One particularly odd thing I've heard from certain theists is that, because there are absolute truths in the universe, God obviously exists because we couldn't understand these truths without God, or a god-like figure who made these absolute truths.
My opinion is that this is silly. The laws or "truths" of the universe fall into the categories of science. These are just the laws of the universe as we observe them; the gravitational constant, the speed of light etc. All these show is the nature of the universe, as far as we can discern. The nature of the universe is in no way an indicator of an intelligent designer.
Is this a fair conclusion? Do you feel that I've done this "God or absurdity" argument justice? I'm open to criticism; I'm not the most eloquent of gents.
The terms "absolute" and "truth" are always up for grabs. What is so wonderfully perplexing about being a human is that all we can know about the natural world comes through our senses, and all of it is completely dependent on your perspective. The human brain needs conclusions to problems, and our imagination was the best way to achieve conclusions before we figured out science.... and even now absolute truth depends on each person's individual programming and prerogative.
I went off topic a little, but to answer the question I don't think that human beings have the physical facilities to understand absolute reality.
Firstly it is necessary to accept that there are three kinds of truths.
Mathematical/logical truth. Something is mathematically or logically true if it is derived using the laws of these disciplines. Such laws must be consistent - they must not permit you to derive two opposite things by using different ones of them.
Religious truth. Something is true if it is logically consistent with what is written in a holy book. Contradictions are resolved by interpretation of what is written and may be challenged.
Empirical truth. Truth of the natural world established by observation of it. An hypothesis and a theory are proposed to explain an observation in terms of other observations.
So there is absolute truth in (1) according to its consistent laws. There is absolute truth in (2) only if you accept what is written in the holy book. There is no absolute truth in (3) because inductive logic fails in (1).
Basically, there are no absolute truths unless you invent one.
Finally someone who's had an encounter with an absolute truther, just because i 100% believe i put shampoo in my hair this morning doesn't make good real..
Absurdity seems to be a theological specialty. Basic truths of the universe are all around us and our experience so far indicates that they are absolutes. Gravity is an example. It has been our experience that when we trip over something, we always move toward the larger mass, in this case the Earth. This has, during the sum total of our experience, not varied. Although it is true that for a very long time we didn't understand the mechanics involved, we surely do now, and it appears to be an absolute truth.
Is there a reasonable argument one can use to say that a god or gods has nothing to do with these truths? Not really. We can say that we don't accept the posit, but we can't say they are wrong. At least not legitimately. Where you and I may agree that this is nonsense, we can't prove that they are wrong because we can't prove there is no god or gods.
Hmm. Is gravity an absolute, though? It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe we currently occupy, but is this the sole possible reality? With an even slightly different composition of gases in the early universe, 13.8 billion years later, the laws of physics would be completely different. So, I don't think that even this is an absolute truth, because it's only true insofar as we understand that this current universe has this particular law.
We live in our Universe that is structured as it is and it is our reality. If we play the hypothetical game, we can imagine an infinity of different universes with an infinite number of possibilities, but that is nothing more than mental gymnastics. So, even though I did not say gravity is an absolute ("...appears to be an..." ), we are apparently limited to this reality and must therefor couch our comments accordingly.
If a thing exists, then there must be an explanation behind it. Science is the method we use to extract information and interpret. To say we can't understand is demeaning the capacity and potential of the human mind. Maybe we can't understand a thing just yet, all that is needed is time. We are perfectly capable of understanding our reality and science is propelling us through this everyday. To say we don't understand is to underestimate and diminish our accomplishments as humans. We've come a long way and we're rapidly evolving
Absolute truth can be found when all the moving parts are found and recorded and this is absolutely impossible.
Laws of the universe are descriptive not Prescriptive. And all of the universe that we have observed is just that, what we have observed. we have no idea what lies beyond the furthest galaxy that has been discovered. We have no idea if the Laws of Nature that we have discovered in the observable universe are the same beyond. There are many theories of what may lie beyond but the only honest answer is to say I don't know.
That is a dumb ass god of the gaps argument from ignorance. The pathetic thing is that after displaying utter stupidity with that faulty logic the theist will then say that the God that exist just happens to be the god that they believe in rather than one of the millions of other god propositions. In the end it comes down to the theist being extremely ignorant of logic and reason or an incredible amount of dishonesty. Makes me sick.
This question is certainly ambiguous. Absolute truth is a relative term. Quantum mechanics, in a nut shell, explains that the wave function for finding electrons is based on a probability. We can't know for sure the position or the momentum of any one electron without uncertainty. Furthermore, wavefunction was solved for the hydrogen atoms, but the rest of the wavefunctions for the rest of the atoms and molecules are very strong approximations. It never stops amazing me at how fallacious their arguments are. Watching a theist make conclusions about the creation of the universe was amusing in the beginning, but now I have just heard enough bullshit from them.
"God obviously exists because we can't understand these truths without god" is one example of such a fallacious statement and a circular argument, for someone to claim god must exist because they merely don't have enough science background to understand the physical side of the universe is pretty sad.
Well said! It thoroughly confounds me when people decide they understand the true nature of reality, or, even worse, that they believe what some one else told them about reality. The only thing I'm certain of is doubt. I hesitate to tell someone their beliefs are wrong but I'm quick to tell them I doubt their beliefs are correct!
I agree with everything you say except for the second sentence. I'd prefer to say 'There is no such thing as absolute truth'.
I used to think there wasn't such a thing. Now I'm on the complete opposite opinion. YES THERE ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Were else would your brain be able to perceive things from?
Do you have any arguments to back this up? The way I see it, our brains function in ways that are in accordance with the laws of the universe; or at least, such is our understanding. The way we view the universe has entirely to do with our knowledge of it.
Absolute truth as a concept has been hijacked by the religious to assign to their fake god. I don't believe there is an absolute truth just like there is no god.
"Ultimate Truth" may exist. The problem with saying, "God obviously exists because we couldn't understand these truths without God..." is that it implies that we do understand absolute truth. It is a self proving argument. Those fail the test of proof. It is circular logic. One thing proves the other thing because the other thing proves the first thing.
We continue to refine our understanding of the things that we find to be constant. I appreciate your insightful approach to this religious sentiment.
Absolute physical facts, entities, and processes exist. But,. those differ from our perceptions, which, in turn, form the bases for our formulations of "truth." Our perception of full reality is always limited, incomplete, and often incorrect. a good philosophical definition of :truth" intense belief so strong that we are willing to act on it." There is absolute reality, but not absolute truth.