What is the truth?

[Blastcat]

Hello, KingandPriest.

Our topic is generally about the definition of the truth.

I have often challenged Christians if they value their beliefs more than the truth of their beliefs.

I very often ask them... how do you know your beliefs are true?

So, first of all, I will give my standard definition for truth, which I take from online dictionaries... And that is.. Truth is what comports to reality or facts.

By "epistemology" I mean the method we use to acquire knowledge. A secular method would be by evidence, for example, and a Christian epistemology might be by way of "faith". I will allow my Christian opponent to define what he means by "faith", in case he needs to.

I also urge my esteemed opponent to make sure that I know what he means the terms he wants to use.

Ok, I will start the debate.

1. I believe that a secular epistemology is vastly superior to a Christian epistemology.
2. When I want to know if something is true.. I have to check the facts. I demand evidence that the claim is true, or else, I just don't believe that it is true.
3. I don't demand ABSOLUTE truth.. but I need to have enough evidence so that I can say with at least SOME assurance that the claim comports to reality....and is most likely a fact. Otherwise, I just don't believe that the claim has been demonstrated to be true.
4. I would want to know what a Christian epistemology is, and how it can be useful to know the truth of a claim.
5. One criticism that I have about how Christians seem to form their beliefs is that they often tell me that if they BELIEVE something ( have faith in ) it's true. I can't accept that at all.. People believe in things that are false all the time.

I think that's enough to start us off....
I await KingandPriest's reply.

Good luck and lets have fun....

[KingandPriest]

RESPONSE 1
Hello Blastcat and all other viewers,

I ignore beliefs about which epistemology is superior as that is not the intent of this discussion. We are attempting to answer what is truth, not which methodology is better for finding truth.

To define truth you wrote:

Truth is what comports to reality or facts.

To further define or clarify how you experience truth, you state

2. When I want to know if something is true. I have to check the facts. I demand evidence that the claim is true, or else, I just don't believe that it is true.
3. I don't demand ABSOLUTE truth… but I need to have enough evidence so that I can say with at least SOME assurance that the claim comports to reality....and is most likely a fact. Otherwise, I just don't believe that the claim has been demonstrated to be true.

To your definition, I ask when facts change or reality changes, does the truth change?
If the truth changes, does the old/prior truth become a lie?

You state you have to check the facts to believe a claim is true. What about instances when you are not able to check the facts (either because of availability or just being able to understand all the facts, like a branch of science/math you don’t fully understand). Do you reject all claims of truth that you can’t personally verify?

This question is about your third point, absolute truth. You state you don’t demand ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Is relative truth an acceptable measure of “what is truth�?

If truth at its level is not absolute, what is the difference between truth and lies?
Ex: If I hand you a rock and tell you it’s mostly quartz and feldspar with minor amounts of mica, amphiboles, and other minerals. The truth would be this rock is granite. If this truth is not absolute, the rock can be whatever I want it to be, and thus to call it a basalt could be true or could be false. The definition of what granite is gives us an absolute basis for defining what a true granite rock is and what a false rock is.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by KingandPriest]

RESPONSE 1
Hello Blastcat and all other viewers,

I ignore beliefs about which epistemology is superior as that is not the intent of this discussion. We are attempting to answer what is truth, not which methodology is better for finding truth.

You want to talk about knowing what the truth is, but you want to ignore epistemology. Are you saying that you ignore all methods of acquiring knowledge?

If you don't know how to acquire knowledge, and IGNORE any and all methodologies, how do you know you have any TRUTH?

Perhaps once you have defined what you MEAN by your terms, you will be able to discuss them.

To define truth you wrote:

Truth is what comports to reality or facts.

To your definition, I ask when facts change or reality changes, does the truth change?

When we find out that we have been wrong, by way of new facts, we adjust what we call true. So, yes. We CALL things true or not. So if data changes, what we call the truth about it changes.

If the truth changes, does the old/prior truth become a lie?

By "lie" perhaps you mean "falsehood". A lie is a DELIBERATE statement of a falsehood. But yes, when we discover that we have been WRONG, we call what we were wrong about "false".

New data can falsify old beliefs.

You state you have to check the facts to believe a claim is true. What about instances when you are not able to check the facts (either because of availability or just being able to understand all the facts, like a branch of science/math you don’t fully understand). Do you reject all claims of truth that you can’t personally verify?

Yes, sometimes I don't think as well as I should. But I try to use a good epistemology as much as I can. I am, however, not perfect.

This question is about your third point, absolute truth. You state you don’t demand ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Is relative truth an acceptable measure of “what is truth�?

One of the reasons that I don't demand some "absolute" truth, is because I don't know what it means, or how I could ever achieve it. As humans, we just don't have absolute knowledge. We have LIMITED knowledge.

I'm not sure what you mean by "relative truth", however.
Please, define your terms.

If truth at its level is not absolute, what is the difference between truth and lies?

The Oxford dictionary defines "lie" this way:
"An intentionally false statement"

It defines truth this way:
"That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/truth
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... nglish/lie

So, the difference between the truth and the lie is that the truth is accordance with reality, whereas a lie is an intentional falsehood about reality.

Unfortunately, I cannot address your concern about "absolute truth", because you haven't yet defined what that is.

I don't know the distinction that you make between plain ordinary truth and absolute truth, for example.

Ex: If I hand you a rock and tell you it’s mostly quartz and feldspar with minor amounts of mica, amphiboles, and other minerals. The truth would be this rock is granite. If this truth is not absolute, the rock can be whatever I want it to be, and thus to call it a basalt could be true or could be false.

You can indeed call the rock anything you like. I still don't know what you mean by absolute. We agree on the meanings of words, like "granite" for example. The word is JUST a word. If you desire to call what everyone understands is "granite" basalt instead, you just will be taken to be wrong, or incomprehensible.

Calling granite "basalt" would be making a false statement, or redefining words, or just being plain "WRONG". People make mistakes all the time.

The definition of what granite is gives us an absolute basis for defining what a true granite rock is and what a false rock is.

