There are several threads that have been touching on this. I feel it is worthy of its own thread.
Is truth relative or absolute?
My take - truth is absolute. There are no exceptions. Because if a truth was found to be an error, it wouldn't have been the truth to begin with.
I heard a saying to the tune of - We cannot prove that anything "is", only that something "is not".
also: facts needs truth to survive, truth doesn't need facts.

Any thoughts?  Don

I agree.

My views are very simular.

Veritas

I was hoping you would create this one!

In another post I said that "truth" is subjective. We are all guided in life by a "code", a belief that we hold as true. It may be false, but we believe it. If we didn't believe it, it wouldn't be "true" to us. Would any of us knowingly believe in a lie? It's a question of faith. Hebrews 11;1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.  I am certain that mine is the right one. I am convinced of it. It is the christian one. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  (NIV)

A jew would not accept my truth. He has his own truth and is waiting for his messiah. I believe he is wrong but I can not prove it.

For me, "THE truth" is not the same as "truth". "THE Truth" is the RIGHT Truth. This may be semantics to some.

+ 1

The truth is absolute.

End of discussion.

Of course, Godless people who like to lie think the "truth is whatever you can make people believe". (And that in itself is a lie.)

Unfortunately, our government is full of liars who live by that statement.

Without the prsupposition the Scriptures are the only infalliable standard of faith and practice it is impossible to know anything.   Jesus said if we were His disciples we would know the truth.  

Every other so called source of truth is falliable,  it is not truth.  

Science can never find truth, and even atheists of old, and scientists themselves have said as much.

If you're talking about something that is expressed mathmatically, truth is absolute.  Be advised, some types of math can be sorta tricky and we're still figuring it out.  Just because mathmatical truth is absolute doesn't mean we know all the final answers.

If you're talking about religion or politics or the law, truth is relative.  It's all a matter of opinion.  

Great topic!
I wish I had time to throw in my thoughts but I can give you some great thought by C.H Spurgeon in regard to the gospel and truth.

False doctrines cannot be proved, and you need not make the attempt. It is only the
truth which is capable of proof.

I cannot agree with those who say that they have “new truth” to teach. The two
words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old
that is true, for truth is as old as God.

O prejudice, prejudice, prejudice, how many hast thou destroyed! Men who might
have been wise have remained fools because they thought they were wise. Many
judge what the gospel ought to be, but do not actually enquire as to what it is. They
do not come to the Bible to obtain their views of religion, but they open that Book to
find texts to suit the opinions which they bring to it. They are not open to the honest
force of truth, and therefore are not saved by it.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob these deep thinkers cannot endure, but if you
say that God is angry with the wicked every day, these modern god-makers tell you
that he is too loving for that,—that he cannot possibly be angry, but loves all, has
redeemed all, and will in the long run save all, including Satan himself.

This. "Situational Ethics" are not Truth.

I always liked the verses where Pilate asks Jesus "what is truth?"
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
Jhn 18:33- Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"  
Jhn 18:34- Jesus answered him, "Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?"  
Jhn 18:35- Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?"  
Jhn 18:36- Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."  
Jhn 18:37- Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."  
Jhn 18:38- Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, "I find no fault in Him at all.  

Upon reading this quote, these highlighted items jumped out at me.

The author seems to demonize the concept of "new truth", as he calls it.
Let's think about this for a minute.

One example:

God, Jehovah, set up his "church" among those 12 Tribes of Israel. In exact
detail He described to them how they were to obey Him and worship Him.

When God, Jesus, came to earth and began preaching His gospel he was
persecuted for preaching a "new truth" that was NOT what had been given
the House of Israel.

I do not see Christ's gospel taught by Him to be a "new truth", but rather
a more detailed version of the "old truth".

The Israelites were commanded to go the "eye for an eye" route. They were
also commanded to love their neighbor as self. Jesus took it a step further
by teaching to "turn the other cheek". This is the same TRUTH, but to the
Jews of Jesus' day this was "new truth".

