 |
|
|
|
| People often think of Absolute Truth in terms of morality, right and wrong. I do believe there is absolute truth in morality, because if you look at the world around you, there are absolute truths everywhere.
Two plus two equals four, every time. Water is wet, every time (even ice is wet if you hold it long enough). Jerry Springer's show causes loss of IQ points, every time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree for reasons already posted. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It does exist but some truths are not absalout most are partly true and partly a lie .sometimes its
hard to tell the complete truth but you should always try |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Absolute Truth definitely exists.
But to know that, you have to know what Truth is. There have been many theories of truth that have
been posited throughout the years, but the one that has makes the most sense, is the correspondence
view of truth. This view says that truth is that which corresponds to its referent.
All other theories of truth must use the correspondence view to deny the correspondence view. This
is so, because in saying for example, that truth is that which feels good, they are making a
statement, and affirming that it corresponds to reality. The important word to note is the word,
"referent". Some people say that, a couple hundred years ago they believed that the world was flat,
but copernicus changed all that. Was it the truth that changed? Or the believe about truth. The
world has always been round, even when we thought it was flat, truth is what corresponds to the way
things actually are. This means that truth exists, even if we don't know it. Sometimes people say
that one person might see something as red, but another, being colour blind sees a different colour.
This however simply shows that in reality the object is truly red. How do we know that the 2nd
person is colour blind? Because he doesn't see red.
If Truth does not correspond to it's referent, then we could never tell the difference between a lie
and the truth, good and bad, etc.
So, truth is defined as that which corresponds to its referent.
When we say that truth is absolute, we are talking about the nature of truth. Truth is absolute, is
a statement which is the opposite of saying that all truth is relative. If all truth is relative
then it is proper to say, the same sentence that "Smito exists, and that Smito doesn't exist, at the
same time and the same place." However this is plainly contradictory. In fact it is contradictory to
say that truth is relative. That affirmation is actually saying "It is true absolutely, that all
truth is relative." Of course we have just made an absolute truth claim about the nature of
truth.
Conclusion, truth is absolute. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grrr...
I really want to post 'Against' on this debate, because it is quite plausible that water, modern
maths, and Jerry Springer don't exist.
However, there is one absolute truth; cogito ergo sum, or 'je pense, donc je suis', as was
originally dictated by the great (although sometimes worryingly illogical) philosopher himself. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is only one absolute, one "moral imperative" among living beings: Survive and propagate. The
only question is, does a particular species do it by cooperation or competition, by selfishness or
collectivism?
Marsupials, simians, and primates chose cooperation because most are physically weaker than other
species, not because of any "morality", and certainly not because of any religious construct.
The greatest threat to the survival of any collectivist species is when individuals seek the
benefits of cooperation without paying the cost of contributing. In human beings, we call such
people thieves, white collar criminals, and the rich who don't want to pay their taxes.
This is true of anyone - name a married man who's completely happy losing his free time to help
raise a kid. The question is the choice of selfish altruism: "By giving up a little, what do I get
in return?"
Anyone who tells you they don't think this way is a liar. No one does anything for the benefit of
others without getting something in return, regardless of whether its "warm fuzzies", a tax
deduction, a civilized society, or brownie points with a "god". |
| |
 K9  03 Aug 2008 16:53
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agree with the title, but for the most part, definitions of the word morality do not lend themselves
to absolute truth. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is absolute truth in morality. But we don't know what it is.
Also math. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe that in some ways there are absolute truths. However I’m pretty sure we are nowhere
near, and may never be anywhere near understanding even the most basic of these truths. Because
2+2=4 is a gross oversimplification that does not exist in truth and water is not always wet. I’m
not prepared to comment on Jerry Springer at this time. If we were able to completely understand the
absolute truth of all the interacting forces involved in the existence of a single pebble we would
be considerably further down this path than we are now. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, I do believe there are some absolute truths. My only problem is 2/3 of what people claim to be
absolute truths fail to live up to the tests if you really think them through. But yes, some things
are absolutely true. Like you say 2+2 is 4.
Yet values and religious morals, although great ideals and goals, are seldom that simple.
Let me confess something. For 4 years in college I was on a debate circuit called CEDA (cross
examination debate association) which purported to focus more on values in arguments than it's
predecessor organization (NDT). So I was back and forth on opposite sides of value based arguments
all the time either by assignment or choice. The point I'm getting to is any major value taken to
it's most extreme end intrudes on some other value (privacy vs security, quantity of life saved
versus the quality of lives, freedom of expression vs obscenity or safety, national security vs
civil rights). The more extreme stances on value positions always have darkness on the other side
of the cloud's silver lining. You will find that values are almost never absolute truths.
Take the slavery example from rbetan. I personally agree that slavery is bad and was never
justified. However, if you were with a primitive tribe, were attacked by a larger fiercer tribe
intent on destroying you and taking your land, and somehow you managed to defeat the larger enemy,
what are your choices? Let them go to regroup and come at you again, or kill them all now in a
massacre, or subjugate them with some sort of force. Letting them go threatens your value of
personal security and quality of life, killing them violates your values for love of human life, and
subjugating them is quite wicked but is it worse than choices 1 or 2?
I'm not saying morality doesn't matter. In fact I'm agreeing absolute truths do exist. But with
morality it's a constant balance of one value against another. Frankly, I think that's how God
intended it to be, and that's why Jesus taught so much about compassion and understanding. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree absolute truth exist. But not all is absolute.
There are some cases where truth is relative, specially in social issues.
But even in social issues; there are many cases where morality is absolute and just your point of
view changes and you are relative to the point, but the point it self is exactly the same.
Example:
Slavery was wrong 2000 years ago just as it is wrong now, the fact that we did not condemn it as
such then did not make it right . It was always wrong. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
If that's the case then your statement is false. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
2+2 is humanly egotistical its math created by man. What if we have another race that uses the same
numbers but the numbers have different values. Maybe our 2 is there 5 and their 2 is our 7 lets then
assume that 4 doesn't change. Now 7+7=4 not 2+2.
Define wet please?
What if i have a object that is so smooth that almost no friction exists on it. I dunk it in water
and pull it out. Then wait 3 seconds is it wet?
You may think its bad to kill other humans, aka morality, but maybe i enjoy killing other humans and
think its the only way to live. Morality is opinionated not absolute.
"Jerry Springer's show causes loss of IQ points, every time."
no.......maybe........sometimes.......OK fine i agree there. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
