What do you believe about absolute truth?

History and archeology and science shows evidence of absolute truth , and the Holy Bible are the words of our Creator and are absolute truth , but the god of this world Satan is the master of deceit and have convinced the majority of the world that there is no absolute truth at one time people created religions of a false god but now the Devil has added the religion of atheistic evolution that speculates we evolved from a soup like substance over billions of years so convince people to believe in their religion which removes absolute truth and replaces it with a Disney land The only excuse for a person to dennie the truth of the words of our Creator found in the Holy Bible is Self righteousness and being full of pride and hardening of the mind towards truth , but i know most people hate the truth and it is easier to create your own truth

I) "Absolute truth" is redundant. Truth exists, and it does not come in gradations.

1) Laws of logic exist as reflections of what is necessary for us to make an argument without it collapsing on itself. Whether or not these laws exist as anything other than that is debatable.

2) The laws of math are the laws of logic

3) Science is a method. It's "laws" are regularities we observe, and they are never exact.

4) Morality is species specific. They are not subjective or relative within species.

5) No laws are made of matter

6) Logical laws are specific to the domains of logic in question. Some scientific laws are universal, others are not.

7) The laws of logic will hold for any being with a subject-object dichotomy as the structure of their experience. The laws of science might change, depending on the field. The laws of morality only change as the species changes.

Even if the universe is not completely random, that does not suggest the God of any particular religion.

Morality is a man made construct and it does vary.

As for science, science is broken down into many sections. There are social sciences and natural sciences. Morality goes into the social science compartment.

>Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

It looks materialistic to me.

The laws of mathematics and morality are matter insomuch as they only exist in the brains of humans, or similar animals elsewhere in the universe, they dont exist in any other platonic ideal realm or anywhere else other than the human brain. They are entirely anthropic.

I think it can exist, but whether or not its available to the limited scope of human beings is another matter and anyone's guess--I would probably say no. We may fancy certain things as seeming true or real, but in reality we may be completely deceived on even the most basic of preconceived truths, and in that sense 'truth' is what we make it of it when it suits us.

>Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

Prove it.

needless to say there are absolute truths. lots of the examples given above are sufficient. everyone who denies that there are absolute truths would be complicated-pressed to disclaim mathematical or logical truths which comprise "2 + 2 = 4" and "any proposition of the variety P & ~P is unavoidably fake." There are additionally patently absolute truths interior the sector of ethics besides, although this is not any longer without some controversy. What confuses people who liken (otherwise attempt to cut back) all certainty claims to expressions of subjective want (i.e. mere concerns of opinion or perception) is their failure to comprehend the will of absolutes for his or her absolute denial of absolute truths to additionally be intelligible. this is to assert, the declare that there are no longer any absolute truths, if genuine, would exemplify the very element it purports to disclaim--specifically, an absolute certainty. All such claims are consequently certainly demonstrable contradictions. to place the same element a particularly distinctive way, if it have been in certainty genuine that there have been no absolute truths, then it does not in common terms be genuine, yet certainly genuine. it might thereby represent an unalterable and everlasting certainty--one that is genuine whether you (or everyone else for that remember) disagreed with it. it might consequently no longer be in common terms a remember of opinion or perception. yet, this is strictly what the declare "there are no longer any absolute truths" is meant to disclaim. i'd choose to end via noting temporarily that the argument in simple terms given isn't in common terms a quibble approximately language or or linguistic conventions. this is actually related to the unintelligibly of the area that people who purport to disclaim that there are absolute truths unavoidably take. The very place itself is self-defeating. this is via fact, to ensure that a relativist/subjectivist to even make their place intelligible they might desire to (unavoidably) presuppose the very element they intend to disclaim or "disprove"--specifically, the existence of generally occurring/absolute truths.

a. absolute truth exists.

1) a.

2) a.

3) a.

4) b.

5) Don't know.

6) Expectedly.

7) Expectedly

I hate God.

The rule of opposition tells us absolute truth does exist but we do harm when it comes to matters of faith when we POINT anyone TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING instead of asking them what do they THINK about the invisible and eternal Kingdom of Christ in the east and just beyond our Republican wing and on the east side of the cross and up in the invisible realm of the Spirit. Up on the east side of the cross we are "In Christ" down on the west side we are "In Adam" and these are absolute truths. Up on the east side we are in Heaven and up in Christ's invisible Kingdom down on the west side we are on the earth in the United States and down in Lucifer's eternal Kingdom again absolute truths.

Nothing does not exist.