Do you agree or no?Explain why?

Question

I was fliping through the tv channels last night,and there really wasnt anything good on,but I settled on this one channel where a man was speaking to an audience(think it was like a school or university or something),and after about 30-40 second of listening to him speak I finally reealize He was talkin abot God.Jesus inparticular. Well He said this one thing that I decided to ask and see if ya'll agree with it.I forget the man's name,but remember what he said.

"If there is no god,then there is no truth.Cuase everything would be relative to a persons experience."

Do you agree with this statement or no?Explain your reasoning please?

Answer 1

I agree. God is truth. He is the only righteous one. Our righteousness is of him only. Everything else just boils down to perspective. He is God alone!

Answer 2

That's a trick question, Besides, It's very hard to put your faith and hope,feelings down in writing .Let alone , have too explain them.
What I can comment about is ,... the only rational thing that man said was 'Cause,everything is'......And that (to me) is wrong. so I'll break these two sentences down. 'if there is no God, then theres no truth.' That tells me, this mans' reasoning comes from one place. So, he hasn't the luxury of thinking that way....when will we ever learn...when? And the truth is all around you, but people ,still, fall short of '' Know thy self', can you truly do this?any way.......I can only use this part of sentence #2
' Everything is relative to a persons experience.' ..... I am a strong believer ,that 95%of a persons behavioral make-up is Envirnment.........
sorry not much help here, I tryed.
good luck on your home work.

Answer 3

My brother and I have a running joke between us that we used to piss off my mom. Whenever she starts talking about religion, we both pipe in, "I am God!". This at first sounds egocentric and just plain stupid, but when you think about it, it does have some truth. Everything you know IS relative to your experience. You are only you and the world is only seen through your perspective. You create the world around you with your thoughts and point of view and there is no sure way of knowing that your world is the 'true' world. I am agnostic and don't believe or disbelieve in God, but that statement does illustrate a good reason why people have to believe in God. When you believe in something larger than yourself that has a set purpose and plan for you, life becomes easier and less painful to live through. Having a God makes everything sure and gives proof to your world. But really, that statement is only a conundrum because what is truth? Can your perspective be the truth? Or does truth have to have a larger meaning?

Confusing, but I kind of think that your perspective is the truth to you and because you are the only one that you know is true, it has to be 'true' truth.

Answer 4

Define good without God. Hitler thought he was a good guy, and
mother Teresa thought she was good. Almost everyone believes they are good people. Even many of the people on death row believe they are good people.

Some people think killing unborn babies is good.
Some people believe that killing a baby is the most abhorrent thing anyone can do.

If God doesn't decide what is good who does?
.
If their is no absolute standard for right and wrong then I believe the only other options are that people make up right and wrong based on preference, but if preference decides what is right then
what can we do or say when someone prefers to steal our car, rather then buy his or her own?

Or we "evolved" ethics and morals.
But if we elvolved ethics what is wrong with things like rape that favor the stronger of the species? What is wrong with stealing after all the people who get away with stealing are either smarter, stronger or sneakier, and evolution favors these things.
If these things are wrong and I believe they are then evolution can not be responsible for morals.

What is left?

Answer 5

Yes, I do.

If it were that easy, then everyone who believed in God would agree on what is true. I shouldn't have to explain to you that that simply is the farthest thing from reality I can think of.

Everything is relative, but as a society we can come to conclusions about what is reasonable or not. Some things are easy (murder is bad) and some are difficult (is it immoral to eat a cat? a cow? a puppy?).

Relativity doesn't scare me, but someone who claims absolute truth (with no real evidence) scares the crap out of me. Most folks, however, are content with the idea because they LIKE the idea, not because it is true.

Answer 6

a million) Indo-pak are nevertheless the main important contention in cricket - Agreed Dwayne Bravo is the wonderful 'clever' All rounder than others (contemporary gamers) - Agreed 3) Mohammad Amir is a greater robust Bowler Than Wayne Parnell - Dis-Agreed 4) South africa is a nicely balanced area than different communities - Dis-Agreed 5) AB de Villiers is the main stylish participant than different gamers - Dis-Agreed 6) Brett Lee can not greater be a 'useful Bowler' as his age is catching up with him - Dis-Agreed 7) Lasith Malinga Has the wonderful coiffure - Dis-Agreed 8) Daniel Vettori is the wonderful sluggish left-arm orthodox spin in terms of flight and guile relatively than vast turner or pinpoint accuracy - Agreed 9) Cricket area is getting greater advantageous and larger - Agreed 10) Cricket is an exceedingly stable entertainment than movies - Agreed

Answer 7

Everything is relative to the person's experience. But that being said, of course there is truth. There is a green soda can sitting on computer desk. That is truth. There is evidence that life evolved on earth. That is truth. People who are not colorblind see the sky as blue. That is truth. Anything that is a fact is truth. Now, are there moral absolutes? That is a different question.

Answer 8

I don't agree with his reasoning, but I DO agree with his opening statement. Belief in God or any higher being is part of our curious humanity, and being curious and dreaming is what pushes the advancement of culture. If you deny that we are here for a specific purpose and concede to the idea that we are nothing but a species of stupid animals and that all life is meaningless, why go on living? At the very least, believing in God is supposed to make people try to find out what that Truth is that's behind our humanity. If our sentience really was nothing but a stupid accident, what would be the point in going on?

Answer 9

As an atheist and a scientist, I have to agree with it it to some extent. Science is not the Truth...it is an asymptotic approach to the Truth. Scientists do not prove things; they can only disprove them. So, If you're looking for "The Truth," then you have to turn to religion. In doing so, however, one is left with a quandary: there are many religions, and so there have to be many "Truths." In comparing these religion-based "Truths," however, we find logical inconsistencies and contradictions...these "Truths" cannot all be true. Personally, I think it's better to stick with Science's approximations of the Truth.

Answer 10

Well that makes sense. God is the truth. His word is the truth. Experience is only what happens to go through to learn but doesn't mean that the experience is the truth of the universe.

Answer 11

Absolute truth does exist, because saying that absolute truth doesn't exist is an absolute truth itself. But then again, these words and their meanings are subject to the English language.

Does god exist for there to be absolute truth? No, because absolute truth is always subject to the circumstances, and because the circumstances would change based on his existence and thus causing absolute truth to change.