What's your take on absolute truth?

[miss fortune]

I don't think this is an answerable question really, it ends up going into a bunch of theological stuff and then becomes a quagmire! I have some fairly unconventional religious beleifs, so yeah, I'll just accept that you think your way and I think mine!

 

[Zergling]

to probably have the least eloquent response here

two guys get into a fist fight in a crowded bar- it started with a disagreement, escalated to pushing, then to shoving and then a full out fistfight broke out. The bouncer tries to break up the fight and the cops are called. The cops want to know who started the fight so they ask the two men- each man totally beleives that he's right in saying that the other man started the fight- after all, there had to be a reason that they were throwing punches with such enthusiasm. The police move on to ask the other patrons of the bar what they saw, and though most of them saw the fight, no two patrons have the same answer.

If we can't answer a question as simple as who started the bar fight, how are we supposed to be capable of having an absolute truth? Absolute truth would have to be a human invention, I am assuming, since animals have no such concept. Our truth is based on our 5 senses and our brains, and illusions prove that those things are not always right *shrug* it just doesn't make SENSE!

(note- a better response existed, but when I hit Post Quick Reply I was taken to the damned screen that announced that the site was having issues )

In this case, the two people may not know "who started the fight" due to lack of memory, selective memory, having different views on what was needed to be a "fight", etc. However, one person definitely did say some words that were too kpoorly by the other ones, threw a punch, etc., and whether or not this can be determined, a certain set of things did definitely happen.

 

[miss fortune]

dear zergling-

have you ever been in a bar fight?

sincerely, whatever

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

In this case, the two people may not know "who started the fight" due to lack of memory, selective memory, having different views on what was needed to be a "fight", etc. However, one person definitely did say some words that were too kpoorly by the other ones, threw a punch, etc., and whether or not this can be determined, a certain set of things did definitely happen.

Bingo.

After 84 posts on this thread, I still cannot fathom what this could possibly have to do with religion or morality.

 

[miss fortune]

Bingo.

After 84 posts on this thread, I still cannot fathom what this could possibly have to do with religion or morality.

sorry- I just can't see things in such black and white tones! It doesn't make sense to me and never has you TJs amuse me!

 

[Kiddo]

Bingo.

After 84 posts on this thread, I still cannot fathom what this could possibly have to do with religion or morality.

I don't really understand why it merits so much discussion. It's a rather meaningless concept and it serves no purpose whatsoever to humanity, so regardless of whether or not you want to believe it exists, it just seems pointless to me to even concern yourself with it. Hell, it holds just as much merit to say that we are all figures in somebodies dream, and once they wake up we will all cease to exist. Who cares?

The only people who care about "absolute truth" are those who believe in a higher power. It's as simple as that.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I don't really understand why it merits so much discussion. It's a rather meaningless concept and it serves no purpose whatsoever to humanity, so regardless of whether or not you want to believe it exists, it just seems pointless to me to even concern yourself with it. Hell, it holds just as much merit to say that we are all figures in somebodies dream, and once they wake up we will all cease to exist. Who cares?

The only people who care about "absolute truth" are those who believe in a higher power. It's as simple as that.

I don't know, I guess I care. I find it really interesting. I don't like ambiguity. I like the idea of a unified theory of physics and I like knowing the difference between correct and incorrect. I really come at this from a whole different part of me than I come at spirituality. To me this is like trying to determine if anything can travel faster than light and having you tell me it all depends on whether I believe in Santa Claus.

 

[Kiddo]

I don't know, I guess I care. I find it really interesting. I don't like ambiguity. I like the idea of a unified theory of physics and I like knowing the difference between correct and incorrect. I really come at this from a whole different part of me than I come at spirituality. To me this is like trying to determine if anything can travel faster than light and having you tell me it all depends on whether I believe in Santa Claus.

I think that is an oversimplification of what I am saying.

This isn't any different than asking if a tree makes a sound in a forest when it falls down and nobody is around to hear it. It is correct to assume that it does, but it's simply an assumption based on what you know and your own experience. And a sound is simply a sensory experience, which has absolutely no meaning if it isn't experienced by somebody with the capacity to understand it. That is all that absolute truth is. An assumption based on human experience. It exists, but only as defined by human assumptions.