I believe that truth is absolute and eternal. It never changes. If it is truth . . . .
it CANNOT change.

Are there degrees of truth? I believe so.

Better stated might be . . . . There are differing degrees of the knowledge
of truth.

"We are saved from eternal damnation through Jesus Christ" is a statement
of truth.

"We are saved because of Jesus' atoning sacrifice where he took upon himself
our sins that we might be saved by him/through him and enter eternal rest with
him in his kingdom."

Both of these statements are true, but there are varying degrees of "truth".

That might not have been the best example. Sorry.

I have found this throughout the NT. Jesus was taking the beautiful doctrinal
aspects of what the Tribes of Israel were taught and EXPOUNDED them to
the Jews. The ruling "class" of the Jews wanted nothing to do with it because
it threatened their role as rulers AND because to them it was "new truth". In
all actuality it was not "new truth", it was simply the "old truth", but a deeper
understanding of what they already had.

I just don't see God establishing ONE truth for the Tribes of Israel and then
when on earth in the flesh establishing a DIFFERENT truth that contradicts
the former. THAT would make BOTH of them "untrue".

I love the passages cited earlier when Jesus was with Pilate.

Truth is eternal and unable to change by its very nature.

____________

Yes.

 

And they are...

the truth is absolute



unfortunately our ability to conceive that truth isn't error free, so for all practical purposes it is relative.



There is a huge difference between saying truth is absolute and saying my beliefs are absolutely true.   Most people have a bit more humility than that and recognize the human propensity to err.

"truth is absolutely subjective", uhh, oops.

No. Opinion has nothing to do with it. Your _perception_ of what the truth is can be changed relative to your situation, but just as with math, there is only _one_ reality in the universe that is THE reality. That is the truth, and NOTHING else can be. No matter what your situation or your perceptions might lead you to believe. As an example, a lot of pilots have mistakenly thought they were "right side up" because of their perceptions, but the TRUTH was that they were upside down, so when they pulled back on that stick, they hit REALITY right in the face... very hard.  And THAT'S the truth.

Lawyers, politicians, salesmen and many others often confuse perception with fact. And truth is fact, not perception. That's where the term "believing your own bullshit" comes into play.

Ill agree with that.
The subject of Truth pertaining to the Bible can seem complex but is amazingly simple.
For example, in the regarding the Law, Jesus himself said (to paraphrase) that the truth of the law will stand… but he then reminds us that salvation cannot come through the law but is highlighted by the law.
The Pharisees problem wasn’t that they obeyed the law but they had turned it into a weapon against others to highlight their own self righteousness.
Law had become not about recognizing personal failure and pointing out our need for salvation….but about becoming saved through the acts of the Law.

The Pharisees idea of Truth was that the “best People” are the ones who can keep the most Law
The Truth Jesus offered is that the “best people” are in fact the “worst people” who see through the law that they can only find salvation through God grace and not of themselves.

Essentially the Law is true in that it point us to The Truth.
To steal Junbugs line of thought,
We can form denominations that differ and disagree on aspects of the law but we can find unity in the Jesus Christ of the Bible and who he clamed to be.
We separate on the smaller issues such as methods of worship, diets, Baptism…extra.
But we can gather in the unity found in repentance faith and trust in Jesus Christ and His claim to be The Way, The Truth, The Life.

Very well said.

_______________

I like this answer. Truth is absolute, but most people wrongly think their opinions constitute truth.

I think these have all been good responses
to the question of truth.

The "TRUST" truly will/can set us free when
we submit our will to His. To the extent that
we do this, I believe we receive a greater
understanding of truth.

"... Line upon lie, precept upon precept..."

Great discourse all y'all !

Law of non-Contradiction:  A thing cannot be both true and false at once.

Opinions or a faith does not have to be true, regardless of facts.  Truth is the bottom line. It stands alone, yet cannot be proven - at least from a human standpoint. Truth requires faith at some level. Am I missing something here?  This isn't MY opinion. Or is it?    I'd have to say that's not my opinion. My faith tells me what is true. If human facts  support something my faith says is false,  I can except or reject it. That is truth.

