Is there absolute, objective, truth?

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

brycelaliberte

Guest
I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.” And they then continue to go back to the beginning of the argument, calling me some names and fingering their nose at Catholicism (or anything, really) along the way.

Is there some way to prove the necessity of absolute truth? I understand there MUST be, for if there wasn’t, that itself would be absolute and so contradicting. But aside from that easy proof, what else is there?
 
brycelaliberte said:
I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.”
Click to expand...
That statement is self-contradictory, because it would have to be absolute and objectively true to mean anything. QED.
 
brycelaliberte said:
I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.” And they then continue to go back to the beginning of the argument, calling me some names and fingering their nose at Catholicism (or anything, really) along the way.

Is there some way to prove the necessity of absolute truth? I understand there MUST be, for if there wasn’t, that itself would be absolute and so contradicting. But aside from that easy proof, what else is there?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, some people are so self-righteous, or so against Christianity, or so childish and immature, that they are unwilling to submit to the truth. And they believe submitting to the truth is the same as worshipping the truth, or abandoning their personal beliefs, or, in some cases, admitting that God exists. Such people you can’t even knock some common sense into.

There are people like this on every forum on the Internet, and more of them are in the world too. It’s pointless to argue with them, because it’d be the same as arguing with a brick wall. The best way to win them over is through prayer. Pray for them and leave the matter in God’s hands.
 
brycelaliberte said:
I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.” And they then continue to go back to the beginning of the argument, calling me some names and fingering their nose at Catholicism (or anything, really) along the way.

Is there some way to prove the necessity of absolute truth? I understand there MUST be, for if there wasn’t, that itself would be absolute and so contradicting. But aside from that easy proof, what else is there?
Click to expand...
Which question are you asking?

Is there objective truth?
or
Can we know objective truth?
or
Do we know objective truth?

And thus the problem a lot of possiblities which we can not eliminate
 
brycelaliberte said:
I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.” And they then continue to go back to the beginning of the argument, calling me some names and fingering their nose at Catholicism (or anything, really) along the way.

Is there some way to prove the necessity of absolute truth? I understand there MUST be, for if there wasn’t, that itself would be absolute and so contradicting. But aside from that easy proof, what else is there?
Click to expand...
Why do you look for such a thing regarding your faith? Truth is not necessary for faith.Blind belief is all that is needed for faith. That is what faith is by definition. Not truth but blind faith. No?

Like the poster mentioned, 1+1=2. That isn’t faith, it’s arithmetic. It is true.

God exists. That’s faith. No truth involved. Blind faith.
 
Namesake said:
Like the poster mentioned, 1+1=2. That isn’t faith, it’s arithmetic. It is true.
Click to expand...
The dirty little secret of math… is that 1 + 1 = 2 is just as much a belief as God’s existence. After all, 1 plus 1 could equal 3. Give me one good reason why 1+1=2 other than “just cuz” (because “just cuz” = “belief”).
 
Namesake said:
Why do you look for such a thing regarding your faith? Truth is not necessary for faith.Blind belief is all that is needed for faith. That is what faith is by definition. Not truth but blind faith. No?

Like the poster mentioned, 1+1=2. That isn’t faith, it’s arithmetic. It is true.

God exists. That’s faith. No truth involved. Blind faith.
Click to expand...
Faith is opening one’s heart and mind to God. Then man responds.

Blind belief is not encouraged by the church. We are to test.
 
BlaineTog said:
The dirty little secret of math… is that 1 + 1 = 2 is just as much a belief as God’s existence. After all, 1 plus 1 could equal 3. Give me one good reason why 1+1=2 other than “just cuz” (because “just cuz” = “belief”).
Click to expand...
One man + One woman = 3 kids, a few dogs and lot of bills
 
BlaineTog said:
That statement is self-contradictory, because it would have to be absolute and objectively true to mean anything. QED.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
Cajetan said:
1+1=2.
Click to expand...
In Base 10, yes…but what if there was another, say, non-sensical numbering/mathematic system where it did not? Who’s to say which one is objectively true?

Accepting that there is an absolute objective truth is a matter of faith, somewhat. One can use philosophical “proofs”, but if those proofs are not accepted, it’s not been “proven”.

Ah, the dangers of Relativism…
 
buffalo said:
If you hold up one finger on one hand and another finger on the
other everyone observe what we call two. That is the absolute truth.
Click to expand...
Newbie2 said:
Excellent point.

In Base 10, yes…but what if there was another, say, non-sensical numbering/mathematic system where it did not? Who’s to say which one is objectively true?

Accepting that there is an absolute objective truth is a matter of faith, somewhat. One can use philosophical “proofs”, but if those proofs are not accepted, it’s not been “proven”.

Ah, the dangers of Relativism…
Click to expand...
On an abacus or using an abacus method 1 + 1 is 11 and that is base ten written as 11
on base 3 → 1+1 = 4 written as 11
base base 4 → 1+1 = 5 written as 11

Additional in chemical reactions (combinations) 1 + 1 can equal 1 or in decomposition reactions 1 + 1 can equal multitude of by products. so which part was the absolute?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
On an abacus or using an abacus method 1 + 1 is 11 and that is base ten written as 11
on base 3 → 1+1 = 4 written as 11
base base 4 → 1+1 = 5 written as 11

Additional in chemical reactions (combinations) 1 + 1 can equal 1 or in decomposition reactions 1 + 1 can equal multitude of by products. so which part was the absolute?
Click to expand...
You are ust playing with the numbers.

My example still stands. It is your translations that are faulty.
 
Newbie2 said:
Accepting that there is an absolute objective truth is a matter of faith, somewhat. One can use philosophical “proofs”, but if those proofs are not accepted, it’s not been “proven”.
Click to expand...
But, when one rejects some proof that does not mean the proof was wrong. It only means one refuses to accept it.
 
brycelaliberte said:
I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.” And they then continue to go back to the beginning of the argument, calling me some names and fingering their nose at Catholicism (or anything, really) along the way.

Is there some way to prove the necessity of absolute truth? I understand there MUST be, for if there wasn’t, that itself would be absolute and so contradicting. But aside from that easy proof, what else is there?
Click to expand...
As someone said, it is self-defining.

Stating that there is NO absolute truth is like saying “all generalizations are false.”

You have just defeated the postulate with your very words.
 
buffalo said:
You are ust playing with the numbers.

My example still stands. It is your translations that are faulty.
Click to expand...
Is one electron plus one photon one hydrogen?
Is one atom of iron plus one electron iron?

If you hold up one finger and then you hold up another finger is that really two, how do you know how many fingers are being held up everywhere at that time?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Is one electron plus one photon one hydrogen?
Is one atom of iron plus one electron iron?

If you hold up one finger and then you hold up another finger is that really two, how do you know how many fingers are being held up everywhere at that time?
Click to expand...
If I hold up the fingers and you and I both see them then we both observe the same thing. If we keep adding people they will observe the same thing.

We can all agree to say that 1+ 1 = whatever we name it, but the fact is we all understand the same thing.
 
Actually, 1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. Which is essentially the nominalist argument against realism.

JSA+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top