Question: Is there Such a thing as universal/absolute truth?
Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.
One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.
The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be.
>>906390
Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.
To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.
Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”
Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s.
>>906403
For example: What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
OP, I can't even begin to tell you what a fucking moron you are. God help you.
>>906390
word games
truth means to conform with reality. reality is therefore true. it can only become false when it is misunderstood.
>>906390 (OP)
2 plus 2 does not necessarily equal 4.
With the exception of 0 and 1, all numbers are defined in terms of simpler numbers. “4” is Defined as “1+1+1+1”. And “2”is Defined as “1+1”.
Tautologies are universal truth.
>>906622
You are wrong here.
0 is {}, zero is defined as empty set.
1 is {{}}, one is set of one empty set.
2 is {{{}}}}, two is set of set of one empty set.
3 is {{{{}}}}, and so on.
I try to simplify stuff here but literally nobody ever define numbers in terms of additions because you need to define the addition in terms of numbers so you end up with [+1] defined as operation that can turn your 1 into 2.
>>906622
> With the exception of 0 and 1, all numbers are defined in terms of simpler numbers
There is special mathematical term for this kind of Original Numbers. Third original number is ω, or in other words "Classical Infinity" because no matter how +1 you do you will never count to it. There are infinities more such numbers.
Heat death of the universe is imminent.
Does that count?
>>906407
That's because those things aren't "objectively" wrong. Where in the laws of physics as we know it is written that rape is bad, not rape is good? These things have no meaning, raping, killing, charity, they all have as much meaning to the universe as a rock falling off a cliff: which is none. Society's morality is made up by what the average person thniks in his mind is good or bad. And since almost everyone is fundamentally the same, i.e. they all believe gays are bad or killing is bad, then that is what is considired immoral, giving the illusion of it being a fundamental law. Really, being on /his/ and having the objectivism stick stuck so far up your arse, maybe you should look into the sciences like biology/neuroscience that you hold so dear and try to find exactly where is the proof of universal morals, unless you will now say science is wrong. Even in a univers where there would be a god, why should it be true that things have a universal value, or universal morals, society's morals could still be subjective even under a god, he doesn't have to have an opinion on these things, and even if he does it doesn't necessarily matter.
>>906492
Looks like someone doesn't know about photons getting redshifted as a result of the expansion of the universe.
>>907346
Are you for real?
>>907363
Yes, but apparently you are. Photons become less energetic as their wavelengths get stretched by the expansion of the universe. That means energy is destroyed.
>>907402
>you aren't
fixed
>>906390
A few things.
First, if the truths of mathematics didn't hold the effects would be far worse than on civilization. I don't understand how there could be civilization--and I'm not speaking here of the necessity of math for, say, architecture or whatever. I'm talking about how I don't understand how anything in reality would hold.
Second, how about logical truths? Modus ponens (If A, then B; A; therefore B) seems pretty true. Yes, it's formal, and all kinds of things can be plugged into the terms A and B, but the point is that there are logical relations between things.
Third, while you did a good job of trying to define truth, I still don't know what "absolute truth" means. If you mean simply that it's true under all circumstances, or true for all rational entities, or all sentient creatures, or (the definition I prefer) it's true independent of our beliefs--then yes, I don't see a problem with asserting that there is absolute truth. This assertion would be a kind of meta-statement about other truth claims.
Unfortunately, many people seem to think that Absolute Truth means something mystical--like we need to have some kind of profound and deep connection with a reality hidden behind our own, a reality that underlies the empirical world. And here, I just don't understand the conception of truth at play, or at the very least I'd have to be agnostic about it. If there is some profoundly different reality "behind" the reality we experience, it still seems like there are certain truths that hold all the same (like mathematical or logical truths). Tell me what you want about some mystical insights about the nature of reality, modus ponens still seems to hold.
The question of values is related, but importantly different. There can be absolute truths (under some of the definitions I sketched above), yet values might not be absolute; there may be no absolute good. That's completely consistent--there may be no fact of the matter when it comes to value claims