So mathmatically, all logical scholars have to admitt that creation and evolution have at least equal possibility to be true.

Don

This.

Let's say my hand is on the doorknob.  Just because you say it isn't does not change the truth.

many things are relative, truth is not, wisdom lies in discerning the difference.

This would suggest that belief cannot be "true" because beliefs are relative.

Assuming there is an ultimate truth and assuming that the truth is "10", what about 3 people. Each person has a belief about the truth. One person thinks its "7", another "12" and the last "10".

Each person merely believes in their number. They can't "know". Thus, each person is equally comforted by their view of the truth. How should that influence things down here on earth? There is no referee that will step in and tell us the "real" truth. And that means that any argument that stresses the ultimate truth is moot as far as humanity is concerned.

Lets dial this down even further - since all people have their own belief in what the truth is and because there is only one truth, what are the odds that all of a person's beliefs are close enough to the truth for it to be beneficial to them in the afterlife? 1 in a trillion? 1 in a gazillion?

With odds that miniscule (exact odds would be determined by every possible belief in the universe multiplied by any situation that could ever possibly occur), how do you hedge your bets enough to convince yourself that your exact pattern of behavior and belief will just happen to line up with the ultimate truth?

And how unlikely do you think it is that the exact right belief needed to line up with the truth just happens to be the belief that you were taught at a young age because you just happened to be born in a place where _________________ (insert religion here) was the majority religion?

In the last 45,000 years, humans have believed in, worshipped, made sacrifices to and/or killed in the name of (I looked this up) 7.93816 gazillion gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, fairies and the miscellaneous offspring of same.  
Every person who did so believed they knew the TRUTH just as fervently as any devout Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. does today.    

In every case, the TRUTH was an opinion.  That TRUTH was based on religious teachings, stories or writings or all three.  

Were any of the teachings, stories or writings more valid than any of the others?  Certainly the believers thought so.  They could prove the TRUTH to anyone who was willing to believe their teachings, stories or writings and disbelieve all the others.  Everyone else thought they were deluded or maybe pawns of some dark force.  

Religious TRUTHS are never absolute.  If they were, there would be some proof that could be verified.  Then we could all believe the same thing.  But there isn't any such proof.  Christians can't agree on what's true.  Muslims are killing each other right this minute because they can't agree.  They accept what they've been taught and reject what others have been taught.  

The only thing that unites all the religions is their distain for Atheists.  

No, don't thank me.  Happy to help.  

Truth is absolute.

BUT no man should ever believe he is in full knowledge or awareness of the absolute truth.

I think this could be two questions really.  Truth as far as we humans can know it, is relative.  It has to be.  If there were one truth to believe in, it would be so obvious that there wouldnt be as many choices as there are. There wouldnt be as many (tens of thousands) denomonations of christianity as there are. It would only be right or wrong. Its hard to take a look at the question without your views conflicting with the answer. Its like someone addicted to sex judging the miss america contest and actually voting on all the attributes. You,as a man, know who would win.  (.) (.)    
Your views that you believe in end up determining what truth is to you. You choose what makes you comfy. Your entire life experiences up to this point has determined what you believe.

Now the second version of the question.  If there is one truth,  it is so beyond anything our science or religion can fathom. At least for now.

Or at least thats my views. And my truth. lol

For starters I want to say I respect your opinion but what you are sharing is not truth. Religious truths can be absolute. We just can't prove it's true. The apparent issue humans need to deal with is choosing correctly without proof. This is where faith comes in but how does one choose the correct faith?
Don

____________

As you say, I was not sharing truth, at least not the absolute truth we're talking about here.  It's my opinion.

Religious truths can be absolute?  Not without proof.  Faith is required.  With enough faith, proof isn't required and religion becomes absolutly true for the believer.  
"Truth" is whatever the believer is willing to accept. Untruth is whatever conflicts with faith.    

