Jump to content


Photo

Absolute Truth


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 26 December 2008 - 08:50 PM

Well, I ask this question mainly because how can you even argue and say that absolute truths do not exist. I shall give a few examples of how illogical it is to think that absolute truths, do not exist.

Ok, I'm driving my car down the highway and I have a passenger beside me. While I'm driving the car the person tells me that I'm not driving the car. I look forward and yes, both hands are on the steering wheel and I am driving the car. So I look over at the person and say, you are absolutely wrong, because I am absolutely driving my car. The person continues to deny this.

So I say to the person, if your going to insist that absolutes do not exist, then I will make you get out of my car. Then the person says, yeah right! You will not make me get out of the car. I pull over and kick the person out of the car, then casually drive off thinking to myself: I wonder if he is absolutely certain that he has just been kicked out of the car...

Absolute Truths do exist, so why even deny them??? If truth doesn't exist, then true/false questions should never be used in schools for tests. Maybe we shouldn't have tests.

Does anyone else see the problem with not believeing that absolute truths exist?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 December 2008 - 10:15 PM

The teaching of this no absolutes idea, is a thinking rewiring for the brain. If you can grasp it, then through it's reason, you can now understand all that we are about to tell you....

So you see, it's actually brain washing.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 December 2008 - 09:37 AM

Hey Scott,

First, you're example is thought provoking and lays out the dilemma very well.

This series I linked by Don Carson is really well done. At first Don seems dry and not a very good public speaker but his presentation really flows well and he has a clever sense of humor. He stutters a lot but it's not obnoxious:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=21959

There are a few different ways of looking at truth, in an epistemological sense, and we shouldn't lose sight because not all people who have purchased post-modernism, first, have purchased it completely and they may not be aware how much they've been influenced by what Ikester properly called brainwashing.

Before we get proud, many Christians have been influenced by relativistic thinking through pop-culture. So we should always be on guard lest we think we're immune to it.

It boils down to a couple of broad options as we experience the world today:

1. There is absolute truth and it can be known absolutely.
2. There is absolute truth and it can be known objectively and truly.
3. There is absolute truth but it is uncertain and unknowable.
4. There is no absolute truth.

Option number two is the Biblical perspective. Most people fall into a mixture of two and three. People who have been heavily influenced by modern philosophy and find it thought provoking (dude, that's some heavy stuff, man) usually fall between three and four. This is my opinion.

It's important to recognize that people aren't required to be consistent in their minds so you can meander all over the map if you don't really care about truth.

Take science as an example:

Science could not be done today without the philosophy of absolutes because one must assume the existence of stationary principles to do the work. This is why most post-moderns will hang their hat on scientific experimentation as the only arena for finding truth.

My question is this, is this epistemologically responsible?

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 December 2008 - 09:49 AM

I want to try putting a Googlevideo on here since Ikester just showed us how. This presentation is an in your face presentation about the implications of trying to understand the world without God:



:o It worked!

I'm glad we have such highly evolved minds. ;)



#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 December 2008 - 06:08 PM

The teaching of this no absolutes idea, is a thinking rewiring for the brain. If you can grasp it, then through it's reason, you can now understand all that we are about to tell you....

So you see, it's actually brain washing.

View Post


I believe it has to be brain washing, because I don't see how anyone could deny any type of absolute truth existing even when it's starring them in the face.

If I accidentily got one of my fingers chopped off, and looked at where my finger used to be, and kepted on working simply because I didn't believe it was actually missing because absolute truth cannot possibly exist.

