Is there absolute, objective, truth?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

How about absolute Catholicism? Is that detrimental to the world?
Look what relativism has done to protestantism. How many are there now? 15,000 and counting? We know they are not true. Is the Holy Spirit relative or absolute?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It would not have to be absolute.

More importantly the logic of absolute truth is falsely based on the idea the individual knows the difference. Thus as mentioned earlier the fanatic believes he need not question is actions because he knows it to be backed by absolute truth. His action then can not be crimes against humanity.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

It would not have to be absolute.

More importantly the logic of absolute truth is falsely based on the idea the individual knows the difference. Thus as mentioned earlier the fanatic believes he need not question is actions because he knows it to be backed by absolute truth. His action then can not be crimes against humanity.

To say there is no absolute truth is to deny the doctrine of infallibility and Church teaching on many dogmas. I don’t know about you, but I for one, am not going there
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Texas_Roofer]

To say there is no absolute truth is to deny the doctrine of infallibility and Church teaching on many dogmas. I don’t know about you, but I for one, am not going there
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I am not bothered by going there. Was Mary assumed before 1950, and if so were Catholics ignorant before 1950, wrong before 1950 or what? For those Catholics who lived before 1950 and did not believe in the assumption, what were they?

 

[Equites_Christi]

My username is Equites Christi. That is absolutely, objectively true.

I don’t see how hard it is to recognize absolute truth.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I am not bothered by going there. Was Mary assumed before 1950, and if so were Catholics ignorant before 1950, wrong before 1950 or what? For those Catholics who lived before 1950 and did not believe in the assumption, what were they?

Yes, Mary was assumed before 1950. She was assumed after her death and before her body underwent any corruption. It simply was not a dogma of our faith at that time and did not have to be believed. Once defined as dogma, it must be believed. Those who before 1950 did not believe in the assumption were still Catholic If you chose not to believe or accept absolute truth, that is for you to decide. No one can force you to do otherwise. But the Church also teaches that to be truly Catholic, you must believe all that the Church believes and teaches. Just because one calls himself/herself Catholic, does not necessarily make them one. Stated another way, for those who have faith, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof or argument is enough.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My username is Equites Christi. That is absolutely, objectively true.

I don’t see how hard it is to recognize absolute truth.

Yes, Mary was assumed before 1950. She was assumed after her death and before her body underwent any corruption. It simply was not a dogma of our faith at that time and did not have to be believed. Once defined as dogma, it must be believed. Those who before 1950 did not believe in the assumption were still Catholic If you chose not to believe or accept absolute truth, that is for you to decide. No one can force you to do otherwise. But the Church also teaches that to be truly Catholic, you must believe all that the Church believes and teaches. Just because one calls himself/herself Catholic, does not necessarily make them one. Stated another way, for those who have faith, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof or argument is enough.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

so were these “absolute, objective, truth” in say the year 1260 Or 162 bc for that matter?

 

[packermann]

Thus as mentioned earlier the fanatic believes he need not question is actions because he knows it to be backed by absolute truth.

But a relativist, one who denies absolute truth, need not question his actions because there is no absolute moral standard from which to question the rightness or wrongness of his actions. A fanatic may argue the rightness of his actions. But the relativist would not even bother arguing the rightness of his action, since, according to him, there is no such thing as right nor wrong actions.

His action then can not be crimes against humanity.

The more one tries to deny absolute truth, the more he affirms it.

If there is no absolute truth, then there there is no objective standard to determine what are these crimes against humanity.

If there are certain actions that are crimes against humanity, and these actions would then be wrong to do, then you have come up with an objective standard. And if an objective standard then there is such as thing as absolute truth.

 

[dbg]

you’re confusing moral relativism with metaphysical relativism; relativism concerning propositions about what ought to be the case, with propositions about what is the case.

moral relativism does not entail metaphysical relativism (though metaphysical relativism does entail moral relativism).

I just wrote poorly. This bears relevance in my other thread and so I’ll just put it there and link to it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3884412#post3884412

 

[dbg]

Is this absolute truth?

I think we are using the word “absolute” in a vague way (including myself).