How does one choose the correct faith?  Most of the time, your faith is chosen for you through place of birth and early training.  Religions that are chosen later in life generally provide something the chooser needs to be happy or fulfilled.  I really don't know, but that's the way it seems to me.  I never heard of anyone choosing a religion on the basis of objective proof.  There seems to be a strong correlation between emotion and faith.  The stronger the emotion, the stronger the faith and the more the believer sees his faith as representing absolute truth.  

At least in my opinion.    

Truth doesn't rely on proof to be true. It just needs to be. Faith would be believing in something you can not prove. This is how God wants it at this time. Proving a non-truth doesn't take faith, just logic and information.

A relavent point in this thread is - to believe science is based on truth takes at least as much faith or more than to believe that God exists.

Don

truth is nonexistent in this administration

I am so with you on this witness. You have accepted by faith what God of the Bible says is truth. So have I. It hasn't been proved untrue yet. All things point towards its' reliability. It took me to the point of putting a 30-06 to my head until I decided to give God a sincere chance by doing what the Bibile said and being convinced of what is said was truth by how He showed up in my life.  I can't technically prove God is keeping my life at peace but how many times does someone need to win the lottery before he gets investigated for cheating?
Don

And you might be right.  But your interpretation of God's will might be just that; an interpretation.  

Truth can exist without proof, but how would anyone know it for sure?  Without some objective evidence, people might not even suspect the truth.

Example:  The Northern Lights were caused by an interaction between the Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind long before we sent up satellites to confirm it.  For tens of thousands of years before that, people believed the lights were caused by some supernatural being(s).  They had faith and generations of teaching to back up their beliefs.  Anyone who doubted a supernatural explanation probably had the sense to keep quiet about it, but stone-age people had no way of knowing the truth.  They didn't suspect a high altitude magnetic field or a solar wind.  

Many absolute truths exist.  The search for these truths is one of mankind's major hobbies.  If we survive long enough, we'll find most of them. That won't keep some people from using their faith as a measuring device for truth.  It's part of what makes us human.

Since you appear to have done some study on the matter ill assume you understand that any claim to Truth must have supporting evidence of some kind to give it any merit.
Using the Bible as an example what would be the criteria it would have to meet to hold any merit in your opinion?
Say we reduce the standard of supporting evidence for the Bible to only thee subjects what do you think they might be?
What would you like them to be?

That's a great question.  And a heck of a can of worms.  

I was raised in a Christian family.  My parents and grandparents were big churchgoers.  Of course, my grandparents were also big in the KKK, but thats' another story.  Early training in religion died when I got old enough to think for myself.  I found no evidence to support religion.  I looked hard.  

Even today, in my early 60s, I have a pretty good library of religious books.  I’ve done my homework.  I’ve tried to find something, anything that would show me that any religion is more than a myth.

Three subjects?  Well, let's take three of the biggies, the Flood, the Exodus and .......  Anybody want to suggest another one?

The Flood.  There's no evidence at all outside the Bible for any flood deep enough to submerge Mt. Ararat.  It's 16,946 ft high.  The Egyptians were in the middle of some pretty big construction projects right around that time and there's no sign at all of water damage.  The area around the pyramids is, IIRC, under 2,000 ft.  There's no sign of water damage more severe than that which would be caused by the annual flash floods.  Many of the tombs show no sign of water damage.  Anyone who believes the seals on those tombs would have stood up to nearly three miles of water is welcome to say so.

I know, God could have erased any sign of the Flood to test our faith.  That still leaves us with no proof.  

The Exodus:  
Moses is supposed to have escaped with, depending on which story you believe, 100,000 people or 100,000 families.  Either way, all those people wandering in the desert would have left unmistakeable signs.    Caravan trails and campsites that have been used for thousands of years are still visible through satellite photos.  There's nothing.  
Also, the loss of all those people, between 20% and 25% of the population at that time according to surviving records, would have been noticed.  The Pharoes kept really good records.  They needed to, for tax purposes.  Even if they didn't tax the Jews, they kept records of all valuable property.  Slaves were valueable property.  