#6 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 December 2008 - 10:03 AM

Well, I ask this question mainly because how can you even argue and say that absolute truths do not exist.  I shall give a few examples of how illogical it is to think that absolute truths, do not exist.
Ok, I'm driving my car down the highway and I have a passenger beside me.  While I'm driving the car the person tells me that I'm not driving the car.  I look forward and yes, both hands are on the steering wheel and I am driving the car.  So I look over at the person and say, you are absolutely wrong, because I am absolutely driving my car.  The person continues to deny this.
So I say to the person, if your going to insist that absolutes do not exist, then I will make you get out of my car.  Then the person says, yeah right! You will not make me get out of the car.  I pull over and kick the person out of the car, then casually drive off thinking to myself:  I wonder if he is absolutely certain that he has just been kicked out of the car...
Absolute Truths do exist, so why even deny them???  If truth doesn't exist, then true/false questions should never be used in schools for tests.  Maybe we shouldn't have tests.
Does anyone else see the problem with not believeing that absolute truths exist?

View Post


I had a like discussion with another solipsist the other day. She is a colleague of mine, and we wandered onto the subject of philosophy. She said that “nothing is really real because there is no such thing as absolute truth”. I asked her; “Is that really, absolutely true?”. She then found herself on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma.

1- If she said it wasn’t true, she would be denying her own premise.
2- If she said it was true, she would be denying her own premise.

Please understand, this isn’t a word game, nor is it semantics… It’s reality! Truth is truth, and it corresponds directly to reality. But she chose to refuse an answer to my question, and continued with her argument…

She said “you cannot prove you exist!” To which I replied that our conversation not only proved I existed, but that she did as well! And that I could take it a step further, and prove both of our existences relatively easily.

In her unbelief, she asked how that was possible. So I continued by explaining that if I took an open flame from a cigarette lighter and held it under her outstretched palm, that she couldn’t hold her hand over the flame for an indefinite time. Her reply was that some people have a high threshold for pain. (I didn’t want to be mean, and explain how a high threshold for physical pain didn’t help her argument because it’s just begging her original question). I explained that the flesh still burns, no matter the threshold for pain. That eventually her denial will give way to the pain of the flame.

She got mad and said this was going to end our friendship. I told her I’m sorry truth can end the strong foundation of friendship… Needless to say, she hasn’t spoken to me since….

The point wasn't to make her mad, but to have a logical discussion. Are we, as thinking rational people, supposed to deny the truth in sparing another’s feelings?

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 December 2008 - 10:30 AM

Are we, as thinking rational people, supposed to deny the truth in sparing another’s feelings?

View Post


Let's face it, our culture answers that in the affirmative. Everybody's doing a good job and even if they're doing a lousy job, they're still doing a good job, we wouldn't want to disturb the alter of self-esteem.

One of the best lessons I learned as a young Christian was the fact that getting my feelings hurt by someone didn't automatically mean they said or did something wrong.

#8 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 December 2008 - 07:49 PM

I want to try putting a Googlevideo on here since Ikester just showed us how. This presentation is an in your face presentation about the implications of trying to understand the world without God:

:o It worked!

I'm glad we have such highly evolved minds. ;)

View Post



Wow, an hour and ten minutes! I'll have to check this out on my day off (Thursday). I love Ravi, but I don't have the time tonight :(

Hey Adam, is this a download somewhere?

I have a number of Ravi mp3's , but no mp4's

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 December 2008 - 09:11 PM

Wow, an hour and ten minutes! I'll have to check this out on my day off (Thursday). I love Ravi, but I don't have the time tonight  ;)

Hey Adam, is this a download somewhere?

I have a number of Ravi mp3's , but no mp4's

View Post


I know I link some longer stuff but I feel like I get more bang for my buck when a seminar can run for an hour or two while I'm working.

I've never found it, audio only. I have gone to his web-site and downloaded MP3s but I've never found that specific one on audio only, sorry. :o

#10 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 December 2008 - 04:05 AM

I know I link some longer stuff but I feel like I get more bang for my buck when a seminar can run for an hour or two while I'm working.

I've never found it, audio only. I have gone to his web-site and downloaded MP3s but I've never found that specific one on audio only, sorry. ;)

View Post


Don't get me wrong, I'll devour all the information I can. I have a number of fifteen minute and thirty minute audio segments by Ravi (and other apologists as well). It's just that the longer one's have to be reserved for day's off :o

Do you have a link to that site?

