Absolute Truth - True or False?

[SoulGrind]

An unrelated question I came upon while viewing the site:Whats the difference between static and dynamic DSL?

Uhm... hmmm... you must have traversed backward through my site and came across my online resume / technical journal...

WHAT IS DSL?

DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is an alternative to dial-up, cable, or satellite internet connections.

WHAT TYPES OF DSL ARE THERE?

DSL services typically come in two types of connections; Static and Dynamic.

A Static (unchanging) DSL connection provides the end user (the person paying for the DSL connection) the option of having a permanent IP (Internet Protocol) address at all times.

A Dynamic (changing) DSL connection provides the end user the option of having an IP address that changes at various time intervals (called "leases") based on when they log on or off their computer. These leases are controlled by the ISP (Internet Service Provider).

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

So why the difference? Depends on what you are trying to do. There are pros and cons to each method.

DSL with a static IP address

If you are a "power user" or someone who has certain internet services that need an unchanging connection, you may need a static connection.

For example, if you wanted to run a web server out of your home, you would need a static IP address. You could essentially use DSL for such a service (although, not the wisest move as DSL is fairly slow compared to other connection types such as T1, T3, etc.). The reason for the static IP address is so when someone visits the web site, they can actually find it. Imagine if the address changed every time the computer rebooted. That would be an internet logistical nightmare.

There are other uses for having a static IP address. For example, if you wanted to set up a permanent VPN (Virtual Private Network) between your home office and your corporate office you would need a static IP address.

The downside to having a permanent, static IP address is that it's always on and never changes. This could be a potential security risk. And if you don't know what you're doing from a security standpoint, a static IP address could be your downward spiral into being hacked or worse -- identity theft.

DSL with a dynamic IP address

Dynamic IP addresses are constantly changing based on your ISP's DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) and lease time out settings. Therefore, each time you log into your computer or perform a release/renew on your network connection, you are potentially receiving a new IP address. This is more secure than a static IP address because if a hacker finds you on a Friday for example, and decides to try again in a few days, more than likely, your IP address has changed and it will be much more difficult for the hacker to find you.

The downside of a dynamic address is the inability to create a permanent connection (as described in "DSL with a static IP address").

SECURITY

No matter which internet connection service type you use (DSL, Cable, Dial-Up, etc.) you should ALWAYS exercise basic internet security practices. For broadband (DSL, Cable, etc.) you should always put your computers behind a router that has an internal firewall and supports NAT (Network Address Translation). If it has the ability to mask your external IP address (the address your ISP gives you if your static), even better. All your computers behind the router are then firewalled and they also receive an internal, private IP address that is only known to you. The router handles the communication between your computers and the outside world by translating the private address into the public address through the use of encryption. If the router supports IP masking, then the router becomes "invisible" to some degree to the outside world as well. Pings won't bounce back and traceroute will fail to resolve (in most cases). Again, security is only as good as the inability of the hacker attempting to crack in.

If you're on dial-up, a router is unavailable to you. However, you SHOULD run a software firewall. Windows and Apple systems typically have such abilities built in. McAfee and Norton provide a second layer of firewall prevention as well.

And of course, no matter what connection type you are running, if you are on Windows, you should ALWAYS run an AntiVirus package such as McAffee, AVG, or Norton in conjunction with an anti-spyware/anti-malware application such as Windows Defender (produced and freely available from Microsoft).

So there you have - plus a little more detail then what you asked for.

NOW... Back to our regularly scheduled fellowship...

[SoulGrind]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, friends and colleagues,

The other night, I was lying in bed and I had a restless sleep. My mind kept racing through an endless loop of questions regarding the subject of, "Absolute Truth."

I have heard the arguments on both sides. They sound something like this:

Argument 1: Some people say that there is no such thing as absolute truth and what is true for me may not be true for you.

Argument 2: Some people say that absolute truth is absolutely true.

The question remains, how can we be absolutely sure about the absoluteness of absolute truth?

I personally have always believed in absolute truth. But for some reason, my brain wouldn't shut up and let me sleep -- My brain seemed to have a mind of its own and it wanted to absolutely define absolute truth.

During my restless slumber, I envisioned a flow chart (those who know me also know my fondness for visual aids). My mind raced through each potential process and decision until I could take it no longer.

I jumped to my feet, popped open my favorite flowcharting software (OmniGraffle) and I worked up the flow chart I had been dreaming about. Through the use of this flow chart, I came to a very interesting, LOGICAL conclusion regarding the subject of absolute truth.