The above sentence is almost incoherent. There are "false rocks"?
Please define your terms.
___________________

So, to recap I will give you a list of questions I need you to answer in order for me to understand what your position is:

1. Define your terms. You are using quite a lot of them, and I have NO idea what you mean. In particular, you will need to define these terms:

a) Truth
b) Lie
c) Absolute truth
d) Relative truth
e) Absolute
f) False rocks

2. How do you justify disregarding how to acquire knowledge, if you want to know what is true?

3. What is distinction that you make between plain ordinary truth and absolute truth?

4. How do you know if something is true?

I await your replies.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 3 by Blastcat]

Blastcat wrote

Are you saying that you ignore all methods of acquiring knowledge?

No, I am just saying we are not comparing which is superior. Just present your definition and accompanying reasons, and let others decide which is superior.

Blastcat wrote:

When we find out that we have been wrong, by way of new facts, we adjust what we call true. So, yes. We CALL things true or not. So if data changes, what we call the truth about it changes.

So it seems you indicate that truth is based on man's perspective, interpretation and acknowledgment of the facts, reality and data presently available. If the data, reality or facts change, man is able and has the responsibility to correct the truth.

Please confirm or correct the above statement.

Blastcat wrote:

By "lie" perhaps you mean "falsehood". A lie is a DELIBERATE statement of a falsehood. But yes, when we discover that we have been WRONG, we call what we were wrong about "false".

New data can falsify old beliefs.

No new questions, I accept that a lie is a DELIBERATE false statement.

I agree that new data can contradict beliefs, but I do not hold that it can falsify a
belief.

For instance, a newly married couple has the belief they will be biological parents to their children. After several years, and many failed attempts, they receive new data from their doctor which informs them it is impossible for them to conceive. This new data has the possibility of falsifying their beliefs, but it has the same possibility of pushing them to "have faith" (remain entrenched) in their original belief. Additional years past, and till no biological children. The data from the doctor is unchanged.

Then after 16 years of contradictory data, the couple conceives and gives birth to twins.

The data from the doctor which appeared to falsify their claim, was proven to be incorrect by the birth of the children. This doesn't mean the belief was validated, just that the data did not falsify an old belief. If the data from the doctor made the couple's old belief false, then no children should ever have been born. The only thing we see is new data, the birth of twins, falsifying old data from the doctor. It cannot be said whether the data verified or falsified the belief.

Again I state, new data can contradict beliefs, but does not falsify a belief. If the belief is true, eventually new data will be found to corroborate the belief. If the believe is not true, no new data will ever be found. This is why it is difficult to prove a belief false. We can easily prove facts with data, but not beliefs. Beliefs sometimes rely on data that is only in the future.


I asked, Do you reject all claims of truth that you can’t personally verify?
Blastcat responded:

Yes, sometimes I don't think as well as I should.

I know ask, because you rejected a claim of truth you could not verify, does it make it any less truthful?
Is truth subjective, relative or absolute?

I define absolute as "Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things"
I define relative as "Existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute"
I define subjective as "Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: dependent on an individuals mind or perspective"
All definitions taken from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us

Blastcat wrote:

Define your terms. You are using quite a lot of them, and I have NO idea what you mean. In particular, you will need to define these terms:

a) Truth
b) Lie
c) Absolute truth
d) Relative truth
e) Absolute
f) False rocks

1. In my responses, remember I am assuming your definition of what is truth to be correct. I then pose questions to show why I believe this definition to be insufficient. Later I will present my definition for what is truth, but lets not jump ahead.

a) Truth: see your definition
b) Lie: I agree that a lie is a deliberately false statement
c) Absolute Truth: see above definition for absolute. If the truth is absolute, it is not dependent on other factors
d) Relative Truth: see above definition for relative. If the truth is relative, it is dependent on other factors and circumstances
e) Absolute: see above
f) False rocks: This was an error on my part. I meant to write false granite rock, such as one which may have the same appearance but does not meet the qualifications to be called a true/real granite rock. Sorry for the error.

Blastcat wrote:

2. How do you justify disregarding how to acquire knowledge, if you want to know what is true?

As stated at the top of this post, I am saying we are not comparing which method of acquiring knowledge is superior. Just present your definition and accompanying reasons, and let others decide which is superior.

Blastcat wrote:

3. What is distinction that you make between plain ordinary truth and absolute truth?

I will address in my definition of what is truth once we complete this review on how you define truth.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by KingandPriest]

Blastcat wrote:

When we find out that we have been wrong, by way of new facts, we adjust what we call true. So, yes. We CALL things true or not. So if data changes, what we call the truth about it changes.

So it seems you indicate that truth is based on man's perspective, interpretation and acknowledgment of the facts, reality and data presently available.

That sounds about right.

If the data, reality or facts change, man is able and has the responsibility to correct the truth.

I don't think we can "correct the truth". But we can change and should change what we call true based on facts.

I agree that new data can contradict beliefs, but I do not hold that it can falsify a
belief.

I don't see the difference between contradicting a belief and falsifying a belief, really.
New facts can affect what we call true.

The only thing we see is new data, the birth of twins, falsifying old data from the doctor. It cannot be said whether the data verified or falsified the belief.

From how I understand your story, the doctor was just wrong. He thought he knew something, and he really didn't know it. So, when the new data came in... that the couple COULD have babies... the doctor should have revised his belief about his prediction based on their condition. The doctor might also want to tell his peers about it by writing a paper.

But the data DID falsify his belief. And if the couple believed the doctor, their belief was also falsified.

Everyone who believed the doctor had their belief falsified by a baby.

Again I state, new data can contradict beliefs, but does not falsify a belief.

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. But I've shown how new data can falsify a belief. New data can also support a belief. If the couple would never have had a baby.. it would have supported the doctor's belief.

If the belief is true, eventually new data will be found to corroborate the belief.

Correction:

New data MAY be found to corroborated a belief, but sometimes, data may not be possible to acquire. There are things. that might be true that we might NEVER get any data about. Some people say that string theory and the multiverse are such things.

If the believe is not true, no new data will ever be found. This is why it is difficult to prove a belief false. We can easily prove facts with data, but not beliefs. Beliefs sometimes rely on data that is only in the future.

Close, but no cigar.

The first part makes sense. If there is no phenomenon, we can't expect any DATA from it. So, if someone claims something exists, and there is no evidence, no data, then it's not likely to BE a true phenomenon.

