can you make a valid argument against absolute truth without believing in it? If you say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, you have just made an absolute statement. I'm interested in the ideas out there that refute this logic.
2007-01-20 08:35:55 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No I can't.
2007-01-20 08:41:05 · answer #1 · answered by Lost. at. Sea. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are actually two issues here.
- Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
- If so, is it possible to know what that truth is?
My answers to these are, respectively, Yes, and No. Firstly, we must suppose that the universe runs according to some set of laws; were this not so, it would be chaos and we could predict nothing. These laws comprise an absolute truth. Given this affirmative answer to the first question, we are now obliged to address the second one: can we know all of that absolute truth? I can see no method of proving the case either affirmatively or negatively, but the evidence suggests that the answer is probably No. We discovered atoms, and then we discovered hadrons, and then we discovered quarks; do we have reason to believe that these, too, are not subdividable in some way? At present, we don't. If anyone ever figures out the Ultimate Theory of Everything, we may have an affirmative answer, but for now, we don't.
2007-01-20 08:48:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My question is whether you're asking if one can make a valid argument against absolute truth without believing in absolute truth, or without believing in the argument.
Of course, in either case, a valid argument can be made without belief.
2007-01-20 08:47:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Richard Rorty is a great philosopher at Stanford who does not believe in "absolute truth" and his arguments are very good. But of course he does not use the premise of "truth" to refute it, as you did.
Book: Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity
2007-01-20 08:41:08 · answer #4 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truth is absolute, independent, and immutable, and is not subject to opinion, speculation, understanding, perception, perspective, belief, circumstance, time, place, observation, quantification, qualification, or confirmation.
Yes, you can make the arguement, but it won't change the truth.
Making an absolute statement does not qualify the statement as true.
2007-01-20 08:45:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
belief and truth are apples and oranges. If something is absolute truth, then that leaves out any doubt, therefore negates the need for belief. If it is the truth then I don't get the choice to believe, because it is absolutely true.
2007-01-20 08:40:34 · answer #6 · answered by drpsholder 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
not only that, I can make an argument FOR absolute truth and not believe it either.
2007-01-20 08:39:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Something I learned back in sixth grade math....
A fact doesn't need you to understand it or believe in it in order for it to be a fact....
What is absolute truth??
2007-01-20 08:54:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the trick is in defining an absolute truth
2007-01-20 08:41:03 · answer #9 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is called circular logic. It is a statement that you claim proves itself.
2007-01-20 08:39:34 · answer #10 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is totally impossible you have to believe a thing exists in order to believe in it and, or not believe in it.
2007-01-20 08:45:07 · answer #11 · answered by Laela (Layla) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