# Absolute Truth and God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250 "2015-03-29T01:11:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/21 "2015-03-30T13:15:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, it doesn’t. > > In everyday parlance, I of course know the truth about rather a lot of things – sure as people tell me stuff, and I routinely find out whether they were lying or, y’know, telling the truth – and I don’t do it by ‘leaving this world’, I don’t do it by transcending or being a lunatic, but by utterly mundane means. > > Imagine I meet a wild-eyed weirdo who makes a claim about the coin in my hand and says he knows the truth _not_ by mundane means, but by having transcended the world. And I meet a second wild-eyed weirdo who (a) makes a different claim, and (b) says _that guy is lying; I know the truth, by dint of having transcended the world._ And I also meet a third guy who offers up a different claim and says they’re both mistaken; he says he knows, because he’s transcended the world. > > And then a fourth guy pops in with a claim of his own, explaining that all three of them are incorrect – which he knows because _he_ transcended the world. > > Which one, if any, is telling the truth? I won’t test their claims by leaving the world; but, if possible, I’ll mundanely learn the truth, with no transcendence needed. Your example is perfect for how you missed the truth. If all those people can find out what truth is, there is no reason you can not either, truth is available for you to know. Truth is not that at least 3 out of 4 must be lying, that is just logic. Truth is in their identity, who they really are, not worldly humans, but soles on a process of self discovery. This is the reason that truth can not be know in this world and transcending it is needed, in this world the basic foundation of identity, who you are, can not line up with truth. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/22 "2015-03-30T15:10:05Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Your example is perfect for how you missed the truth. If all those people can find out what truth is, there is no reason you can not either, truth is available for you to know. What evidence is there to show that any/some/all of them found out ‘the truth’? > [@kanicbird](#): > > Truth is in their identity, who they really are, not worldly humans, but soles on a process of self discovery. This is the reason that truth can not be know in this world and transcending it is needed, in this world the basic foundation of identity, who you are, can not line up with truth. So in this world, we’re all either liars or marks, or both? And what of those who claim to have transcended? We just take their word for it? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/23 "2015-03-30T15:22:21Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Your example is perfect for how you missed the truth. If all those people can find out what truth is, there is no reason you can not either, truth is available for you to know. > > Truth is not that at least 3 out of 4 must be lying, that is just logic. Truth is in their identity, who they really are, not worldly humans, but soles on a process of self discovery. This is the reason that truth can not be know in this world and transcending it is needed, in this world the basic foundation of identity, who you are, can not line up with truth. This is not truth-this is only opinion. Your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/24 "2015-03-30T15:27:03Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Your example is perfect for how you missed the truth. If all those people can find out what truth is, there is no reason you can not either, truth is available for you to know. > > Truth is not that at least 3 out of 4 must be lying, that is just logic. Truth is in their identity, who they really are, not worldly humans, but soles on a process of self discovery. This is the reason that truth can not be know in this world and transcending it is needed, in this world the basic foundation of identity, who you are, can not line up with truth. You’re sounding a bit like Sye Ten Bruggencate. Trust me when I say that you _do not_ want to sound like a presuppositional apologist. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/25 "2015-03-30T15:59:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 1. Is the existence of absolute truth a widely accepted philosophical position? Yes, going back to Plato. Compare [Pragmatism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism), which rejects it. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 1. Is the claim that absolute truth can only be defined by a god tenable? Or even coherent? Most philosophers would say no; if absolute truth exists, it exists independently of God, like the Pythagorean theorem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/26 "2015-03-30T16:16:24Z")
All absolute truths are conditional. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/27 "2015-03-30T16:21:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Most philosophers would say no; if absolute truth exists, it exists independently of God, like the Pythagorean theorem. You don’t accept the view that god created the space in which the right triangle exists? