How can we prove the existence of Absolute Truth if every claim we make is based on our own individual belief?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
How can we prove the existence of Absolute Truth if every claim we make is based on our own individual belief and perception?

We can say “There is no absolute truth” is proof there are absolutes because that statement itself is an absolute.

Ok, but isn’t absolute truth true across the board for everyone? Our remedy above only proves there is objective truth in my own individual life. It doesn’t prove if for anyone else outside of us…which is basically a fancy way of saying…truth is relative.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
How can we prove the existence of Absolute Truth if every claim we make is based on our own individual belief and perception?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone can demonstrate that “every claim we make is based on our own individual belief”. You might not be able to “prove” anything. But you can certainly demonstrate that it is more reasonable to believe in absolute truth, than to not.

Is any horrendous thing you can imagine] “absolutely” wrong? According to the relativist, it’s not. It’s just a matter of perception that can change according to the times, cultures, persons, etc.
We can say “There is no absolute truth” is proof there are absolutes because that statement itself is an absolute.
Click to expand...
No, that statement simply refutes itself, so it cannot be a “proof”, or even evidence.
Ok, but isn’t absolute truth true across the board for everyone?
Click to expand...
Yes. Truth applies to everyone, whether they agree with it or not.
 
  1. If all the claims we make are based on our own individual belief, then there must be absolute proof, in fact, that proves it. For if there is no absolute truth, how could you assert absolutely that all claims we make are our individual opinions?
  2. All of our claims are not made by our own individual belief. If I say “That apple is red” is it my opinion? If I say “Torturing children is wrong” is that an opinion?
 
ialsop said:
  1. All of our claims are not made by our own individual belief. If I say “That apple is red” is it my opinion? If I say “Torturing children is wrong” is that an opinion?
Click to expand...
I had assumed that the OP was referring to spiritual truths. If he was not, even physical things can look different to different people. For instance, my dad was color blind - what he thought was red or yellow was not the same as what the rest of the family thought. Tho things like color can be tested by science (I’m drawing a complete blank on what color science is called - spectro something?).

For moral issues, such as torturing children, I don’t think you’d get anyone (other than psychopaths) to say that it was just a matter of opinion.

As for spiritual things, I don’t think there is any way to prove anything. The “proofs” of the existence of God - and anything else spiritual - are just playing with words. Those who like philosophy enjoy that sort of thing - I don’t.
 
Bonnie said:
I had assumed that the OP was referring to spiritual truths. If he was not, even physical things can look different to different people. For instance, my dad was color blind - what he thought was red or yellow was not the same as what the rest of the family thought. Tho things like color can be tested by science (I’m drawing a complete blank on what color science is called - spectro something?).

For moral issues, such as torturing children, I don’t think you’d get anyone (other than psychopaths) to say that it was just a matter of opinion.

As for spiritual things, I don’t think there is any way to prove anything. The “proofs” of the existence of God - and anything else spiritual - are just playing with words. Those who like philosophy enjoy that sort of thing - I don’t.
Click to expand...
What do you define as “proof”? Do the proofs for the existence of God, which are quite in-depth, not qualify as “proof” because they can’t be tested under laboratory conditions? That narrows the definition of truths to only scientific ones. Philosophy of religion, as well as the apologetics surrounding the existence of God, is hardly just playing with words. Unless maybe you count biochemical engineering as “just playing with chemicals.”

Logic, which helps us establish what truth is (and is used in the proofs for the existence of God), is a branch of philosophy.
 
I tried to use this argument wih my math teacher when I was in school-sadly it did not work…🙂
 
Very tiny suggestion:D

Google “Objective Truth Definition” and “Subjective Truth Definition”
 
Mike0000 said:
What do you define as “proof”? Do the proofs for the existence of God, which are quite in-depth, not qualify as “proof” because they can’t be tested under laboratory conditions?
Click to expand...
Like I said, I’m not a philosopher. I did try to read some of the “proofs” of the existence of God & there was no way for me to understand what I was reading. Which is why I would reply to anyone asking me to prove that God exists that it is impossible for me to prove it. Perhaps a philosopher can prove it to another philosopher, but not to a mere mortal such as myself.

Just had another thought - if it takes years of education and a brilliant mind to understand the philosophical proofs of God, what’s the point? We “normal” people will never be able to understand it.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
How can we prove the existence of Absolute Truth if every claim we make is based on our own individual belief and perception?

We can say “There is no absolute truth” is proof there are absolutes because that statement itself is an absolute.

Ok, but isn’t absolute truth true across the board for everyone? Our remedy above only proves there is objective truth in my own individual life. It doesn’t prove if for anyone else outside of us…which is basically a fancy way of saying…truth is relative.
Click to expand...
Absolute truth in all domains cannot be proven. One can speak of rational truth, emotional truth, spiritual truth, subjective truth, but not absolute truth. Equally untenable is absolute relativism. Although truth does vary according to culture and epoch, there are certain things cultures have in common and which are sub specie aeternitatis.
 
Bonnie said:
Like I said, I’m not a philosopher. I did try to read some of the “proofs” of the existence of God & there was no way for me to understand what I was reading. Which is why I would reply to anyone asking me to prove that God exists that it is impossible for me to prove it. Perhaps a philosopher can prove it to another philosopher, but not to a mere mortal such as myself.