Here’s what I believe (and some more detail about certain things is mentioned in the post I link to above) and I’m taking “true” in the ordinary sense of the term.

Some things are true absolutely in the sense that they are not true relative to something else, but true in and of themselves. So for example, “The world exists” would be something that is non-relatively true.

Other things are true relatively like “The door is to the right” – that’s true only relative to some other object.

Now you can phrase the sentence “the door is to the right of the window” and suppose that that then makes it a non-relative truth, but it doesn’t. Why? Because the property of the door being to the right of the window is not possessed by the door independently of the window – “being to the right of” is by nature something that can be true of something relative to something else.

Now when you ask “is this absolute truth?” I take you to mean something more than is this true in a non-relative way. I take you to mean is this ultimate truth – is it a fact beyond which there are no more to uncover. And “absolute truth” in THAT sense, I do not think exists. And absolute truth in THAT sense, my statement is not.

 

[Henning]

Jesus IS the truth (see John14:6)

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

so were these “absolute, objective, truth” in say the year 1260 Or 162 bc for that matter?

It was absolute objective truth in 1260AD. It was not absolute truth in 162BC because Mary had not yet been born. Before you question that, consider yourself, your very existence. It is absolutely objectively true that you exist. You did not exist before you were conceived in your mothers womb. But your existence today is absolutely, objectively true. To be absolutely and objectively true, the object being spoken of could have existed from Eternity, i.e., God, or could have been an object of his creation, you. Once you or I die, our earthly existence will pass away in time, but our immortal souls will continue to exist for eternity, that is because God created us (our souls) in his image,; spiritual, rational and immortal. That is the way we will exist until the resurrection of the dead, which is also a revealed truth to us from God.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It was absolute objective truth in 1260AD. It was not absolute truth in 162BC because Mary had not yet been born. Before you question that, consider yourself, your very existence. It is absolutely objectively true that you exist. You did not exist before you were conceived in your mothers womb. But your existence today is absolutely, objectively true. To be absolutely and objectively true, the object being spoken of could have existed from Eternity, i.e., God, or could have been an object of his creation, you. Once you or I die, our earthly existence will pass away in time, but our immortal souls will continue to exist for eternity, that is because God created us (our souls) in his image,; spiritual, rational and immortal. That is the way we will exist until the resurrection of the dead, which is also a revealed truth to us from God.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B.

So in 162BC it was not true?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So in 162BC it was not true?

Did you exist in 162BC. Yes or No. If you did,not, it would be true that Texas Roofer does not exist, had not been conceived and is not a being. So too with the Blessed Mother You, Texas Roofer existed from the first moment of your conception. The Blessed Mother existed from the first moment of her immaculate conception. Neither of you existed in 162 BC, The only truth about both of you at that time was that both of you were NOTHING.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. Don’t get side tracked discussing something that takes the thread off topic. If you want to discuss side topics, please take them to a new or existing threads in the appropriate fora.

 

[ljahns]

Is there absolute, objective truth? Let’s see shall we?

Defining terms:
Absolute – having no restriction, exception or qualification
Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Truth - a) the state of being the case: FACT b) the body of real things, events and facts: ACTUALITY

With our terms defined lets look at the as whole complete statement. What do you have to do to prove this statement true? In logic, you start with First Principles (Aristotle, I think, was the first person to quantify this axiom). First Principles are self-evident points, demonstrating their existence without proof. Example Rene Descartes famous “I Think therefore I am.” This proves that you exist (even if someone told you did not). This proves 2 points in the search for objective truth. 1 – Existence (to be aware of yourself proves existence) 2 – Reason (to think about yourself proves reason) In other words whatever you are trying to find objective truth about has to a) exist and b) be reasoned about.

Also basic to logic are the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle.
The Law of Identity simply states that a thing is what we say it is. Ex: A book is a book because we term it as such. Without this law there would be chaos and language would be incoherent. The Law of Non-Contradiction simply means that something cannot be something else. Ex: X is X. It is not anything else. The Law of Excluded Middle asserts that it is either X or non-X but not both.

The statement Absolute Objective Truth is declarative. Meaning you need something on which to declare it on. So let’s see if we can declare it on something and confirm its reality.