That's how science works. People propose a phenomenon, check if there is any supporting data. If there ISN'T, then, the conclusion is that there IS NO such phenomenon.

That's how the null hypothesis works. No data, no confirmation of the claimed phenomenon. In science, most hypotheses are falsified. Only very few are proved to be true.

So, using that with the god hypothesis.. no data, no confirmation of the claimed phenomenon.

I asked, Do you reject all claims of truth that you can’t personally verify?
Blastcat responded:

Yes, sometimes I don't think as well as I should.

I know ask, because you rejected a claim of truth you could not verify, does it make it any less truthful?
Is truth subjective, relative or absolute?

1. In my responses, remember I am assuming your definition of what is truth to be correct. I then pose questions to show why I believe this definition to be insufficient. Later I will present my definition for what is truth, but lets not jump ahead.

Thank you for your definitions. I will refer to them often.
As to your question if truth is subjective, relative or absolute,

I would say that truth can be relative and subjective or both, depending on what we are evaluating as true or false. I still don't understand what you mean by objective truth yet, even with your definition:

"Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things"

Absolute truth by this definition is.. something that exists independently, and not in relation to other things. But that definition doesn't make much sense to me. When we say that something is "true", we are making an evaluation, we are comparing a proposition to what we think most likely conforms to reality. Truth, therefore, always stands in relation to other things, because evaluations are relative. In this case, we are evaluating if the proposition conforms to the REST of what we call true.

IF we are making a comparison, we have to evaluate between other things.

Could you clarify what you mean by "objective truth". Your definition doesn't work for me.

2. How do you justify disregarding how to acquire knowledge, if you want to know what is true?

As stated at the top of this post, I am saying we are not comparing which method of acquiring knowledge is superior. Just present your definition and accompanying reasons, and let others decide which is superior.

I think that would be a HUGE mistake.
If we don't care at all about the method we use to say we have the "truth", then how are we to evaluate if what we call true makes any sense or not? Using a bad method will only yield unreliable results, so the epistemic method is CRUCIAL to this debate. Ignore method at your peril. I will be asking you very often "How do you know that's true"? , since it's the question I most often ask of Christian debaters who tell me their religious beliefs. I won't be sparing you the question, either.

I suggest that you get ready for it.

Blastcat wrote:

3. What is distinction that you make between plain ordinary truth and absolute truth?

I will address in my definition of what is truth once we complete this review on how you define truth.

Fair enough.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 5 by Blastcat]

As agreed this is my final round of questioning about your definition and epistemology to the question, what is truth?

note: Just to clear up some confusion, I never said you shouldn't care about the method(s) we use to say we have the "truth", just not to compare which method is superior in this discussion. It is the reader who is to decide which method is superior. Presenting and defending one's epistemology is what this whole discussion is about, but the decision of superiority rests with readers.

So far, I think your position on what is truth, has been defined as follows:
1. Truth is based on man's perspective, interpretation and acknowledgment of the facts, reality and data presently available.
2. When we find out that we have been wrong, by way of new facts, new data or changing reality we adjust what we call true.
3. We cannot 'correct the truth", but we can change and should change what we call true based on facts.
4. New data which allows us to change what we call the truth, can also falsify an old belief.
5. Truth can be relative, subjective or both, depending on what we are evaluating as true or false.

Point 4 is where I would like to provide some additional clarification. I gave the example

For instance, a newly married couple has the belief they will be biological parents to their children. After several years, and many failed attempts, they receive new data from their doctor which informs them it is impossible for them to conceive. This new data has the possibility of falsifying their beliefs, but it has the same possibility of pushing them to "have faith" (remain entrenched) in their original belief. Additional years past, and till no biological children. The data from the doctor is unchanged.

Then after 16 years of contradictory data, the couple conceives and gives birth to twins.

You responded

From how I understand your story, the doctor was just wrong. He thought he knew something, and he really didn't know it.

I apologize if the example was not clear. When I wrote "they receive new data from their doctor", the data referenced was result to a medical test, and not just the doctors opinion. Most people would not equate a doctors opinion as new data. The data from the medical test contradicted the couple's belief, and may have had the temporary appearance of falsifying their belief.

Nevertheless, I think your rationale was explained in the statements:

New data MAY be found to corroborate a belief, but sometimes, data may not be possible to acquire. There are things. that might be true that we might NEVER get any data about.

To Point 5 (truth can be relative and subjective or both), Can you to provide an example of how the truth can be relative and subjective?

Lastly, you ask me about objective truth, but I have never used the term in any of my responses. If you meant to ask about absolute truth, then the definition should stand: "Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things"
An absolute truth should be able to stand on its own merit. It is not dependent on circumstances, perspective or interpretation. Opinions due not impact or alter an absolute truth. If a statement is an absolutely true statement, a change in circumstances, data, or reality will have no impact on the true statement. Non-theoretical mathematics depends on absolute truth, not relative or subjective truths.

[Blastcat]

As agreed this is my final round of questioning about your definition and epistemology to the question, what is truth?

note: Just to clear up some confusion, I never said you shouldn't care about the method(s) we use to say we have the "truth", just not to compare which method is superior in this discussion. It is the reader who is to decide which method is superior. Presenting and defending one's epistemology is what this whole discussion is about, but the decision of superiority rests with readers.

Ok...You don't have to tell us your epistemic method.

So far, I think your position on what is truth, has been defined as follows:
1. Truth is based on man's perspective, interpretation and acknowledgment of the facts, reality and data presently available.
2. When we find out that we have been wrong, by way of new facts, new data or changing reality we adjust what we call true.
3. We cannot 'correct the truth", but we can change and should change what we call true based on facts.
4. New data which allows us to change what we call the truth, can also falsify an old belief.
5. Truth can be relative, subjective or both, depending on what we are evaluating as true or false.

That's pretty much right.

Point 4 is where I would like to provide some additional clarification. I gave the example

For instance, a newly married couple has the belief they will be biological parents to their children. After several years, and many failed attempts, they receive new data from their doctor which informs them it is impossible for them to conceive. This new data has the possibility of falsifying their beliefs, but it has the same possibility of pushing them to "have faith" (remain entrenched) in their original belief. Additional years past, and till no biological children. The data from the doctor is unchanged.