Just had another thought - if it takes years of education and a brilliant mind to understand the philosophical proofs of God, what’s the point? We “normal” people will never be able to understand it.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t necessarily take years of education and/or a brilliant mind to understand philosophical proofs. I will admit it some of them may require some additional reading or a using of the brain in a way most people aren’t used to, but the average “normal” person can understand many of these arguments. In fact, I remember reading of a church where they had a great deal of success teaching children arguments as complicated as the Modal Ontological Argument.

That being said, the reasons you have trouble “proving” the existence of God is why I asked for your definition of “proof”. The pervading worldview at the moment is materialism, which denies the existence of spiritual (i.e. Non material) objects from the start. The non-believer, if he’s making a truth claim about materialism, is under the burden of proof to show why it’s true. It doesn’t get to be the default position.

You may not be able to “prove” God’s existence by providing evidence that can be examined under a microscope, but that hardly means he doesn’t exist, or that the philosophical arguments don’t hold water. There are plenty of things no one can prove, yet you are well within your reason to hold to these beliefs (I can share them with you if you’d like 🙂 )
 
Bonnie said:
Like I said, I’m not a philosopher. I did try to read some of the “proofs” of the existence of God & there was no way for me to understand what I was reading. Which is why I would reply to anyone asking me to prove that God exists that it is impossible for me to prove it. Perhaps a philosopher can prove it to another philosopher, but not to a mere mortal such as myself.

Just had another thought - if it takes years of education and a brilliant mind to understand the philosophical proofs of God, what’s the point? We “normal” people will never be able to understand it.
Click to expand...
As a teenager, I stamped my foot, looked up at the sky and said – “God, I want to know if You exist. And I want to know right now.”

No lightening bolts. No deep voice coming from a cloud. Nothing. So I said to myself – “If that is the way God is going to act, then I will figure out His existence by myself.” And I did. It was the most ridiculous, nonsense, totally irrational proof ever. But it worked.

I had tried reading one of my parent’s books on five proofs of God’s existence. Besides forgetting half of them, I was at a loss. The one thing that came back to me was the excitement of the author. He truly deeply, no doubt about it, believed in God’s existence. He inspired me to believe in God’s existence. A proof based on an author’s energy and love. How is that for being non-scientific and non-philosophical?

Five proofs. Five fingers. Whenever I get into a situation when I am not sure about God. Even Senior Citizens can wonder about God. Or I can’t offer a really great proof for God’s existence. I remember that day when I stamped my foot. I remember how silly my proof was. Then I look at my five fingers and smile. That “proof” is still working.
 
Mike0000 said:
In fact, I remember reading of a church where they had a great deal of success teaching children arguments as complicated as the Modal Ontological Argument.
Click to expand...
Maybe it works better for children. I remember when an acquaintance tried to explain what an ontological argument was. That was years ago & I still don’t understand it.
Mike0000 said:
You may not be able to “prove” God’s existence by providing evidence that can be examined under a microscope, but that hardly means he doesn’t exist
Click to expand...
I do believe God exists - no problem there. It’s just that I can’t - and won’t - try to prove His existence to anyone else. I know a lady who is convinced that the story of the boy who claims to have been in heaven “proves” God exists. I’m afraid I rolled my eyes when she told me this, but I didn’t argue with her as she is my elder. 😉
 
Ben_Sinner said:
How can we prove the existence of Absolute Truth if every claim we make is based on our own individual belief and perception?

We can say “There is no absolute truth” is proof there are absolutes because that statement itself is an absolute.

Ok, but isn’t absolute truth true across the board for everyone? Our remedy above only proves there is objective truth in my own individual life. It doesn’t prove if for anyone else outside of us…which is basically a fancy way of saying…truth is relative.
Click to expand...
Explain
 
Ben_Sinner said:
How can we prove the existence of Absolute Truth if every claim we make is based on our own individual belief and perception?

We can say “There is no absolute truth” is proof there are absolutes because that statement itself is an absolute.

Ok, but isn’t absolute truth true across the board for everyone? Our remedy above only proves there is objective truth in my own individual life. It doesn’t prove if for anyone else outside of us…which is basically a fancy way of saying…truth is relative.
Click to expand...
If there were no absolutes then that itself would be an absolute. Therefore there are absolutes.

If there are absolutes then there are absolutes.

There are no other cases.

Therefore there are absolutes.😉
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I meant I can know something to be true, but only within myself. The same thing may not be true for others.
Click to expand...
Rather, “I can know something that is true, or I may not know something that is true…or I may even disagree with something that is true. That thing that is true will always be true, regardless of how I, or anyone else, sees it.”
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Ok, but isn’t absolute truth true across the board for everyone?
Click to expand...
Absolute truth is truth that is true regardless of whether everyone agrees it is true. Don’t let the fact that not everyone agrees on what is true trick you into thinking there isn’t anything that is true. It’s one thing to wonder how to prove something is true. It’s another to assume there is no truth. The later is a philosophical belief that derails the search for truth from the beginning.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I meant I can know something to be true, but only within myself. The same thing may not be true for others.
Click to expand...
“That same thing may not be true for others.” indicates that you are referring to subjective reasoning.
 
For example, it is true the sun exists. Now, if a blind skeptic refuses to believe the sun exists that does not change the status of the sun’s existence.

Likewise if God exists then it is absolutely true that God exists regardless of what people may believe or their subjective experiences or reasoning tells them.

The converse is also true. If God didn’t exist then that would be absolutely true. Of course I would say we wouldn’t exist to know it.😉

Therefore either way absolute truth exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top