I know, God could have erased any sign of the Chosen wandering for 40 years to test our faith.  That still leaves us with no proof.  

Proof would have been easy to provide.  Why don't we have any?

God said that the only sign that He would give to the unbelieving is a sign not unlike a serpent that was raised up in the wilderness at the time of Moses.

Do you know about this?

My Reply screen was acting weird, so I'll try to continue here.

What proof would I accept?  For the Flood, I'd accept erosion damage, damage to nearby civilizations that were in existence at the time, damage to nearby ecosystems from fresh-water flooding (the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea are close to where the Arc landed.  Their shorelines would show damage from flood waters three miles deep), and, if you believe the Flood was truly world-wide, the Indians and the Sioux might have noticed.  The Sioux wouldn't have left records (they'd all be dead), but the  Harappan civilization in India was going strong at that time.  Any unequivocal physical evidence would be good.  The Flood was supposed to have taken place between 2350 and 2300 BC.  That wasn't all that long ago to a geologist.  There should be tons of evidence.  

The Exodus?  Egyptian records and signs that a large population spent 40 years (or a weekend) in the desert would be a start.  
Books and essays from Egypt at that time say that the Egyptians were philosophically opposed to slavery.  That doesn't help the "held in bondage" story at all.  
Any evidence from outside the Bible would be helpful.

Well my friend, the question I would ask of you is whether you are honest enough with yourself to even give any Biblical answers to your questions credence?

Say if we were to engage in a discussion on the sum of 2 + 2 and upon coming to differing conclusions… would you even be interested in taking a trip to the local electronic story to plug our data into a calculator to see the results?

In an effort not to hijack someone else’s thread ill send you a P.M with some answer's to your questions on the flood.
If you would like to carry it further feel free to reply via PM or through a new topic thread.

I tried to send you some stuff but It looks like you have blocked IMs from this sight.

If you would like contact me via email and Ill send you some of what Ive got.
But yes, rest assured there are many resources in regard to a vast Global Flood….and it may come as a shock but much of it has been done by men with a secular scientific education.

Do I give any Biblical answers to my questions credence?  No.  I'm not aware of any Biblical answers.  Can you tell me what you mean?

There's really no discussion (at least no conflict) about the sum of 2+2.  No need to plug it into a calculator.  We've known the answer since pre-K.  The Flood, on the other hand .........  

If you want to continue this discussion and don't want to hijack the thread, start another thread.  I'll be happy to stay with you.
We started this in public and I prefer to continue it in public.  IMs defeat the purpose of an open forum.

Here are a few more notable quotes on the Topic.

Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.
Blaise Pascal

Truth is by definition the exclusive and narrow way. Truth has few friends, and fewer lovers, and still fewer children.
Mark Driscoll

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
C.S. Lewis

The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character.  The moral commands He has given to men are an expression of His character.  Men as created in His image are to live by choice on the basis of what God is.  The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to His character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.
Francis Schaeffer

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.
G.K. Chesterton

Nothing gives rest but the sincere search for truth.
Blaise Pascal

Right.  We're all searching for the truth.  Well, not all of us.  Some of us are convinced we've already found it.  

As I see it, in the search for the truth, there are two fundamentally different approaches; religion and science.
(Cliff notes version)

Scientists know they can be wrong.  
They know they don’t have all the answers.  
They know that some of what they think they know is wrong.  
They expect to find mistakes in scientific theories.  
They know that the Universe is so vast that they’ll never know everything there is to know.
They know they can’t trust their feelings or anyone else’s feelings.  
They require objective evidence.  
They reject unproven assertions, especially if they’re based on emotional argument.  
When objective evidence contradicts subjective evidence, they go with the former.

