# 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:** 3
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/41 "2015-03-30T22:53:43Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > What evidence is there to show that any/some/all of them found out ‘the truth’? That does not matter, I was replying/refuting to a specific post/claim and the poster who claimed to know the truth only logically proved that they did not know what truth is. **The Other Waldo Pepper** Stated that 1: they can deduce the truth using non transcendental methods. And stated this example: Person A claimed to know the truth Person B claimed to know the truth Person C claimed to know the truth Person D claimed to know the truth 2: He (or she?) determined that A,B,C,D are contradictory. So conclusion, if his determination 2 is actually correct (which is in question), then at most only one can be the truth — logically this proves **The Other Waldo Pepper** can not determine truth, which is contrary to is claim. All it proves is my point is that without transcending this would it is impossible to know 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 31, 2015, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/42 "2015-03-31T00:01:36Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > That does not matter, I was replying/refuting to a specific post/claim and the poster who claimed to know the truth only logically proved that they did not know what truth is. > > **The Other Waldo Pepper** > > Stated that 1: they can deduce the truth using non transcendental methods. > > And stated this example: > Person A claimed to know the truth > Person B claimed to know the truth > Person C claimed to know the truth > Person D claimed to know the truth > > 2: He (or she?) determined that A,B,C,D are contradictory. > > So conclusion, if his determination 2 is actually correct (which is in question), then at most only one can be the truth > > — logically this proves **The Other Waldo Pepper** can not determine truth No, it doesn’t. If, in fact, “determination 2 is actually correct” – and if, as you say, I’ve used logic to correctly determine that only one can be truth – then what I’ve determined is, well, truth. (And if I then take a look at the coin, and find out whether all of them were incorrect, then I will have once _again_ determined truth.) > [@](#): > > All it proves is my point is that without transcending this would it is impossible to know truth. That doesn’t follow at all. If we can determine, without transcending this world, that at most only one of A and B and C and D were telling the truth; and if we can _further_ determine, without transcending the world, that none of them were telling the truth; then we have, of course, mundanely come to know the truth, as is routinely the case right here in the real world. ---
**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 31, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/43 "2015-03-31T01:04:18Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > … my point is that without transcending this would it is impossible to know truth. But it is also not evident that transcending this world will make it possible to know the truth. Even if there is some sort of “hereafter” or spiritual realm, the assumption, that useful or worthwhile information is more readily available in that plane of existence, is unfounded. Leaps of faith within leaps of faith. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/44 "2015-03-31T03:46:36Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > 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. Or that dude I saw on Spike who could throw a telephone pole 50 feet. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/45 "2015-03-31T11:10:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, it doesn’t. If, in fact, “determination 2 is actually correct” – and if, as you say, I’ve used logic to correctly determine that only one can be truth – then what I’ve determined is, well, truth. (And if I then take a look at the coin, and find out whether all of them were incorrect, then I will have once _again_ determined truth.) May I introduce you to Schrödinger’s cat. In your example, with the extension that they are all preaching some apparently self contradictory truth, the answer is they are all communicating truth, not by their words, but by their hearts (their souls). There is truth to be heard from each one, and truth does not contradict each other. It is not the though/connotative process that we take in truth, but with the afective/discernment process which then ‘categorizes’ and tags what they say and filters it through the spirit presented. The truth is then revealed. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t follow at all. If we can determine, without transcending this world, that at most only one of A and B and C and D were telling the truth; and if we can _further_ determine, without transcending the world, that none of them were telling the truth; then we have, of course, mundanely come to know the truth, as is routinely the case right here in the real world. No all you have demonstrated is you are incapable of finding the truth, even when shown the answer you have no way of learning or duplicating it, so you have not learned truth, you have learned perhaps to determine what is not the 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 31, 2015, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/46 "2015-03-31T11:43:30Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > In your example, with the extension that they are all preaching some apparently self contradictory truth, the answer is they are all communicating truth, not by their words, but by their hearts (their souls). No, it’s not. If one tells me I’ll see a penny when next I open my hand; and another says _no, that’s not true; when next you open your hand, you’ll see a nickel_; and a third says _no, they’re both wrong; when next you open your hand, you’ll see a dime_; and a fourth says _all three are incorrect; when next you open your hand, you’ll see a quarter_ – then (a) they’re **not** , in fact, “all communicating truth.” And (b) if I open my hand and see a silver dollar there, I know none of them were communicating truth. And, for that matter, if I open my hand and see a penny there, I’ll know that **one** of them was telling the truth. > [@](#): > > There is truth to be heard from each one, and truth does not contradict each other. But the people in question **do** “contradict each other.” If I open my hand and see a penny, the guys who contradicted that first one had **no** “truth to be heard”. (And if I open my hand and see a silver dollar, then none of them were telling the truth.) > [@](#): > > It is not the though/connotative process that we take in truth, but with the afective/discernment process which then ‘categorizes’ and tags what they say and filters it through the spirit presented. The truth is then revealed. No, it’s _through the thought process_ that I’d realize at least three of the four aren’t telling the truth, and then it’s by _actually taking a look_ that I’d reveal the truth: penny or silver dollar? (Or some other coin? Or no coin at all?) > [@](#): > > No all you have demonstrated is you are incapable of finding the truth, even when shown the answer you have no way of learning or duplicating it, so you have not learned truth, you have learned perhaps to determine what is not the truth. Well, when you eliminate what is not the truth, quote Sherlock Holmes and Spock. But I don’t follow you, here. In my example, if four guys make those contradictory claims about what I’ll see when next I open my hand – yeah, okay, sure, I’ve learned to determine that at least three of them aren’t telling the truth even before opening my hand. But then I’d open my hand, and see the truth! I’m _perfectly_ capable of finding it; I _have_ a way of learning it; I’ll see what one of them predicted, or I’ll see what none of them predicted – but the point is, I’ll see it. Beforehand, I know I’ll see what at least three of 