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/28 "2015-03-30T16:29:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > No, he’s right: there really are “hard atheists” who insist that there most certainly is no God. > > I’m one of them…for certain definitions of God. I believe, with a great deal of firmness, that there is no “omniscient” entity, and that there is no “omnipotent” entity. I hold these terms to be self-contradictory. An entity can no more exist having either of these qualities than a square triangle can exist…or an invisible pink unicorn. > > There are actually a great many different kinds of atheists, occupying a broad spectrum of personal certainty, from those who have vague doubts to those who are entirely sure. But a hard atheist by this definition must know that no Gods of any type exist. Even theist claim to know that some subset of gods do not exist. Many Gods throughout our history were not bi-omni, and so would not be covered by the logical impossibility of a bi-omni god. Theists often get confused between not believing in their god and not believing in any god. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/29 "2015-03-30T16:37:06Z")
Ask the other person for some examples of ‘absolute truth’ and share the results with us. The likely result is some kind of nonsense like “God is Love”, or some reality-based thing like “gravity”. IMO, neither is absolute truth. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/30 "2015-03-30T16:37:14Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Truth is not that at least 3 out of 4 must be lying, that is just logic. It’s logic _and_ truth that at least 3 out of 4 must be incorrect. Imagine one tells me that, when next I open my hand, I’ll see a penny; and another says, _no, that’s incorrect; you’ll see a nickel_; and a third says _no, they’re both lying; you’ll see a dime_; and the fourth says _those lunatics are all in error; you’ll see a quarter_ – well, look, by logic I now know the truth: at least 3 out of the 4 are incorrect. And if I open my hand and see a silver dollar, I’ll then know that all 4 of 'em are incorrect: not “just” by logic this time, but by observing the evidence. So if I first say that At Least Three Of You Are Incorrect – and then, upon checking, say that You Were All Incorrect – well, then I’d be knowledgeably telling the truth both times: the first time by logic, and the second time by observing the evidence, but with no transcendence needed for mere accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/31 "2015-03-30T16:38:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > All absolute truths are conditional. Maybe. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/32 "2015-03-30T17:27:39Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Creating something from nothing is usually what we refer to as magic. I think I read somewhere on here last week that if all the empty space was removed from everything in the universe we could fit the universe into a paint bucket. Thats about as close as you can get to creating something from nothing. Until a better explanation comes along I have to see that as evidence of something supernatural. Except, if you reduced everything in the universe into a paint bucket, that would not leave you with a paint bucket + nothing, it would leave you with a paint bucket + an enormous tract of empty space. “Nothing” is dimensionless and timeless, kind of like “god” only moreso (“_nothing is greater than god_”). We can only understand “nothing” from a philosophical or mathematical perspective, it cannot be observed or studied because we do not have any of it. Physicists have suggested that “nothing” is homogenous and isotropic, maximal characteristics that are by their very nature unstable, so “nothing” would almost certainly drop off its peak state and spontaneously become “something”. If it even has a state, its atemporal aspect makes that kind of problematic. But if you have absolute nothing_ness_, yeah, the laws of physics say that it would tend to develop stuff, because of its natural instability. Of course, we are born, we die, nebulas collapse to form stars, stars eventually explode or burn out, everything we observe has a progressive existence. But it is all within the framework of the universe, there is no reason to believe that the universe itself (the framework) would also be subject to the rule of progressive existence. The stuff in it, yes, but why would we assume that the universe has not, within the scope of our understanding, always existed? A “creator” is a bit superfluous, it dies with a stroke from Occam. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/33 "2015-03-30T18:56:33Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Except, if you reduced everything in the universe into a paint bucket, that would not leave you with a paint bucket + nothing, it would leave you with a paint bucket + an enormous tract of empty space. “Nothing” is dimensionless and timeless, kind of like “god” only moreso (“_nothing is greater than god_”). > > We can only understand “nothing” from a philosophical or mathematical perspective, it cannot be observed or studied because we do not have any of it. Physicists have suggested that “nothing” is homogenous and isotropic, maximal characteristics that are by their very nature unstable, so “nothing” would almost certainly drop off its peak state and spontaneously become “something”. If it even has a state, its atemporal aspect makes that kind of problematic. But if you have absolute nothing_ness_, yeah, the laws of physics say that it would tend to develop stuff, because of its natural instability. > > Of course, we are born, we die, nebulas collapse to form stars, stars eventually explode or burn out, everything we observe has a progressive existence. But it is all within the framework of the universe, there is no reason to believe that the universe itself (the framework) would also be subject to the rule of progressive existence. The stuff in it, yes, but why would we assume that the universe has not, within the scope of our understanding, always existed? A “creator” is a bit superfluous, it dies with a stroke from Occam. There are probably half a dozen differing explanations of what “nothing” is, and most of them don’t encompass what the common understanding of “nothing” is. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/34 "2015-03-30T18:58:49Z")