Then after 16 years of contradictory data, the couple conceives and gives birth to twins.

You responded

From how I understand your story, the doctor was just wrong. He thought he knew something, and he really didn't know it.

I apologize if the example was not clear. When I wrote "they receive new data from their doctor", the data referenced was result to a medical test, and not just the doctors opinion.

A doctor's opinion should be based on facts and sound medical practices and tests. That's why we don't go to the neighbor for our medical opinions. I was assuming the doctor in question knew what he was doing. There ARE some bad doctors out there who don't rely on medical science all the time.

Most people would not equate a doctors opinion as new data. The data from the medical test contradicted the couple's belief, and may have had the temporary appearance of falsifying their belief.

I was assuming that the doctor's opinion was based on tests and sound medical knowledge.

Nevertheless, I think your rationale was explained in the statements:

New data MAY be found to corroborate a belief, but sometimes, data may not be possible to acquire. There are things. that might be true that we might NEVER get any data about.

To Point 5 (truth can be relative and subjective or both),


Can you to provide an example of how the truth can be relative and subjective?

If I ask you "Is it true that it's hot today?" You would have to know hot compared to WHAT or to WHERE. The truth of the heat is RELATIVE to other places and things..
If I ask you "What's your favorite ice cream flavor?".... I'm asking for your subjective truth.

I don't know what an absolute truth is supposed to be.. I had asked you to define that.

Lastly, you ask me about objective truth, but I have never used the term in any of my responses. If you meant to ask about absolute truth, then the definition should stand: "Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things"
An absolute truth should be able to stand on its own merit. It is not dependent on circumstances, perspective or interpretation. Opinions due not impact or alter an absolute truth. If a statement is an absolutely true statement, a change in circumstances, data, or reality will have no impact on the true statement. Non-theoretical mathematics depends on absolute truth, not relative or subjective truths.

Oh, yeah, I made a mistake. I wrote "objective" when I meant "absolute".

I'm not at all sure that math depends on absolute truth. Could you give me some evidence for that? The way that I understand it, the truth of "4 + 4 = 8" depends on the truth of the axioms that define the terms occurring in that sentence . Those axioms are not absolute (because there are models that don't satisfy them).

From these facts I conclude that since the axioms are not absolute, the truth of arithmetical statements (such as "4 + 4 = 8") will also be relative. But of course, since math statements generally expresses TAUTOLOGIES.. they HAVE to be true. SO, in that sense they are ALWAYS true, and therefore, maybe absolute. But we can't prove mathematical axioms... except that math works. So.. we have a very good reason to think that mathematical statements are true.

Remember that I call "true" that which comports to reality. If math axioms weren't true, then planes would not fly, and our medical tests would come out random. So, I might be able to agree that mathematical truths are absolute.. in the way that you describe it, but what else is?

God?

I have no idea what other kinds of "truths" can be absolute the way that you say math is. So, math might BE the only place where we can possibly say that truth is absolute in a way.

And by the way, plain ordinary "truth" aren't impacted by opinions either. Reality doesn't get affected by our feelings or our wonderful opinions.

[KingandPriest]

I now present my definition and epistemology to the question, what is truth?

Part I
The question what is truth is the greatest question any human being can ask themselves or someone else. It is an answer to this question which supports every other mechanism possible for identification, rationalization, categorization or any other “tion� known to man. The answer to this question not only informs us about the world around us, but it also informs us about the psychological world within. I also believe the answer to this question informs us about other aspects of why humans function the way they do in regards to morality, consciousness, freewill and character.

Since this question is so important, we should be very cautious in arriving at a conclusion, and not just accept arbitrary definitions. There are three methods humans use to identify truth: (i) subjective, (ii) relative and (iii) absolute. One of these methods demands perfection and completeness while the other two are variable and flexible. I argue that truth must be perfect and complete or else it will inevitably decay and become false. To see why, let’s look at why the first to methods to identify truth would ultimately fail.

Subjective Truth is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: dependent on an individual’s mind or perspective.
When a person bases the truth on subjective reasoning, they allow irrational components of the human experience to decipher truth from false. In addition, subjective truth is free to reject what may actually be true.

Relative Truth is based on existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute.
As circumstances change, individuals take on a relativism position, and are allowed define truth as they see fit. This has spawned relativism which is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. Each man is able to define a relative truth, and can easily ignore or reject fundamental truths about correct and incorrect. What is true for one person, is only relative to their circumstances.

It should be evident why these two methods to identity truth are flawed. Both allow an opportunity for falsehood to become accepted as the truth. The truth must be 100% true. Any component of bias as a result of subjective perspective or relativism will render the truth to be less than 100% true. This leaves only absolute truth as a viable method to identify truth.

Absolute Truth is based on statements, evidence or facts which are deemed independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data. Only absolute truth will be able to support a statement being 100% true.

This leads to my definition for ‘what is truth?’ This definition is two-fold. Truth is absolute, and, Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God (hopefully, you and any readers understand, as a Christian, I am specifically talking about God in the bible)

Part II
It is accepted that the opposite of truth is false. This dichotomy demands truth at its core to be absolute (100% true). Furthermore, truth should be unchangeable by a sequence of events or circumstances.

Example:
1. Person A makes the statement “The sun is shining today.� (Basis for true statement)
2. A change in high pressure creates storms which cause it to rain heavily form the remainder of the 24-hour period. (sequence of events, facts, reality, circumstances which have changed)
3. Person B uses relative or subjective reasoning to make the determination that Person A’s statement is false because the present reality (rain) provides sufficient contrary evidence.
4. The initial statement, if true should be able to withstand a change in facts or reality
5. The statement made by Person A is true even though the clouds have blocked our view of the sun. This statement about the sun is independent of the meteorological events taking place on the earth. The statement “the sun is shining today� is true because the sun is shining in outer space. regardless of the sequence of meteorological events on the earth. The statement “the sun is shining today� is absolute in its sole dependence on the sun.

Part III
Back to my definition for what is truth. Since I hold that truth is absolute, its absoluteness must have an unchangeable or perfect core to adhere to. This is why I contend that God, who is perfect, is the only being capable of fitting the requirements to sustain truth.

Truth needs to be substantiated. I hold, God is the only being who is not changed by any sequence of events, facts, reality, or circumstances. It is this requirement that makes God capable of substantiating truth.

