Is there a truth out there that is only dependant on its own true existence, a truth affecting everything no matter how much anyone denies it even exists?
Just because you believe it, does it make it any more real of a truth?
How can anyone know that they are actually right?
How do you know you are not fatally wrong?
Don't just answer without thinking like you probably will.
Please.
2007-09-11 12:58:46 · 11 answers · asked by Christ4all 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I don't think that there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth as everything is subjective in some way.
2007-09-11 13:05:26 · answer #1 · answered by traveller 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well math is a absolute truth i mean 2+2 will always =4 and the only way you change that is if you altered reality. Other than that you really cant be sure of anything like the existence of God for example. I mean it may not make sense to some but it kinda takes the point out of the word "faith" if we know that God's existence is a absolute truth.
2007-09-11 13:10:32 · answer #2 · answered by rowdyfoudy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What science reveals is the only rational truth. Nothing in science depends on one's personal belief in order for it to be true. It's all about evidence. Science is a self correcting, meaning the accepted explanation for anything changes in light of new evidence. What this means is that those who use science to search for truth always get closer and closer, never further.
What is most important to understand is that science is a process, not some type of doctrine. The methods of science are extremely powerful in finding out what is true and what is false.
2007-09-11 13:10:48 · answer #3 · answered by hafetysazard 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have yet to encounter an absolute truth that can withstand scrutiny.
I am alive. That is an absolute truth. But wait. I will die. 100 years from now "I am alive" will no longer be truth. It will then be false. Most beliefs held to be absolute can be disproved -- some are just a little more difficult than others to find conflicting evidence.
2007-09-11 13:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by guru 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God is the Absolute Truth. IF you follow Him explicitly without deviation then you will be following the absolute Truth. Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Rama) One God with Many names Krishna says He is the Absolute Truth in the Bhagavad Gita As it is.
2007-09-11 13:06:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe in an absolute truth. Everything is relative.
2007-09-11 13:08:28 · answer #6 · answered by Clint 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a million. No, torturing an harmless infant for exciting isn't a morally impartial act. neither is torturing a responsible infant. Or person. besides intentionally inflicting suffering is in no way morally impartial, regardless of if it truly is for exciting or for the different objective. there is your absolute. regardless of the undeniable fact that, something that may not morally impartial can nonetheless be morally justifiable. as an occasion, acts of conflict, and effects justly levied in accordance to regulation may be morally justifiable. 2. ethical relativism isn't the comparable as ethical neutrality. 3. Explaining the source of fact by ability of calling it "God" is purely as functional as explaining organic phenomena by ability of asserting "Goddidit." regardless of if it truly is precise or no longer, this is not powerful: it solutions no questions. 4. Why would ethical values being the made of social and organic and organic evolution lead them to easily the concern of non-public style? The style of legs you have is a function of organic and organic evolution. Or are you asserting this is purely your own decision for 2 truly than 4 or six? And besides, why is something that has arisen as a made of our organic and organic history of no importance? 5. i do no longer dispute the life of objective ethical absolutes (see a million.) any further than I dispute the life of scientifically discoverable rules and constants. regardless of the undeniable fact that, none of those are contingent on the life of a deity. it truly is not greater lifelike to declare that an action is or isn't morally perfect "through fact God suggested so", than it truly is to declare that grasses and fruiting vegetation existed on earth till now any animal existence (and till now the sunlight and moon existed) "through fact God suggested so".* God hasn't suggested so. people suggested so, and in many cases they are incorrect.
2016-11-10 04:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think one plain truth is that time passes.
I thought about it for some time. I'm older, I visit often with the elderly, and I see that time has passed for me and them, and it keeps doing so, so far.
2007-09-11 13:13:03 · answer #8 · answered by LK 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i know that any hitting (even spanking) of children is wrong, i know that my belief is right, and that no one else would willingly put theirselves in the position we put children, do we accept a "pop on the bum" when we are pulled over for speeding, or late for work? no! we expect and receive non-violent punishment, if any, in no other case are the "big" allowed to hit the "small" , in no other area of life do we tolerate assault, except towards the children, so i know its wrong, have always known its wrong (even as a small child, if i saw another child hit)
there is nothing, no excuse or example, that will ever make it right or ok , for me
2007-09-11 13:37:44 · answer #9 · answered by dlin333 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it hurts to hit your thumb with a hammer.
speckled puppies under red wagons. in the sunshine are beautiful.
chicken crap on a pump handle is universally annoying.
2007-09-11 13:30:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