You see before you an object. You know this object is a computer. How can you state with absolute objective truth that this is a computer? Through the law of identity this computer is absolute. Through the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle you know this to be objective truth. So there is absolute objective truth.

Granted this is over-simplified. But it does answer your question. There is Absolute Objective Truth. What a lot of people question is if morals are subject to absolute objective truth. I believe the answer to that question is a resounding YES!

 

[Filius99993]

I was reading part of the Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica the other day (this summer has actually given me time to read, I’m euphoric. ), and it reminded me of this thread…

…the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition “Truth does not exist” is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth.

 

[dbg]

I was reading part of the Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica the other day (this summer has actually given me time to read, I’m euphoric. ), and it reminded me of this thread…

There’s a way to avoid that self-contradiction. Don’t deny the existence of truth and don’t affirm it either. Be agnostic in all your statements.

 

[Swan]

I think we are using the word “absolute” in a vague way (including myself).

Here’s what I believe (and some more detail about certain things is mentioned in the post I link to above) and I’m taking “true” in the ordinary sense of the term.

Some things are true absolutely in the sense that they are not true relative to something else, but true in and of themselves. So for example, “The world exists” would be something that is non-relatively true.

Other things are true relatively like “The door is to the right” – that’s true only relative to some other object.

Now you can phrase the sentence “the door is to the right of the window” and suppose that that then makes it a non-relative truth, but it doesn’t. Why? Because the property of the door being to the right of the window is not possessed by the door independently of the window – “being to the right of” is by nature something that can be true of something relative to something else.

Now when you ask “is this absolute truth?” I take you to mean something more than is this true in a non-relative way. I take you to mean is this ultimate truth – is it a fact beyond which there are no more to uncover. And “absolute truth” in THAT sense, I do not think exists. And absolute truth in THAT sense, my statement is not.

Well put. Perspective plays a major role. Look at the flooding in the midwest. We say this is bad. But from nature’s point of view, man’s efforts at fussing with the natural order of things, is what is bad. People live in a flood plain. Is that good or bad. Depends on your perspective. I mention nature because it is a God-made thing and we’re talking in large part about God. Does God think the flood is bad thing? Now, that, I think, is an interesting question and gets to the heart of the issue.

 

[packermann]

I think we are using the word “absolute” in a vague way (including myself).

Here’s what I believe (and some more detail about certain things is mentioned in the post I link to above) and I’m taking “true” in the ordinary sense of the term.

Some things are true absolutely in the sense that they are not true relative to something else, but true in and of themselves. So for example, “The world exists” would be something that is non-relatively true.

Other things are true relatively like “The door is to the right” – that’s true only relative to some other object.

Now you can phrase the sentence “the door is to the right of the window” and suppose that that then makes it a non-relative truth, but it doesn’t. Why? Because the property of the door being to the right of the window is not possessed by the door independently of the window – “being to the right of” is by nature something that can be true of something relative to something else.

Now when you ask “is this absolute truth?” I take you to mean something more than is this true in a non-relative way. I take you to mean is this ultimate truth – is it a fact beyond which there are no more to uncover.

As I argued elsewhere that just because we say that there is absolute truth, that does not mean that relative truth does not exist at all. Give the example of the door. True the door may be exist to the right of me and to the left of you. We absolutist can agree of this relativism. But we both agree that the door exists. So it is relativism (door right of me, left of you) AND absolutism (the door objectively exists).

A pure relativist position, the one I think you are espousing, goes much further than that. It is saying “The door exists for me but may not exist for you”. It does not just see the place of the door being relative, but EVERYTHING about the door being relative, even the whether or not the door existing is relative.

And “absolute truth” in THAT sense, I do not think exists.

But when you say this, are you saying that “absolute truth” does not exist just for you, or that “absolute truth” does not exist for anyone? If you just say for yourself, I agree. I agree that absolute truth does not exist for you.

But If you mean that “absolute truth” does not exist for anyone, then you yourself are stating an absolute.

As a relativist, you have no right to speak for others, just yourself. You cannot say that absolute truth does not exists or should not exist for others.