The reason I use God as my basis for what is truth, is that I have come to realize that non-perfect things such as physical evidence, facts and reality change over time. Only a perfect unchangeable being such as God can define, articulate and justify what is true vs what is false.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 8 by KingandPriest]

Hi, KingandPriest.

First of all, I would like to thank you for all the effort that you have put into this. I agree with some parts, and disagree totally with other. You make a few claims that I would like you to back up with some facts, if you could.

Also, as you might have guessed, I do have a lot of questions about what you state. I'm especially curious at to HOW you have established that God exists and how it can ( He can?, She can? , They can? ) be a perfect truth.

The questions I have fall generally into two categories and I really need all two kinds answered if we wish for me to be able to follow you at all.

And they are:

1. Questions about what you mean. Sometimes, I just don't understand AT ALL what you mean, so you will have to re-write it completely in other words, and possibly give me an example of what you mean.
2. There are things that my debate opponents write that I find problems with. Either logic problems, or factual problems. I usually let it be known that I consider those statements WRONG... And why I consider them wrong.

Now.. I HAVE a whole lot of questions, so I listed them at the bottom.. I am not trying to flood you with questions... But you DO make a lot of claims...

Take your time with them.
Good luck.


Here we go...

Part I
The question what is truth is the greatest question any human being can ask themselves or someone else. It is an answer to this question which supports every other mechanism possible for identification, rationalization, categorization or any other “tion� known to man. The answer to this question not only informs us about the world around us, but it also informs us about the psychological world within. I also believe the answer to this question informs us about other aspects of why humans function the way they do in regards to morality, consciousness, freewill and character.

I agree. The truth is very important to know.

Since this question is so important, we should be very cautious in arriving at a conclusion, and not just accept arbitrary definitions.

I REALLY agree with this. Vague, unsubstantiated definitions are no good at all. Also, I would add that not knowing how to ARRIVE at the truth is also not good at all.

We should know and use the best possible method to distinguish what is true from what is opinion or false. Otherwise, we won't be able TO tell the difference, or be mistaken when we try.

That's why I was puzzled when you said we shouldn't even DISCUSS our epistemic methodology.

There are three methods humans use to identify truth: (i) subjective, (ii) relative and (iii) absolute.

When I looked into the possible theories on truth, I stopped counting at 20... There seems to be a LOT of theories concerning how to acquire the truth. But for the sake of the argument, I can agree that there are only three.. it does make it a bit simpler to deal with. But let's not forget that people have been arguing what the truth is for a very long time.

One of these methods demands perfection and completeness while the other two are variable and flexible.

Methods? You aren't describing METHODS.. you are describing KINDS of truths.
But I hardly see how the method that demands perfection would be accessible to HUMANS.

How are (i) subjective truth, (ii) relative truth and (iii) absolute truth METHODS for knowing the truth?

I argue that truth must be perfect and complete or else it will inevitably decay and become false.

Ok, NOTED.

Arguments have REASONING.. right?
I'll be asking for your reasoning.

To see why, let’s look at why the first to methods to identify truth would ultimately fail.

Subjective Truth is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: dependent on an individual’s mind or perspective.

I'm sorry.. but this isn't a method for identifying truth. Subjective truth is a KIND of truth. You are making a mistake.

When a person bases the truth on subjective reasoning, they allow irrational components of the human experience to decipher truth from false. In addition, subjective truth is free to reject what may actually be true.

Yep, I agree.

And there is NOTHING wrong with it. I talk about "subjective truth" when I am interpreting a poem, or discussing aesthetics. I do that because the SUBJECTS being evaluated are subjective. Art is VERY important to me... but is SUBJECTIVE.

You seem to be completely underestimating the subjective experience. You might not like Beethoven or Bach, but I do, and I can also tell you why I believe that Beethoven is more TRUE than Bach FOR ME, even though, I know that for someone else, the reverse might be true. Or for someone else, NEITHER are true.. and for very good but very personal, subjective reasons, too.

You discount the subjective truth. ... I feel sorry for you if you have never deeply understood a subjective "truth". There is still time. I urge you to go find those out.

Human culture is BASED on subjective truths... and each and every one of them are JUST as true and JUST as imaginative and JUST as moving.. but it does take a bit of education. There are books.

Relative Truth is based on existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute.

So, by relative truth, do you mean something like this: There are blue things and there are things that are NOT blue.

There are rocks and things that are NOT rocks.

The sun is shining and the sun is on the other side of the world, it's NIGHT...

Time slows down the faster I go.....

My aunt is a relative.

Something like that?

I don't really understand your definition. It seems that EVERY truth evaluation compares itself with another thing or another concept.

I think you should really define first what you mean by TRUTH.. just plain truth.. not the kinds of truth.. but the general class of things we call TRUE as opposed to false.

I gave you MY short and breezy definition, so what about yours?

It MIGHT just help you define what the truth is... if you actually GAVE us a definition.

As circumstances change, individuals take on a relativism position, and are allowed define truth as they see fit.

Well, people are allowed to believe anything that they like. But please tell me what circumstance DOESN'T change?

And BY THE WAY......

Aren't you defining "truth" the way that YOU SEE FIT? Didn't your ideas about the truth CHANGE as you saw fit?

I'm sorry.. this makes not much sense to me.

This has spawned relativism which is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

I agree... those kinds of truths are not absolute. What we call true changes.... or at least can potentially change and SHOULD change.. as we get new data.

Each man is able to define a relative truth, and can easily ignore or reject fundamental truths about correct and incorrect. What is true for one person, is only relative to their circumstances.

Yep, and people can and are often WRONG about what they consider to be true.

It should be evident why these two methods to identity truth are flawed.

It might be evident to you... but it isn't yet to me.
Sorry.

Subjective truth isn't flawed, if we are evaluating something subjective, like the flavor of ice cream.

Relative truth isn't flawed, because, as far as I can tell, that's all we GOT. And planes fly, and my doctor saved my life. Relative truth WORKS.

I don't know what you mean by "flawed" at all.

Both allow an opportunity for falsehood to become accepted as the truth.

I think you're wrong about that.
Subjective truth cannot be wrong if it's internally consistent and valid.