For example, if you were an alien who came to this planet who had absolutely no ability to hear, then sound would be a meaningless concept. You might know about vibrations in the air, but without the ability to percieve it, sound would have no meaning. So sound, as we know it, would be non existent to an alien who has no ability to hear even as it watches a tree fall in a forest. The same goes for absolute truth. An alien with a different way of thinking may have no conception of "truth" as we know it. Therefore, it would be meaningless to them.

Truth is dependent upon human perception, because it defines the parameters of what truth is. In order to justify an absolute truth outside of human experience, people have to have an external source which can percieve it as humans would. That is all I mean by needing a higher power.

 

[Camelopardalis]

I think that is an oversimplification of what I am saying.

This isn't any different than asking if a tree makes a sound in a forest when it falls down and nobody is around to hear it. It is correct to assume that it does, but it's simply an assumption based on what you know and your own experience. And a sound is simply a sensory experience, which has absolutely no meaning if it isn't experienced by somebody with the capacity to understand it. That is all that absolute truth is. An assumption based on human experience. It exists, but only as defined by human assumptions.

For example, if you were an alien who came to this planet who had absolutely no ability to hear, then sound would be a meaningless concept. You might know about vibrations in the air, but without the ability to percieve it, sound would have no meaning. So sound, as we know it, would be non existent to an alien who has no ability to hear even as it watches a tree fall in a forest. The same goes for absolute truth. An alien with a different way of thinking may have no conception of "truth" as we know it. Therefore, it would be meaningless to them.

Truth is dependent upon human perception, because it defines the parameters of what truth is. In order to justify an absolute truth outside of human experience, people have to have an external source which can percieve it as humans would. That is all I mean by needing a higher power.

I guess some of us just like to discuss these topics for the sake of the discussion. Sure enough, it's an interesting thing to think about, and believe it or not, my brain is always filled with these irrelevant crap.

I think absolute truths is just unreachable,. I've been the 'middleman' of a conflicts that is not necessary anyone's fault, but a simple misunderstanding (which is not really anybody's fault either). I've always had people from both sides ask: How could I NOT take it personally? or How could it NOT be offensive? While the other party asks essentially the same question, both utterly baffled. Who started the conflict? A for making an offensive comment that is perfectly acceptable in his or her opinion, or B's fault for taking it too personally where there shouldn't be any fuss at all? According to the logic of both parties, they were right and they utterly cannot fanthom why it might be otherwise, and even as an observer, I cannot decide, because after listening to each side, I discovered that both parties had damn good reasons for acting the way they did, and the conflict was more a misunderstanding than anything. So who started it? Can we be content not knowing it?

I don't really feel the need of a higher power, because, what has it solved? What absolute truth was reached? Nothing that I know of. We could be content knowing that a higher being knows the absolute truth, but does it matter to us if it's not going to be known anyway? Did the need of a higher power really yielded any fundamental truth of the universe? You talked about the higher power perceiving it as humans would. Then why do we need one? Isn't an objective observer who has nothing to do with the situation good enough?

What's your take on absolute truth?

After the long ramble, I think what I'm really trying to say is that absolute truth is irrelevant, echoing Kiddo. Sorry if I bored you ;D

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

In order to justify an absolute truth outside of human experience, people have to have an external source which can percieve it as humans would. That is all I mean by needing a higher power.

I thought the whole idea of absolute truth was that it was independent of perception...that truth can exist whether that truth is discoverable or not. Of course, this means you can never prove it, but it's fun to think about.

In any event, I think I've had my say and then some on this topic, so I'll gracefully bow out of the thread. But this was one of my favorites

 

[Kiddo]

I thought the whole idea of absolute truth was that it was independent of perception...that truth can exist whether that truth is discoverable or not. Of course, this means you can never prove it, but it's fun to think about.

In any event, I think I've had my say and then some on this topic, so I'll gracefully bow out of the thread. But this was one of my favorites

That seems to be my problem with the idea. I think humans create concepts and then they can't imagine the universe without them. In our own minds, humans make ideas tangible and universal, when really, they are only human perceptions. What evidence is there that truth exists outside of human perception? It's a matter of faith that it does, or an assumption based upon our current constructs. So it comes down to whether you believe humans created truth or whether truth is independent of humans. I think the first is more likely than the latter, but some like to believe the latter as a matter of faith.

 

[Grayscale]

the concept of absolute truth is moot. nobody would have a way of knowing if they reached that point even if they could. be objective as you can manage, that's the best you can do.