Believers ––- well, I won’t try to speak for believers.  I got tossed out of Sunday School at age 8 for asking why God killed 42 little kids just for name-calling.  When I saw that the people who were in charge of teaching us about God wouldn’t even try to answer my question and that they were only interested in the G-Rated, pretty parts of the Book, my belief was pretty much at an end.  

An example of the difference between scientific and religious methods:

1.  A young scientist comes up with an idea he thinks might be true.  It contradicts established theory and that’s a good thing.  If he’s right, it’ll make his career.  He’ll get fame, fortune in the form of huge grants and book deals plus face time on the talk shows.  It’ll also make some established senior scientists look like fools.  The “Fastest Gun in the West” syndrome is alive and well among scientists.  

So what does he do?  He goes into the lab and works up a series of experiments to test his hypothesis.  He performes as many experiments as he can think of to disprove his hypothesis.  Why?  Because he knows perfectly well that other scientists will do that as soon as he publishes his paper.  If he misses anything, he’ll look bad and that won’t help his career.  

2.  A young pastor comes up with an idea he thinks might be true.  It doesn’t seriously contradict established doctrine and that’s a good thing.  If his idea is well received, it’ll make his career.  He’ll get fame, fortune in the form of his own TV ministry and book deals plus face time on the talk shows.  

So what does he do?  He starts talking about it, writing about it, using it in his sermons.  He’s careful not to contradict established doctrine.  He’s careful not to piss off his elders.  At no time does he try to verify his idea.  Why should he?  How could he?  There’s no upside to experimentation, even if he had some way to experiment.  He knows no one can actually prove him wrong.  Maybe others will disagree, but that'll just bring him more publicity, book deals and talk shows.  

Question:  Which of the above methods led to the germ theory of disease?  Lasers?  Spacecraft?  Postit Notes? Tampons?  The plastics industry?  That computer you’re using?  

Religion brought us the Albigensian Crusade, the Sack of Magdeburg, the Inquision, Saint Bartholomew’s Massacre, “the troubles” from Northern Ireland, our curent Muslim Jihads and lots more.  
There have been positive things, of course.  But would normal human charity and love had produced the same good things?  I’d like to think so.  

I'm pretty sure that the way to find the truth, at least a truth that can be verified and used in productive ways, won't be based on religion.

WE live in a subjective reality that is held together by information in the form of beliefs, there are some physical constants but in the realm of thought everything is subjective and therefore relative to the individuals perceptions. Even christ was not immune to this fact because he was unable to perform miracles in a community that lacked belief, either in him or miracles in general, hence his admonitions to "tell no man" after some of his healings because it would conflict with an unbelievers worldview. Truth is what you make it.

And there you have a great example of what I was talking about.  
Reality is NOT held together by information in the form of beliefs.  
Reality is independant of beliefs.  
Reality is independant of knowledge.  
Reality is NOT relative to any individuals perceptions.  
Perception and belief does NOT equal reality.

So only “Nothing” can be True?
Truth is so complex that no one can ever attain it?
The message is that Truth is ultimately just too difficult to understand…so don’t even bother trying?

Is the Truth of mathematics “True.”
Is the Truth of Science “True?”
Are observations of Nature “true.”
Can we expect to find “truth” in every aspect of our surroundings….but suddenly when it comes to God only what is relative to the individual becomes true?
If that were the case then relative truth would eliminate absolute Truth…which would render the very definition of truth void.
If truth is in fact relative then truth can’t exist at all.
Truth becomes nothing more then our own individualistic ideals.
Murder might not be wrong….in fact, maybe necessary… even fun if you would like it to be.
Adultery becomes simply mass procreation.
Stealing…becomes filling needs.
Rape?
Incest?
Pedophilia? …….nah! all just relative to the individual.
Morality becomes nothing more then what the largest group with the biggest sticks wants it to be.

“All men created equal indeed!”…..who gave anyone the right to make that statement!

Truth is absolute
Long ago the earth was believed to be flat, the truth is the world is a sphere. That has always been the truth no matter what was believed.