As for relative truth... we all make mistakes.. but I don't know what you mean by "allow for an opportunity for falsehood". Relative means "anything goes"?

I hardly THINK so myself.
Everything that I hold to be true is RELATIVELY true.

Not you?

The truth must be 100% true.

Nope. Not at all.
Not even in science is that correct.

You are just wrong there.

Why do you think that truth has to be 100% ?

Any component of bias as a result of subjective perspective or relativism will render the truth to be less than 100% true.

But now, you are talking about ERROR...and humans are just prone to error. So, any ERROR will render the truth probability lower.

But how would you exclude yourself from error?
By being perfect?

And to me, truth is a statement of probability, always. I would like to TRY for 100% ... but I don't think that I have any knowledge with 100% probability... I'm just not perfect myself. Are YOU?

This leaves only absolute truth as a viable method to identify truth.

I could guess at what that means, but I would just be most probably wrong.. so I will ask you to clarify that instead.. You say that only an absolute truth is a method to know the truth.

It takes a truth to know the truth... Sorry.
Doesn't make sense to me right now.

Could you explain what you mean by "This leaves only absolute truth as a viable method to identify truth."?

Absolute Truth is based on statements, evidence or facts which are deemed independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data.

Which are DEEMED

Just HOW are they "deemed"?

What is the epistemic method by which one "deems" something to be independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data.?

Only absolute truth will be able to support a statement being 100% true.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly ( I'm thinking I don't )

Are you saying that:

We would need some absolute truth about something in order to support a claim that something else is absolutely true. ( 100% true is pretty much absolute, right? )

So, in order to establish that X is absolutely true.. we would have to know ... that Y is absolutely true... and THAT supports the claim that X is absolutely true.

What does X being true have anything to do with the claim that Y is true?

Either your idea is not logical or I'm missing something here.

This leads to my definition for ‘what is truth?’ This definition is two-fold. Truth is absolute,

Well, ok, you claim that truth is absolute. You didn't really offer any evidence for it, but you do claim it, don't you?

I think your reasoning is that you can't imagine that truth can be anything BUT absolute... and that therefore, it is absolute. And that is the argument from ignorance. I either don't understand your reasoning, or you are using faulty logic.

How do you know when the truth of a proposition is ABSOLUTE ?

and, Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God

Oh... good luck proving THAT one.

What method do you use to KNOW that "Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God" ?

(hopefully, you and any readers understand, as a Christian, I am specifically talking about God in the bible)

Oh, even WORSE if you have to prove THAT one on top of everything else.

So far, to make your case you will have to :

1. Prove that truth IS absolute in the way that you define it.
2. Prove that a god is the cause of that...
3. Prove the god is the Christian god specifically.

YIKES...

How you gonna do THAT?

Part II
It is accepted that the opposite of truth is false.

NOPE... I'm a stickler for grammar and spelling. It is NOT accepted.
The opposite of truth is falsehood.

Just sayin'. But errors are errors.. even small errors are errors.

This dichotomy demands truth at its core to be absolute (100% true).

I have NO idea where that came out of.
Could you explain IN DETAIL ... how you get from truth is the opposite of falsehood TO truth demands to be absolute?

You completely FORGOT to explain that.
I have to reject the claim until you do.

Furthermore, truth should be unchangeable by a sequence of events or circumstances.

BUT YOU HAVEN'T even TRIED to say why.

Could you say why it SHOULD be unchangeable?
You're going to have to get used to support your claims with some EVIDENCE please... it's a rule in here.

Example:
1. Person A makes the statement “The sun is shining today.� (Basis for true statement)

Its what I usually call A CLAIM.

2. A change in high pressure creates storms which cause it to rain heavily form the remainder of the 24-hour period. (sequence of events, facts, reality, circumstances which have changed)

Well now.. he was wrong.. the sun isn't shinning. IT'S RAINING.

3. Person B uses relative or subjective reasoning to make the determination that Person A’s statement is false because the present reality (rain) provides sufficient contrary evidence.

I will be person B. He sounds smart.

4. The initial statement, if true should be able to withstand a change in facts or reality

Yes, by true I mean which comports with reality. It's raining.. not sunny.
Person A was what is technically known as "WRONGO".

5. The statement made by Person A is true even though the clouds have blocked our view of the sun. This statement about the sun is independent of the meteorological events taking place on the earth. The statement “the sun is shining today� is true because the sun is shining in outer space. regardless of the sequence of meteorological events on the earth. The statement “the sun is shining today� is absolute in its sole dependence on the sun.

Person A is now playing with words. I hate that kind of thing.
I call it deceitful.

We all know what "the sun is shinning today" is SUPPOSED to mean in a normal conversation.

Person A is a liar or a joker, or both, but NOT someone I would take seriously.

And I have NO IDEA what you were trying to prove by that anecdote, except that person A should not be bothered with.

Part III
Back to my definition for what is truth. Since I hold that truth is absolute, its absoluteness must have an unchangeable or perfect core to adhere to.

I don't know why you conflate ABSOLUTE with IMMUTABLE. But my real problem is that you haven't bothered to EXPLAIN that bit of reasoning EITHER.

COULD YOU DO THAT in the future?

This is why I contend that God, who is perfect, is the only being capable of fitting the requirements to sustain truth.

Contend away.
But if you ever decide to PROVE that or explain how you GOT THERE... let us know.

Truth needs to be substantiated.

I agree. People in here make ALL KINDS of truth claims, and hardly EVER bother to substantiate them. You are doing the same thing NOW.

I urge you to change your ways.
PLEASE substantiate your truth claims.

I hold, God is the only being who is not changed by any sequence of events, facts, reality, or circumstances. It is this requirement that makes God capable of substantiating truth.

Hold on to that belief, it sounds very important to you ...

BUT if you ever want to prove it?.... PLEASE let us know.
Otherwise, I will simply IGNORE the claim as unsubstantiated.

The reason I use God as my basis for what is truth, is that I have come to realize that non-perfect things such as physical evidence, facts and reality change over time.

And that is bad because.........

WHY IS IT BAD ?

Only a perfect unchangeable being such as God can define, articulate and justify what is true vs what is false.

Says WHO?

Oh, right, you say that. So it MUST be true?