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 December 2008 - 05:29 AM

Do you have a link to that site?

View Post


Here is the entire archive:

http://www.rzim.org/...archive=1&i=100

There is no question that Ravi Zacharias is an authority on how to approach truth. The first link I posted by Don Carson won't disappoint you either:

http://www.evolution...959

It's from a site called:

http://bethinking.org/

They have the work of many scholars on here. Any person who goes through this kind of information about the truth and how it's knowable, is not rejecting the Word of God on intellectual grounds, but personal grounds.

Many churches are starting to wake up out of the slumber of approaching life like a self-help book and realizing that our perspective must be right before our lives get set right.

I'm starting to lead this in a couple of days at our church:

http://www.thetruthproject.org/

It comes highly recommended. I've never heard of Del Tackett before I became involved in this study and I must say for someone who seems to have just popped on the scene, from my perspective, he truly is a dynamic teacher.

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 January 2009 - 10:03 PM

Let's face it, our culture answers that in the affirmative. Everybody's doing a good job and even if they're doing a lousy job, they're still doing a good job, we wouldn't want to disturb the alter of self-esteem.

One of the best lessons I learned as a young Christian was the fact that getting my feelings hurt by someone didn't automatically mean they said or did something wrong.

View Post


Yes, this is true, and if someone does get their feelings hurt by the truth, then it's most likely their pride that they are unwilling to let go.

#13 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 January 2009 - 04:54 AM

Ok, I'm driving my car down the highway and I have a passenger beside me.  While I'm driving the car the person tells me that I'm not driving the car.  I look forward and yes, both hands are on the steering wheel and I am driving the car.  So I look over at the person and say, you are absolutely wrong, because I am absolutely driving my car.  The person continues to deny this.


How is this absolute truth. You are very certain that you are driving your car but the amount of certainty that you have assigned to this action is based off of human senses which are extremely fallible. Maybe you are dreaming that you are driving your car. Maybe we are all computer simulations and we are nothing but artificially intelligent sub routines. Of course I do not believe this however I cannot show this to be true or false. Ultimately we are left with degrees of certainty.

So I say to the person, if your going to insist that absolutes do not exist, then I will make you get out of my car.  Then the person says, yeah right! You will not make me get out of the car.  I pull over and kick the person out of the car, then casually drive off thinking to myself:  I wonder if he is absolutely certain that he has just been kicked out of the car...


He cannot be absolutely certain...but he would be fairly certain that you acted like a jerk.

Absolute Truths do exist, so why even deny them???  If truth doesn't exist, then true/false questions should never be used in schools for tests.  Maybe we shouldn't have tests.


lol. This is absurd. True and false tests are not tests of absolute truth and absolute untruths.

Does anyone else see the problem with not believeing that absolute truths exist?


I see you that you do not understand the impossibility of showing that something is absolutely true. We accept things as true but we cannot show them to be 100% true. It is not that I do not accept absolute truth its that I cannot fathom any experiment that shows absolute truth and neither can you.

#14 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 January 2009 - 05:50 AM

I see you that you do not understand the impossibility of showing that something is absolutely true. 

View Post

Are you absolutely sure?

#15 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:08 AM

Are you absolutely sure?

View Post



Why would he need to be absolutely sure?

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:12 AM

Ultimately we are left with degrees of certainty.

View Post

What assumption gives you the confidence to say this?

I see you that you do not understand the impossibility of showing that something is absolutely true.

View Post

Do all reasonable truths have to be demonstrated?

We accept things as true but we cannot show them to be 100% true.

View Post

Why do you accept them to be true then? Is there a self-evident presupposition at work here, maybe? :lol:

It is not that I do not accept absolute truth its that I cannot fathom any experiment that shows absolute truth and neither can you.

View Post

So you do accept absolute truth?

I don't think anyone here would argue that absolute truth can be proven like a mathematical equation (...but wait even math starts with assumptions). The question is; is it reasonable to deny absolute truth with the amount of evidence that validates it, like Scott's well thought out ejected passenger?