'em weren’t telling the truth about. Afterhand, I’ll know the truth. ---
**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 31, 2015, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/47 "2015-03-31T12:33:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And, for that matter, if I open my hand and see a penny there, I’ll know that **one** of them was telling the truth. Only for very loose definitions of “truth”, in which two answers happen to coincide. The person giving the answer of “a penny” might have been taking a shot in the dark, with no actual knowledge of what, if anything, the hand contained. ---
**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 31, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/48 "2015-03-31T13:37:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Only for very loose definitions of “truth”, in which two answers happen to coincide. The person giving the answer of “a penny” might have been taking a shot in the dark, with no actual knowledge of what, if anything, the hand contained. To agree with you while splitting a hair, I seem to recall from my grad-school days, that, yeah, “knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief” – that what you believe may happen to be true, but you have to get there the right way to actually _know_ something. So the guy who guesses “penny” is telling the truth, but doesn’t know it. Still, I think it answers **kanicbird** well enough: before looking, I know at least three of 'em aren’t telling the truth; and, upon looking, I know which of them weren’t telling the truth; I discover the first by logic, and the second by learning the truth: I know it, I got there the right way, I’m telling the truth, and I can tell you who didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/49 "2015-03-31T13:46:38Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > To agree with you while splitting a hair, I seem to recall from my grad-school days, that, yeah, “knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief” – that what you believe may happen to be true, but you have to get there the right way to actually _know_ something. So the guy who guesses “penny” is telling the truth, but doesn’t know it. > > Still, I think it answers **kanicbird** well enough: before looking, I know at least three of 'em aren’t telling the truth; and, upon looking, I know which of them weren’t telling the truth; I discover the first by logic, and the second by learning the truth: I know it, I got there the right way, I’m telling the truth, and I can tell you who didn’t. **kanicbird** appears to be trying to say they were all true - UNTIL you looked. Which, while philosophically interesting - is complete BS when it comes to reality. ---
**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 31, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/50 "2015-03-31T13:54:08Z")
> [@simster](#): > > **kanicbird** appears to be trying to say they were all true - UNTIL you looked. Maybe so. But I phrased it pretty carefully: they each made a claim about what I’d see when next I opened my hand – not about what’s in there right now, before I look. So they can’t all be true _until_ I look; each is a claim about what I’ll see _when_ I look. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/51 "2015-03-31T14:12:00Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Maybe so. But I phrased it pretty carefully: they each made a claim about what I’d see when next I opened my hand – not about what’s in there right now, before I look. > > So they can’t all be true _until_ I look; each is a claim about what I’ll see _when_ I look. Understood - and agreed - just trying to explain **kanicbird** ’s “everyrthing is true even when its not - you just have to look at it from the right way with your eye’s crossed =- and if you can’t see it - its your fault for not trying hard enough” ---
**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 31, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/52 "2015-03-31T14:26:03Z")
But the claim that everyone is telling the truth until the hand is opened can be proven false by the simple fact that, for that to be true, the hand must actually contain _all_ coins guessed while closed. If we expand the range of coins to include those of the world, and allow 100 different guesses, then if all were telling the truth the hand would explode in a bloody mess. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/53 "2015-03-31T15:34:30Z")
“Truth” is a useless concept. All of our knowledge of the world is functional. We know (to a limited degree) what the world DOES. We do not know what it IS. And, in fact, knowing what the world IS is impossible. That’s not how knowledge works. A lot of silly theological wrangling is merely the product of faulty epistemological assumptions. ---
**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 31, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/54 "2015-03-31T16:35:01Z")
Not to sound clichéd here, but I think you are going to have to explain the meaning of “is”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/55 "2015-03-31T16:54:48Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Not to sound clichéd here, but I think you are going to have to explain the meaning of “is”. Sure. [“Is” is also problematic, but it’s so integral to English that it’s hard to do without it.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime) We normally think of “is” as an assertion of properties: “Sunlight is warm.” However, this naive interpretation of “is” is itself epistemologically questionable – it makes a claim about the structure of reality that implies absolute knowledge. It’s better to interpret “is” pragmatically: “If we TREAT sunlight as being warm then we can make accurate predictions about our unfolding experience.” ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/56 "2015-03-31T18:09:23Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > I guess some people on this board have never heard of mathematics. Really? So does .9999999… = 1, or not? \ ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/57 "2015-03-31T23:00:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > To agree with you while splitting a hair, I seem to recall from my grad-school days, that, yeah, “knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief” – that what you believe may happen to be true, but you have to get there the right way to actually _know_ something. So the guy who guesses “penny” is telling the truth, but doesn’t know it. > > Still, I think it answers **kanicbird** well enough: before looking, I know at least three of 'em aren’t telling the truth; and, upon looking, I know which of them weren’t telling the truth; I discover the first by logic, and the second by learning the truth: I know it, I got there the right way, I’m telling the truth, and I can tell you who didn’t. Actually this is a big part of it, truth is also based on intent. A guess, while may be correct, is not truth. Truth contains more then facts. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/58 "2015-03-31T23:04:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And, for that matter, if I open my hand and see a penny there, I’ll know that **one** of them was telling the truth. All this is facts, not 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 31, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/59 "2015-03-31T23:13:33Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > All this is facts, not truth. I routinely tell the truth by making factual statements. Do you believe you tell the truth by making _nonfactual_ statements? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250/60 "2015-03-31T23:23:00Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I routinely tell the truth by making factual statements. > > Do you believe you tell the truth by making _nonfactual_ statements? Irrelevant, apples and oranges. Truth involves intent facts do not. They are different [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolute-truth-and-god/716250.md?page=4)