It looks like you imagine that the truth is anything that YOU claim it is....
And you are... our self-appointed truth detector?



WOW... I have made a TON of questions, haven't I?

I will do one bit of extra work for you right now.. I will go through the post and list each and every one of my questions here below.

I hope it's appreciated:

1. Why are you hesitant to describe your epistemic method for acquiring the truth?
2. How are (i) subjective truth, (ii) relative truth and (iii) absolute truth METHODS for knowing the truth?
3. What circumstance doesn't change?
4. How are you NOT defining truth as you see fit? You said that was wrong.
5. Do you think that what we call truth should NOT change even though we get new data?
6. Could you explain how what you take as true is not RELATIVE to something else?
7. Could you explain how your definition of absolute isn't a SUBJECTIVE decision?
8. Do you think that science relies on ABSOLUTE truths or relative truths?
9. Why do you think that truth has to be 100% ?
10. How can you know something in an absolute way.. are you perfect?
11. Could you explain what you mean by "This leaves only absolute truth as a viable method to identify truth."?
12. Do you believe that people can be WRONG about what they consider to be true?
13. What is the epistemic method by which one "deems" something to be independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data.?
14. What does X ( let's say you meant God ) being true have anything to do with the claim that Y is true ( where Y represents ANY truth claim ) ?
15. How do you know when the truth of a proposition is ABSOLUTE ?
16.
What method do you use to KNOW that "Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God" ?
17. Prove that truth IS absolute in the way that you define it.
18. Prove that a god is the cause of that...
19. Prove the god is the Christian god specifically.
20. Could you explain how you get from "truth is the opposite of falsehood" TO "truth demands to be absolute"? I don't see any link between the two propositions, and I don't see any data at all to support the second premise.
21. And I have NO IDEA what you were trying to prove by that shinning sun anecdote, except that person A should not be bothered with. Could you explain that please?
22. Why do you conflate the word ABSOLUTE with the word IMMUTABLE?
23. Why do you consider it a bad thing that reality changes? Don't you like a bit of change?
24. Are you to be who arbitrates what is truth and what is not for the rest of us?

[KingandPriest]

1. Why are you hesitant to describe your epistemic method for acquiring the truth?
2. How are (i) subjective truth, (ii) relative truth and (iii) absolute truth METHODS for knowing the truth?
3. What circumstance doesn't change?
4. How are you NOT defining truth as you see fit? You said that was wrong.
5. Do you think that what we call truth should NOT change even though we get new data?
6. Could you explain how what you take as true is not RELATIVE to something else?
7. Could you explain how your definition of absolute isn't a SUBJECTIVE decision?
8. Do you think that science relies on ABSOLUTE truths or relative truths?
9. Why do you think that truth has to be 100% ?
10. How can you know something in an absolute way.. are you perfect?
11. Could you explain what you mean by "This leaves only absolute truth as a viable method to identify truth."?
12. Do you believe that people can be WRONG about what they consider to be true?
13. What is the epistemic method by which one "deems" something to be independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data.?
14. What does X ( let's say you meant God ) being true have anything to do with the claim that Y is true ( where Y represents ANY truth claim ) ?
15. How do you know when the truth of a proposition is ABSOLUTE ?
16.
What method do you use to KNOW that "Truth is every statement, principle or law that comes from God" ?
17. Prove that truth IS absolute in the way that you define it.
18. Prove that a god is the cause of that...
19. Prove the god is the Christian god specifically.
20. Could you explain how you get from "truth is the opposite of falsehood" TO "truth demands to be absolute"? I don't see any link between the two propositions, and I don't see any data at all to support the second premise.
21. And I have NO IDEA what you were trying to prove by that shinning sun anecdote, except that person A should not be bothered with. Could you explain that please?
22. Why do you conflate the word ABSOLUTE with the word IMMUTABLE?
23. Why do you consider it a bad thing that reality changes? Don't you like a bit of change?
24. Are you to be who arbitrates what is truth and what is not for the rest of us?

I would first like to thank you for your responses, and the work you put into organizing them at the end. It really helped me dive through it much quicker. I will respond and refer to each question by number.

1. I am not hesitant in describing my epistemic method for acquiring truth. To be sure, I will sum up my thought process. I stated that (i) subjective truth, (ii) relative truth and (iii) absolute truth are all options a person can use to acquire truth. After defining each method, I then described the flaws of subjective and relative truth. When a person is using subjective reasoning, they use the method of their mind to acquire truth. When a person is using relative reasoning, they use relationships, circumstances or some other evidence to acquire truth. Both of these methods, subjectivism and relativism can help a person arrive certain level of truth, but there will always be a “grey� area these two methods cannot fully explain with certainty. Its just like you said

truth is a statement of probability, always. I would like to TRY for 100%

I agree that truth is a statement of probability, and therefore seek out the method or epistemology which can arrive at 100%. Since subjectivism and relativism admittedly fall short based on definition alone, I am left with absolutism. Absolutism on the other hand says “truth is ______, accept it or reject it�. I then find that absolutism demands that truth be all or nothing. In order for a statement of truth to be absolute, it must be 100% true despite changes to circumstances, new data, or other variable. The method for acquiring truth is simply the method which promises the most accurate probability of truth.

2. It may have been the semantics I used when describing epistemology. Subjective truth = subjectivism. Relative truth = relativism. Absolute truth = Absolutism. Since you held that truth can be subjective or relative in your definition and epistemology, I did not think I had to redefine how subjective, relative or absolute could be methods for knowing truth.

3. Circumstances do change, and vary from person to person. This is exactly why I concluded subjective and relative methods for determining truth are inadequate and absolute truth is the only viable method to identify truth. Since you state you are a stickler for grammar, I will correct that statement to reflect

absolute truth is the most viable method to identify truth

This should clarify that I am not saying subjectivism and relativism cannot be used to acquire truth. Only that these methods will always result in a less than perfect ‘truth’. Truthfulness is a measure of how much truth is contained in a statement. By definition of truthfulness

1The fact of being true; truth

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... uthfulness
This definition seems to demand absolute truth, or 100% truth.

4. I am only making an observation of what truth is and what it demands. Since subjectivism only requires something to be mostly true, and relativism bases truth on circumstances, these do not fulfil the requirements for acceptable epistemologies.

