Thread: Back to Basics - Absolute Truth

Originally Posted by Eagle88

In our world today it seems like relativism is all around us. Everywhere we hear claims similar to “truth is relative” and “everyone lives by their own truth”. These views are found amongst the political, amongst intellectuals and, at times, even in the halls of religion. They can take various shapes and an underlying belief that truth is relative can be found in statements ranging from “You’re imposing your views on me” to “That may be true for you but it isn’t for me”. It is truly unfortunate that so many people subscribe to such a false dogma.

One of the most interesting things about the arguments against absolute truth is how logically contradictory they are. I don’t think that I can put it better than Absolute Truth so I will simply quote it, “You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth:

‘There are no absolutes.’ First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

‘Truth is relative.’ Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and ‘truth is relative.’ Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If ‘truth is relative’ is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

‘Who knows what the truth is, right?’ In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.”

One of the other interesting things about relativism is that it defies reality. If “my truth” is that by flapping my arms and running in circles I will succeed in flying will the laws of physics somehow repeal themselves to allow me to fly? No. There are absolute rules of science that govern such cases. It is no coincidence that if I take the exact same ingredients, mix them in the exact same quantities, under the exact same conditions then it will produce the same result. If truth were truly relative then wouldn’t the results of my previous actions reflect that relativity by giving me random results?

Frustrating, ain't it?

Originally Posted by Eagle88

In our world today it seems like relativism is all around us. Everywhere we hear claims similar to “truth is relative” and “everyone lives by their own truth”. These views are found amongst the political, amongst intellectuals and, at times, even in the halls of religion. They can take various shapes and an underlying belief that truth is relative can be found in statements ranging from “You’re imposing your views on me” to “That may be true for you but it isn’t for me”. It is truly unfortunate that so many people subscribe to such a false dogma.

One of the most interesting things about the arguments against absolute truth is how logically contradictory they are. I don’t think that I can put it better than Absolute Truth so I will simply quote it, “You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth:

‘There are no absolutes.’ First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

‘Truth is relative.’ Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and ‘truth is relative.’ Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If ‘truth is relative’ is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

‘Who knows what the truth is, right?’ In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.”

One of the other interesting things about relativism is that it defies reality. If “my truth” is that by flapping my arms and running in circles I will succeed in flying will the laws of physics somehow repeal themselves to allow me to fly? No. There are absolute rules of science that govern such cases. It is no coincidence that if I take the exact same ingredients, mix them in the exact same quantities, under the exact same conditions then it will produce the same result. If truth were truly relative then wouldn’t the results of my previous actions reflect that relativity by giving me random results?

Google this -
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Frustrating, ain't it?

It's not just frustrating, it's dangerous. It's a battle that's been fought since the times of Ancient Greece. The danger comes in at people believing their opinion can change reality.

If you look at the political system of Ancient Greece, a lot of it based on a Government of Argument, in which it was believed the person who could best convince was the best leader. It was a foolish ideology that lead to a lot of problems.

But hey, if there's one thing I've learned, people don't learn from history.

The thing is the most important truths are the ones that can not be quantitatively proven, and have to be taken on faith.

Those who argue the truth is relative simply can't handle this, so they seek to control the parameters, and thus, the outcome.

There are absolute truths, water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level.
Abraham Lincoln is dead.
There are also relative truths, and there are myths.
Some people just can't tell the difference.

Originally Posted by goober

There are absolute truths, water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level.
Abraham Lincoln is dead.
There are also relative truths, and there are myths.
Some people just can't tell the difference.

A relative truth is by definition contradictory.
There are 4 states of knowledge:
Truths we think we know that happen to be true
Truths we think we know that are in fact false
Truths we know we don't know.
Truths we do not know we do not know.


Things like the best tasting food is an opinion, and is no in way a truth, relative or otherwise.

Originally Posted by goober

There are absolute truths, water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level.
Abraham Lincoln is dead.
There are also relative truths, and there are myths.
Some people just can't tell the difference.

Of course. The problem is that we find ourselves arguing premises that were pretty much settled "relative truths". Good on ya if you are looking to change the foundations of this country. I'm not, and have no desire to argue all of that shit again. Most of the serious arguments here are completely masturbatory because neither side is interested in being convinced. That's why we have message boards!