That’s because “nothing” is contextual. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/35 "2015-03-30T19:24:20Z")
It is not contextual. If there was space and time out of which the creator made the universe, it was something, not nothing. If there was a creator, then there was literally not nothing (cf. Great Green Arkleseizure). If there was truly nothing, then the creator must somehow have recursively created itself in the process of creating creation. Or Nothing created the creator so that it could proceed. I still cannot envision a scenario where the creator is not superfluous. Maybe that is because of my puny mortal mind. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/36 "2015-03-30T19:33:25Z")
Even if you claim that your god isn’t matter or energy, but “_Something Else_”, that “_Something Else_” is still something and not nothing. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/37 "2015-03-30T20:03:36Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > It is not contextual. If there was space and time out of which the creator made the universe, it was something, not nothing. If there was a creator, then there was literally not nothing (cf. Great Green Arkleseizure). If there was truly nothing, then the creator must somehow have recursively created itself in the process of creating creation. Or Nothing created the creator so that it could proceed. > > I still cannot envision a scenario where the creator is not superfluous. Maybe that is because of my puny mortal mind. It is contextual. If you send me out with a basket to fill with apples and I return with an empty basket, then within context, I’ve brought you nothing. So I’m willing to cut some slack to the bible text that says, “In the beginning there was nothing”. I think the original author meant ‘nothing’ to the extent that he understood the implication of the word given his knowledge of the physical universe. I’m saying, the definition of “nothing” has changed somewhat over time. Still doesn’t make god probable or necessary. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Even if you claim that your god isn’t matter or energy, but “_Something Else_”, that “_Something Else_” is still something and not nothing. I don’t know of any believers that would claim their god is “nothing”. He is after all, the alpha and the omega. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/38 "2015-03-30T20:33:04Z")
There are plenty of ways that the concept of an ultimate being and absolute truth might not coincide. Perhaps the most powerful sentient being in the universe is the same entity as the most powerful human on Earth. This might be the POTUS, or the Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, or Bill Gates, or the Pope. There may literally be no more powerful being in the universe, if there is no life elsewhere and no sentient deity. Perhaps there is an infinite regression of ultimate beings, each having created the ones below in the numinous pecking order. If we are ignorant of the existence of our own creator, then our creator might be ignorant of the entity that created it, and so on ad infinitum. In an infinite, eternal universe this is not impossible. Perhaps the entity that created us is also bound by the strictures of relativity, and cannot communicate with other parts of the universe at speeds that are faster than light. In this case the creating entity would be split up by the expansion of the universe into innumerable - perhaps an infinite- number of segments, none of which can communicate with each other. In none of these cases can the so-called ultimate being be considered to be omniscient, and so has no relationship with absolute truth. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/39 "2015-03-30T22:16:52Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > So I’m willing to cut some slack to the bible text that says, “In the beginning there was nothing”. I think the original author meant ‘nothing’ to the extent that he understood the implication of the word given his knowledge of the physical universe. Technically, the book of Genesis is tacit on the subject of “nothing”, it just says that jehovallah created the heavens and the earth. Not sure how it reads in Hebrew, or whatever the original language was, but I think most texts by themselves tend to be pretty vague on the precedent details, just something like Kāne put it together. Which is to say, from what we understand about stuff, relying on literal religious doctrine (which is typically, I think, not how the original poetry and dudgeon was meant to be taken) simply puts one out of context. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/40 "2015-03-30T22:51:41Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I don’t know of any believers that would claim their god is “nothing”. He is after all, the alpha and the omega. If he is some_thing_, then he must exist some_where_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250.md?page=3)