5. My point is we can call something true but that doesn’t mean it is true. Making a statement is easy. If we are searching for truth however, our opinion should not matter. There is a different between what is true vs what we have learned to date. If I make a statement about the universe and say it is true, it should stand the test of time. On the other hand, if I make a statement and say it is accurate as far as I know or as far as what we have learned to date, this statement can easily be revised. The key difference is the second statement is not proclaimed to be true, only verified up to the current record.

6. The truth or true statements should stand even when circumstances or events change. Thermodynamics has a very well-known example of an absolute truth. The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. This statement or truth is independent of any event which may take place in the known universe. It is this type of absolute truth which allows scientist to build models, make hypothesis’ and test other claims.

7. Absolute isn’t subjective because it is not dependent on my ability or lack thereof to interpret. Absolute truth remains unaffected by my acceptance or rejection.

8. Some aspects of science rely on absolute truths, see #6. Any branch of science which uses math to support its positions, uses the tautology of mathematics as its basis for truth. The universal truth of tautology makes it absolute. Other branches of science only need a relative amount of truth to be deemed acceptable. Natural sciences such as biology or geology will rely more heavily on relative truth and subjective truth.

9. Is a partial truth (some truth and some falsehood) the truth at all? The answer would have to be no. The truth is either wholly true, or wholly false. The two (truth and falsehood) are mutually exclusive. When a Christian is asked how do they know what they believe is true, no one is seeking a subjective or relative answer. On the contrary, the answer/evidence given must be absolute. Why is it ok to only demand 100% truth when it comes to faith, but in every other area of life, a lower standard is acceptable?

10. The only way to know something in an absolute way is by faith. (I know you will reject this, but it is the simplest way I could articulate it) As I’ve said before, an absolute truth just is. It doesn’t matter if I accept it or not, it just is, and it will always be. I can either choose to accept it or reject it. In a similar way, when scientist state energy can neither be created or destroyed, my understanding, acceptance or rejection of this truth is insignificant. IF a person chooses to accept this absolute truth, they can go on to other discoveries and learn more about their environment.

11. You stated you agree that

When a person bases the truth on subjective reasoning, they allow irrational components of the human experience to decipher truth from false. In addition, subjective truth is free to reject what may actually be true.

Is it not logical to presume the irrational components of the human experience will impact the probability statement of truth. Once we introduce imperfect minds and faculties, the truth will get degraded and loose its pure state. The same is true of relativism. Both erode away a component of truth. Any statement that is not 100% true is a total falsehood. After all, the definition of false and falsehood is anything that is not true. No matter how small, if it is 1% not true, it is 100% false. Subjective and relative reasoning allow for less than 100% truth. Absolute truth only allows truth to be 100%, all or none.

12. Using the word wrong instead of false is just a play on words to mitigate the emotional response of an individual. When a person considers something to be true, it will either be proven true or false. We say right or wrong to validate an amount of political correctness, but this discussion is about the core truths man chooses to accept or reject. Right and wrong are subjective words to describe decisions made by individuals. It doesn’t really have a place in the conversation of truth and falsehood. A statement can be the truth; does that make it right or wrong or neither? Once again, the truth stands independent of even right and wrong.

13. The method one uses to determine if something is independent, self-sufficient, and not in relation to other events, circumstances, facts or data, is simply to test it. Place the statement or truth through a myriad of tests and see if it remains unaffected. If something is independent, it will not be moved by circumstances.

14. At first glance nothing. Where the connection comes into play is that any absolute statement or thing will always be unchangeable. This unchangeable nature points to perfection. I only make the connection, that X (God) is perfect, and Y (absolute truth) needs perfection to exist. So I postulate that Y found its source in X, or Y comes from X.

15. I don’t. I have to test it.

16. See #14

17. See #11. The truth cannot be partially true and partially false. This is both illogical and full of errors.

18. I never said God caused truth. Just that truth comes from God. There is a difference between causation and correlation. I cannot tell you what causes something to be true. I contend instead that the truth is, plain and simple. In the same way energy is accepted as just ‘being’, truth just is.

19. The characteristics of truth line up with God. See #14. The bible basically tells its readers God is. Readers are not told how, why but are just confronted with a truth right away. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God…�. Later we find God telling us that he is impervious to change, Malachi 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I change not�. Many times we are told that God is perfect and his “ways� are perfect. John 4:24 “For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth� Notice it says in spirit and in truth, and not in spirit and the truth. This communicates the permanence and absoluteness of truth which can only come from God. Since it comes from Him, it shares some of His characteristics.

20. See #11 and #17

21. Just because you have an opinion on the type of conversation does not make Person A’s statement false. You have a subjective opinion on whether Peron A should be “bothered with.� What does this have to do with the truth. My question is was the statement made by Person A truthful?

22. Absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; total http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/absolute

Immutable: Unchanging over time or unable to be changed
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... /immutable

If something is absolute, it cannot be diminished (changed) in any way. This would mean overtime it would be unchanged or unable to be changed. If something is immutable, is will remain unchanged (cannot be diminished). Thus by definition alone, it is a safe argument to make that absolute and immutable can be conflated into a single position.

23. I do not consider it a bad thing that reality changes. I consider it flawed to make one’s basis for truth on something that is known to constantly changes. For example, if you wanted to invest in a low risk stock, you would not invest in a stock known to have constant volatility. As stated in my opening, the question what is truth is the greatest question any human being can ask themselves or someone else. It would then follow to use the most conservative and accurate method available for acquiring truth and not select something as volatile subjectivism or relativism.

24. No. All I can do is explain how I arrived at what is truth. I can express what I believe, what I know and what I understand. From there it is up to you (meaning each individual) to accept or reject. If absolutism is the best available method for acquiring 100% truth and not a fraudulent knock off, then it must stand alone. Subjective and relative reasoning would be relegated as a means to process information and make decisions, but not to find truth.

I prefer to be cautious as to what gets defined as “the truth� vs acceptable because it is the best available information. For example, I don’t know the truth on whether Pluto is planet in our solar system. I read the information provided by cosmologists and accept the claim that Pluto is not a planet based on the information available today. Nothing presented can be remotely close to absolute on the matter, so it cannot be the truth (absolute).