Originally Posted by goober

There are absolute truths, water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level.

Nope. Still depends on pressure.

Originally Posted by goober

Abraham Lincoln is dead.

Nope. Time is relativistic. AL is dead only to the places in spacetime that are in the lightcone of the event. Outside of that the statement is meaningless.

Not meaning to be pedantic here. Just poiting out that there are in fact no absolutes.

***
(Where's Kingdaddy when you need him, LOL.)

Originally Posted by Eagle88

One of the other interesting things about relativism is that it defies reality. If “my truth” is that by flapping my arms and running in circles I will succeed in flying will the laws of physics somehow repeal themselves to allow me to fly? No. There are absolute rules of science that govern such cases. It is no coincidence that if I take the exact same ingredients, mix them in the exact same quantities, under the exact same conditions then it will produce the same result. If truth were truly relative then wouldn’t the results of my previous actions reflect that relativity by giving me random results?

Given that the two essential theories that describe reality are relativity and quantum physics it's almost hilarious to see them used in an argument favouring absolutism. The first is relative, more properly relativistic, by definition and the other is probabilistic. Science has moved away from absolutism for over a hundred years now. That is the quintessential idea of special relativity in the first place. What is absolutely staggering though is that after a century most people still don't know this.
The alternative for absolutism is not 'randomness' by the way. That is a false dichotomy. The actual alternative is a probabilistic wave function.

Originally Posted by WoI

Nope. Still depends on pressure.


Nope. Time is relativistic. AL is dead only to the places in spacetime that are in the lightcone of the event. Outside of that the statement is meaningless.

Not meaning to be pedantic here. Just poiting out that there are in fact no absolutes.

***
(Where's Kingdaddy when you need him, LOL.)

Congratulations on describing variability, still doesn't denounce absolute truth.

Given that the two essential theories that describe reality are relativity and quantum physics it's almost hilarious to see them used in an argument favouring absolutism. The first is relative, more properly relativistic, by definition and the other is probabilistic. Science has moved away from absolutism for over a hundred years now. That is the quintessential idea of special relativity in the first place. What is absolutely staggering though is that after a century most people still don't know this.
The alternative for absolutism is not 'randomness' by the way. That is a false dichotomy. The actual alternative is a probabilistic wave function.

Science has moved away from absolute materialism, as well as Newtonian Physics, which is completely different. What you're insisting on, however, is the relative behavior of these laws disputes absolute truth, which is not the case. Truth would dictate that given all the same parameters, the same outcome will occur. Quantum mechanics does not necessarily dispute that, quantum mechanics only strengthens the argument of skepticism.

Originally Posted by Eagle88

One of the most interesting things about the arguments against absolute truth is how logically contradictory they are. I don’t think that I can put it better than Absolute Truth so I will simply quote it, “You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument.

Why argue that absolute truths don't exist? You just can't tell whether something is an absolute truth or not, and you can't ever find out. We're dependent upon our senses for everything we experience and think we know. If I see a color and you see the same color, who says that we actually experience the same color? We call it the same, but is the experience the same? Is your experience more true than mine?

‘Truth is relative.’ Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and ‘truth is relative.’ Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If ‘truth is relative’ is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

At the age of 15, I created a system of 3 levels of truth: personal truth, which is based on your experiences through your senses, your thoughts, etc. This is relative to who you are, and all other forms of truth are experienced through the filter of this truth. Shared truth, which are all the things we agree or disagree on, like language, laws, definitions, dates, all the things that allow us to communicate and live together and organize our lives. And lastly absolute truth, which is what is basically really going on. It's unknowable and not very relevant most of the time. I mean, there is no absolute truth about the color red as such, or about dates. These are all human constructs. Of course, that they are human constructs could be considered an absolute truth, but it's not really, as you can't know for sure that they are, or that other humans even exist, for that matter. Solipsism anyone?

Euclidian truths are absolute.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Euclidian truths are absolute.

You've never heard of non-Euclidian geometry? There are several which are self consistent.

Here you can read more about it.

Btw, they are called axioms, not truths.