This whole discussion hinges on one thing. What is the basis of our lives? Is the starting point of reason things we can test and demonstrate or is it something else?

Adam

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:35 AM

Why would he need to be absolutely sure?

View Post

This thread is a great exercise to show (those who are interested anyway) the level of sophism involved in modern secular philosophy.

As long as the recipient of relativistic logic (that might even be an oxymoron :lol: ) is well confused, the person disseminating their bad thinking will maintain the utmost confidence in the truthfulness of certain "proven" concepts:

Examples of fallacious arguments:

1. There is no God
2. Evolution is fact
3. Truth is relative

All these are used quite assuredly and expounded upon, in various ways, quite confidently as long as the individual listening doesn't see the flawed basis of each. However, the moment someone starts to see that there are legitimate questions surrounding the methods one uses to get to these conclusions, the last ditch effort is to argue along the line:

"Well, we don't know anything for sure!" and its various forms (which are always self-defeating oxymorons)

Sophism is the word of the day.

Modern day philosophy, built on the concept of skepticism, unbridled doubt, and the assumption that 'self' is the starting point of reason, and not God, is pure scientific sophism.

Adam

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2009 - 06:58 AM

I put this in the "Who is God" thread. It is just as valid here.

gkBD20edOco

William Lane Craig cuts to the heart of presuppositional reasoning like no one else. The question isn't about whether using presuppositions is reasonable or not because there isn't a human on the earth that doesn't conduct their lives with the assumption of certain self-evident truths.

Can a 'self-evident truth' such as "there are no absolute truths" or "absolute truth is unknowable" even stand the rigors of superficial scrutiny? These statements crumble upon themselves so why even bother trying to employ them reasonably?

We may not have direct knowledge of absolute truth because the only one who has this is the author of it, God. However, since we have access to truth through the Word (the truth) made flesh, we may know absolute truth, not omnisciently, but objectively and truly.

(Please reference back to this post to see what I'm talking about in detail: http://www.evolution...ndpost&p=22664)

The fact that all major fields of science and science philosophy were founded by creationists; shows that they had the correct presuppositions to approach the world and it's mysteries confidently and truly, by trusting the Lord of faithful promises.

Adam

PS - the dogma of evolution which was founded by a skeptic is falling apart before our eyes under careful scrutiny, go figure. :lol:

#19 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 January 2009 - 12:22 PM

What assumption gives you the confidence to say this?
Do all reasonable truths have to be demonstrated?
Why do you accept them to be true then? Is there a self-evident presupposition at work here, maybe? :lol:
So you do accept absolute truth?

I don't think anyone here would argue that absolute truth can be proven like a mathematical equation (...but wait even math starts with assumptions). The question is; is it reasonable to deny absolute truth with the amount of evidence that validates it, like Scott's well thought out ejected passenger?

This whole discussion hinges on one thing. What is the basis of our lives? Is the starting point of reason things we can test and demonstrate or is it something else?

Adam

View Post



I do not accept that which I cannot show. This does not mean that it does not exist - just that I have no methodology to show that it exists. We accepts truths all of the time but that doesn't mean that we accept them as absolute. Einstein's relativity is true within a certain range but it is not absolutely true. Scott's example was such a simple one that any explanation of how it might not be absolutely true seems absurd and yet we cannot show that those absurd events are not happening. So what if we are just artificially intelligent sub routines in a computer program and Scott's particular sub routine is programmed to think he is driving a car. It is silly to believe that, and it is absurd, however you cannot design an experiment to show that it isn't happening and therefore we cannot absolutely say that Scott is driving his car. We can be fairly certain that he is but we cannot be absolutely certain that he is.

#20 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 January 2009 - 12:24 PM

PS - the dogma of evolution which was founded by a skeptic is falling apart before our eyes under careful scrutiny, go figure.


The problem is that nobody told the vast majority of the scientists this or even remotely showed this in any scientifically acceptable way. Until that time this kind of statement is hot air.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users