that is their truth because it was what was taught to them. They believe it with all their hearts and preach it and continue to teach it. Others know that is not the truth because they have been taught differently. Yet, this is their truth. Both are truth to the individuals, but they come to different conclusions, both heartfelt and believed. Both views are wrong to the other groups but it is truth to them. Two people can see an accident, both will report similiar incidents and both have very different stories. Both are true, yet through the eyes of the beholder their perceptions are different. Maybe it is moral relativism, I honestly don't know. I do know that my experience is my truth and your experience is your truth. It doesn't make either one of us wrong, it makes it different. For each one of us, it is the absolute truth. (This is what I mean by perception is truth). Does that help at all or did I just add more confusion?

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 11:34:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deliveredarling Ok, a little clarification is needed here. Scripture- (I'm just going to use this as an example) Some will see grace as a free for all in sin, that is their truth because it was what was taught to them. They believe it with all their hearts and preach it and continue to teach it. Others know that is not the truth because they have been taught differently. Yet, this is their truth. Both are truth to the individuals, but they come to different conclusions, both heartfelt and believed. Both views are wrong to the other groups but it is truth to them. Two people can see an accident, both will report similiar incidents and both have very different stories. Both are true, yet through the eyes of the beholder their perceptions are different. Maybe it is moral relativism, I honestly don't know. I do know that my experience is my truth and your experience is your truth. It doesn't make either one of us wrong, it makes it different. For each one of us, it is the absolute truth. (This is what I mean by perception is truth). Does that help at all or did I just add more confusion? Okay, but you do realize that there is only one truth, right? Even if someone believes something whole heartedly doesn't mean that it is his or her absolute truth, because there is only one absolute truth. If they believe something that is wrong, they are only mislead, like zamdad pointed out.

deliveredarling -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 11:36:50 AM)
quote: If someone has a wrong perception, it isn't true for that person. They may believe that they are true, but in reality they aren't. If someone has a wrong perception that is your opinion. You can't really tell another that they are wrong for feeling or thinking the way that they do. (I'm not speaking of spiritual matters here but rather in any circumstance). We can't tell someone who experienced xxxxx that their perceptions are wrong, it's what they experienced. Let's say someone worded something slightly brutal on a thread. I am the author and felt offended by it. The person didn't mean to offend me but the way it was worded it sounded intentional. The truth is that it offended me, that it hurt my feelings because it is my perception. The other person does not know that they offended me. In their eyes they just saw it as a response. Their perception is that it was only a response and not offensive because it was their truth ( the way they viewed their own response). Both of us perceive the scenario as absolute truth based on the experience. The truth can be altered because more information can be added to clear up a miscommunication, but until then the perception remains the same for both parties. Does that make more sense? I switched gears in the first post without offering an explanation, my apologies. I was trying to keep my points short.

deliveredarling -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 11:40:21 AM)
quote: Okay, but you do realize that there is only one truth, right? Even if someone believes something whole heartedly doesn't mean that it is his or her absolute truth, because there is only one absolute truth. If they believe something that is wrong, they are only mislead, like zamdad pointed out. Yes, I know there is only one truth in matters spiritual. We can't discount their perceptions though. Figuring out their perceptions gives us clues how to battle the veil that is covering their eyes.[;)] Sometimes slapping the upside the head with a Bible is not the answer to achieve the desired result.

jonfortean6 -> RE: Absolute Truth (9/20/2008 11:54:01 AM)
quote: If someone has a wrong perception that is your opinion. You can't really tell another that they are wrong for feeling or thinking the way that they do. (I'm not speaking of spiritual matters here but rather in any circumstance). You're right. We can't tell another that they are wrong. It's not our right to judge. Who are we to judge? But God can judge, He is the judge. We can point, if someone is wrong, that what they did goes against God's standards. They didn't violate us, they violated God. quote: The truth is that it offended me, that it hurt my feelings because it is my perception. The other person does not know that they offended me. In their eyes they just saw it as a response. Their perception is that it was only a response and not offensive because it was their truth ( the way they viewed their own response). Yes, the truth is that it may have offended someone, but the truth isn't that they were necessarily wrong. Sometimes truth offends, but that doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes when I am out evangelizing, people are offended when I say that we are sinners. Sometimes they are offended because I say that we deserve to go to hell. But that doesn't make what I say wrong. Also, if someone offends you, they may or may not be wrong, no matter if they feel that you should be offended or not. He or her has to consider some things. What was his or her attitude when he or her said what was said. Was what he said in love? Could she have said what she said in a nicer way, or with more tact? These things make up the wrong, if there is one. Does that make sense?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI