Truth- Absolute or Relative?

@dj2becker said
The concept of ultimate truth is really only compatible with God’s existence if you think about it.

You can big-up your personal opinions and perspectives all you want by laying claim to knowledge of "the concept of ultimate truth", but in the end, all you are doing is speculating about supernatural things and then making assertions based on your subjectivity.

@bigdoggproblem said
#2 of those is, IIRC, "love thy neighbor as thy self".

However, say you are a person with poor self esteem and you do not actually love yourself. Would that not be an exception to #2?

We have an issue with the word love when we look at scripture. There were several words all translated into the word love. The type of love we are talking about isn't something very superficial it is one that cares for another, does what is needed. When looking at more than likely one of the most famous verses in scripture John 3:16 it isn’t talking about how God feels about us, as in for sooooooo loved the world. Instead, it was that God saw our need and acted by sending Christ. Seeing and meeting what the other needs is love if they are hungry; they need to be fed; if they are lonely, they need to know they are not alone. Low self-esteem even here doesn’t alter anything, and I would think too especially with low self-esteem thinking about the needs of someone else would do much to correct that.

@kellyjay said
We have an issue with the word love when we look at scripture. There were several words all translated into the word love. The type of love we are talking about isn't something very superficial it is one that cares for another, does what is needed. When looking at more than likely one of the most famous verses in scripture John 3:16 it isn’t talking about how God feels about ...[text shortened]... ecially with low self-esteem thinking about the needs of someone else would do much to correct that.

KellyJay I know you are childishly ignoring me, and I really don’t mind you doing that btw, but I do like to keep putting this question under your nose for you to ignore because within it there is a “truth” which is completely pertinent to the theme of this thread:

Are your “opinions” about the literal multi-headed beasts being ridden by literal whores wearing cloaks dipped in the literal blood of Christians - open to scrutiny as opinions, or are they “absolute truth”?

@dj2becker said
Obviously not all truths are knowable by everyone. But certainly some truths can be known?

Oh yes, naturally.

For instance, we can come up with a weight system (let's say "kilograms"😉 and we can both test a machine, insuring that it is accurate, and then I can step on it and we can conclude my weight from it together, right.

Or, even simpler: I can stand back to back with another person and we can determine who is shorter and who is taller.

However, outisde of mundane knowledge, everything becomes very debatable.

This was a position of Wittgenstein -- someone that I think many of the people here who are even atheists can appreciate.

@dj2becker said
How is it not necessarily true?

It's an assertion made in YOUR OP.

Evidently you are unable to defend it. If you had any integrity you'd withdraw it.

Here it is again:
"In order for truth to be absolute and holding these qualities, it must be grounded in a source that is personal, unchanging, and sovereign over all of creation. "

Either show how it is necessarily true or withdraw it.

@dj2becker said
Truth by definition should be non contradictory as I see it. So if my ‘truth’ contradicts your ‘truth’ we can’t both be right can we? And I’m not talking about opinions here. For example if person A believes that God exists and person B believes God doesn’t exist, it’s not possible for both of their beliefs to be true at the same time is it?

Clearly, this shows that truth cannot be absolute.

What Person A (a Christian, let's say) believes is truth to Person A, and what Person B (an atheist, let's say) believes is truth to Person B.

For the Christian, their truth is that Jesus lives. For the atheist, their truth is that Jesus has been dead now for 2000 years (if he ever lived at all). Person B's truth is as true to them as Person A's truth is true to them. They both act as if their truth is true.

So, just as Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, so Person A's truth and Person B's truth are both true. Thus, truth is NOT "absolute".

@Suzianne

So, just as Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, so Person A's truth and Person B's truth are both true. Thus, truth is NOT "absolute".

Now THAT is absolutely true ... Hey, wait a minute !!!

@suzianne said
Clearly, this shows that truth cannot be absolute.

What Person A (a Christian, let's say) believes is truth to Person A, and what Person B (an atheist, let's say) believes is truth to Person B.

For the Christian, their truth is that Jesus lives. For the atheist, their truth is that Jesus has been dead now for 2000 years (if he ever lived at all). Person B's truth is ...[text shortened]... d and alive, so Person A's truth and Person B's truth are both true. Thus, truth is NOT "absolute".

The cat is dead or alive it is not both.

@fmf said
No, I am not setting it aside. If I wanted to discuss things like gravity, I'd be on the Science Forum.

Now you're gravitating from shrill to silly. The reference to gravity was as an analogy. Surely you know that.

@fmf said
I believe every personal opinion you have about "God's truth" is a product of your conjecture, aspiration and subjectivity.

Now you want to go back and start talking about "God's truth".

Let's assume, for truths sake, that an immutable, infallible and omniscient creator exists.

For such a being to possess those attributes, said being would have to know everything there is to know, and not just that, but know everything there is to know at once.

If, such a being existed, then logically that being, if he spoke his will, would speak in terms that could only be classified as absolute, immutable, infallible and inerrant TRUTHS.

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

If no such being exists, then you are correct, all truth is subjective and relative to each individual's point of view.

But if such a being exists, then individual points of view, relative to subjectivity, are confined to the realm of one's individual opinions with regards to sensory likes and dislikes.

@kellyjay said
We have an issue with the word love when we look at scripture. There were several words all translated into the word love. The type of love we are talking about isn't something very superficial it is one that cares for another, does what is needed. When looking at more than likely one of the most famous verses in scripture John 3:16 it isn’t talking about how God feels about ...[text shortened]... ecially with low self-esteem thinking about the needs of someone else would do much to correct that.

Don't stop reading after "poor self esteem" ... finish the sentence.

@secondson said
Now you want to go back and start talking about "God's truth".

Let's assume, for truths sake, that an immutable, infallible and omniscient creator exists.

For such a being to possess those attributes, said being would have to know everything there is to know, and not just that, but know everything there is to know at once.

If, such a being existed, then logically t ...[text shortened]... , are confined to the realm of one's individual opinions with regards to sensory likes and dislikes.

Your speculation about your God figure and all the assertions about "the Truth" that you make based on that speculation ~ i.e. your faith ~ is all subjective and relative to your individual point of view of supernatural causality.

@secondson said
The reference to gravity was as an analogy.

Making assertions about the existence of "gravity" does not work as an analogy for making speculative assertions about matters of religious belief and spirituality that are immune to the kind of empirical analysis that "gravity" can withstand. As analogies go, it's a complete dud.

@secondson said
If, such a being existed, then logically that being, if he spoke his will, would speak in terms that could only be classified as absolute, immutable, infallible and inerrant TRUTHS.

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

If no such being exists, then you are correct, all truth is subjective and relative to each individual's point of view.

But if such a being exists, then ...[text shortened]... , are confined to the realm of one's individual opinions with regards to sensory likes and dislikes.

Speculation and conjecture of this kind do not enable you to attach adjectives like immutable, absolute, infallible and objective to the notions and claims that your personal opinions cause you to believe are "true".

@secondson said
But if such a being exists, then individual points of view, relative to subjectivity, are confined to the realm of one's individual opinions with regards to sensory likes and dislikes.

You can 'What if...?" as much as you like about "such a being", but your deductions and beliefs regarding that being are "confined to the realm of [your] individual opinions".