Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is an absolute truth, does it include a God? Who knows????? At this point its all speculatory. { emphasis on "at this point" }
I guess it really depends upon your definition of God. If you believe God is the creator of all things, and reality that would also be a a belief in absolute truth. Looking at Christianity they believe God is the I AM...the start of all things.
But absolute truth cannot be proven unless we have absolute knowledge of all things. And yes I am speculating with relative truth.
I guess it really depends upon your definition of God. If you believe God is the creator of all things, and reality that would also be a a belief in absolute truth. Looking at Christianity they believe God is the I AM...the start of all things.
But absolute truth cannot be proven unless we have absolute knowledge of all things. And yes I am speculating with relative truth.
Absolutely agreed!!!!!!!! lol
You hit the nail on the head with that one. So many people lose sight of this, or choose to ignore it, one or the other.
Let us state that as a Given there is an absolute truth.
To understand this Truth, one must have the intellectual capacity to understand that Truth. To date, no human being has that capability.
To understand this Truth, one must also have experience. One might state that even if a being has been around since the Big Bang and could experience everything that has happened in the Universe, that being still would not have enough experience to understand this Truth.
On a smaller scale, the Earth has always been (more or less) round. If one were to state that this is an absolute truth, our ancestors were divided between believing the world to be flat and round. For too many centuries, the "flat" Earth belief was the only accepted truth.
Thus, "what is true is true, whether you believe it to be true or not."
The more science discovers, the more questions it has. Many people wish that one day science will have all the answers, and then a definite proof of a no-god will be available. But, most likely, this will never happen.
Currently, scientists are still trying to figure out why, in the vacuum of space, there are particles appearing and disappearing. "Something out of nothing" appears to have some validity.
If one Absolute Truth is that there are many dimensions, many timelines, etc., etc., and people only want to believe that there is one dimension, one timeline, etc., etc., it is not that these people are wrong. In fact, any view of life and existence is not wrong. It is merely how one perceives one's own existence. What might be wrong, in my opinion, is to stand on a pebble and insist that my view is the Absolute Truth and everyone should concur and adhere to my Absolute Truth.
This Reminds me of a the various solipsistic ideas which I have pondered over the years. One that I personally like is based on the theory that perhaps some supreme creator being exists (I know lol). Basically the idea is that we exist in the mind of some supreme being that is dreaming or better yet imagining us and all that is. This would explain the existence of alternate realities and why all these realities are made up of the same matter that theoretically exists in all these realities at once. It's because they exist in the same space and space is boundless as is a mind; a mind is boundless yet can think up many things at the same time one on top of the other. This is how multiple universes and timelines can exist. Not because they are real but because they are imagined and as such we are part of that imagining and therefore cannot even prove our existence using any explanation that is beyond our relative experience, an explanation that is of another dimension of reasoning that our mind is incapable of comprehending. A good example of this was given on a documentary I saw on the Science Channel by the famous Japanese physicist Michio Kaku when he used Pacman to explain alternate demensions. Pacman exists in a 2D world and therefore can never understand or even imagine a higher plain of existence like 3d or even 4d for that matter. Another good example is one that also uses a video game. Paper Mario for the Wii featured a cool mechanic in which you could switch from 2D to 3D. This is relevant because it demostrates how something can exist in one dimension as well as another yet not be aware that it does exist in one or the other.
Notice how even though the enemies and obstacles are in his way in the 2D world, when Mario switches to the 3d world they become unaware of him and are no longer in his way the cannot block nor see him because they are flat and exist in a flat world, whereas, Mario by entering the 3d world can simply go around them because he can see that their dimension is not flat it is 3 dimensional (by "See" I mean experience).
Hence, a being that for example exists in 5D would be able to imagine us in all our complexity just as easily as we can imagine things in 3d and 2d but we can never hope to understand the 5d because it is a dimension beyond our understanding. Just as Pacman can never understand the 3d nor Mario the 4d we can never understand everything because it would require a comprehension of Dimensions beyond our capacity. Of course another way to use this idea is to instead of assuming a supreme being is dreaming this all up, we could say that we're in a computer program, a giant computer simulation and god is no more than some computer lol imagine that!
This idea that theists purport that we atheists also have faith is as previously said so that they can continue to believe their stuff assuming we all apply the same logic.
When I take medication, I "know" or have confidence that it will work. Why?
It has been tested rigorously, there are known side effects, there is a substantial track record, and this is not faith but rather trust, confidence and reputability. Furthermore, if it does not work of IF I have a undesired side effect, medical science has an antidote and/or alternative.
Theism's definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Atheists do not hope for anything that cannot be proven by at least the 5 senses and of course science. In most cases, that which science does is sufficient for us. We know that if we break a leg, it will be a qualified doctor that will set the cast and give us pain relief via pain killers. There is no deity that is going to magically fix it. Likewise theists apply the same logic in their day to day lives, folk call 911 first before consulting with their god as on the other end of a 911 call, the is a real person that can sanction real help.
Atheists do not fear the unknown, the unknown is simply what it is.
The entire theist argument regarding faith is derived from the emotion of fear; finding favor in the unknown, unseen, intangible and invisible.
Everything folk achieve or fail to achieve in this life is wholly dependent on our own (sometimes feeble) efforts, there is no force or deity guiding or directing our way. Of course this FACT is negated by the theist by the freewill argument which btw is a fallacy.
When i was a theist, my life was no different to what it is now.
And YOU are able to KNOW what that truth is . . . HOW, Raf?
Up to your usual tricks again old chap? Claiming someone said something that they didn't? Can you point out where I said that I KNOW what that truth is. All I said was 'what's true is true whether you believe it to be true or not. e.g 'Planet Earth is spherical in shape and orbits the Sun'. This is a proven fact.... it is true. That you may believe it true that the Earth is flat and is the centre of the Universe with the Sun orbiting it, does not put you in possession of the truth regarding the matter of the shape of the Earth. Clearly you do not hold the truth in that matter.
In order to claim that you would first have to provide verifiable evidence that your 'God' exists. If you can do that, you would then have to provide evidence that it speaks the truth.
Science requires faith and cannot be absolute. The very process of determining fact and theory requires a statement of faith based on (relative) observation.
Science does not deal in 'faith'. You and 'Answers in Genesis' may think it does...but you'd be wrong.
Quote:
Therefore truth is only truth until it is possibly proven wrong.
If something were true, it wouldn't be proven wrong would it?
What I'm saying is the idea of God and those who believe in him believe in absolute truth.
I agree belief in God requires faith...however belief in God requires a belief in absolute truth. That all truth comes from God.
Sorry I think you are talking in circles...If belief in God requires faith, then belief that absolute truth or all truth comes from God also requires faith, therefore there can be no absolute truth in matters pertaining to God.
What I'm saying is the idea of God and those who believe in him believe in absolute truth.
I agree belief in God requires faith...however belief in God requires a belief in absolute truth. That all truth comes from God.
If what you believed was true than you would not require faith would you? Faith is obsolete when truth is involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yes I am speculating with relative truth. 