I then opened up the New Oxford Dictionary to see how it defined the words, "Absolute" and "Truth." Within the definition was a reference to the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus with a description for the phrase "The Absolute Truth." The definitions contained therein confirmed the conclusion that I had arrived at on my own.

Without further ado, I would like to share with you my findings in the form of a flow chart.

http://www.sonic.net/~caine/absolute_truth...olute_truth.jpg

Take a peek. I think you will find it very interesting.

Thanks for reading this far.

I try not to drink to much caffeine before I go to bed because I've also had nights like that? Have you tried decaf?

Hehehe- considering I don't really drink many caffeinated beverages, I doubt that's the issue. ;-)

[Guest shiloh357]

To say there is no absolute truth is a self-defeating statement, as that would be an absolute truth in and of itself.

Truth, by nature is always absolute. There is no such thing relative truth.

[Guest HIS girl]

Any thoughts on how to determine truth from falsehood?

First and foremost, for the believer in Christ, studying the Word is paramount. Not only is the Bible the Word of God, but it is also our guidebook -- our moral compass you might say.

1.) The 10 commandments are a good starting place.

2.) Proverbs are another.

3.) The parables that Jesus spoke of will enlighten us and give us further commandments (lusting=adultery, hatred=murder, go into all the world and spread the Word, etc.).

4.) The teachings of Paul bear much weight on how Christians should behave (don't let your hands be idle, etc.)

This doesn't necessarily answer the question though, it just adds a step to the process. The question then becomes how did you determine the truth or falsity of the Bible?

Even though the Bible is the perfect, infallible Word of God, the biggest problem lies in the fact that WE are imperfect and quite capable of making a myriad of mistakes..

Are you saying that it is impossible to determine if something is an absolute truth?

In order to verify something as absolute truth you would need absolute proof. If our ability for understanding is less than absolutely perfect, there will always be a chance no matter how small that we are mistaken, thus it is impossible to claim that any truth is an absolute proof. So while absolute truth exists, in practice it is unattainable.

Without absolute, universal, unequivocal proof that a proposition is an absolute truth, it can only be considered to be relative.

Kinda like the thoery of evolution....

[Guest HIS girl]

Kinda like the thoery of evolution....

Not at all, science doesn't claim absolute truth.

I wish science teachers would heed what you have put forth.

Would give naiive students a head start...instead of deluding them into believing absolutely what is not absolute..

[Guest HIS girl]

Kinda like the thoery of evolution....

Not at all, science doesn't claim absolute truth.

I wish science teachers would heed what you have put forth.

Would give naiive students a head start...instead of deluding them into believing absolutely what is not absolute..

They do.

Not many.

[Guest shiloh357]

Kinda like the thoery of evolution....

Not at all, science doesn't claim absolute truth.

I wish science teachers would heed what you have put forth.

Would give naiive students a head start...instead of deluding them into believing absolutely what is not absolute..

They do.

Not many.

We seem to be having this same argument over and over...... What do you base your claim on?

I don't know what more I can say. What science is and isn't as well as the limits of science were taught in my high school. Everyone I went to university with had been taught it. It was drummed into us even more at university. Anyone with an understanding of the fundamentals of science will tell you exactly the same thing.

A quick google search turns up primary school, high school and university science curriculums that supports exactly what I've been saying.

From an example Primary School Science Curriculum here. Aims as follows:

"changing the perception that science can provide absolute truth and provide a solution to all problems"

"readiness to appreciate the scientific process as one way of appreciating life"

"recognising the limitations of science"

From an example High Scchool Science Curriculum here. Benchmarks as follows:

"The student knows that scientific knowledge is subject to modification as new information challenges prevailing theories and as a new theory leads to looking at old observations in a new way. (This is an annually assessed benchmark.)"

"The student understands that no matter how well one theory fits observations, a new theory might fit them as well or better, or might fit a wider range of observations, because in science, the testing, revising, and occasional discarding of theories, new and old, never ends and leads to an increasingly better understanding of how things work in the world, but not to absolute truth."

From an example University Science Course here. Structure and themes:

"We make progress not by establishing absolute truth, but by falsifying models that fail to account for all of the evidence . . . and then creating better models."

It is true that there are particulars within Evolution that evolutionists are willing to accept as being in a state of flux and subject to change upon future discovery and the introduction of new data. That is not in dispute.

However, Evolution as an overall concept is presented as undeniable fact by its proponents. In fact, it is presented in such a way that to deny the "reality" of Evolution is often opens one up to ridicule.

[artsylady]

Firstly, I don't make up the definitions - contact Webster, Oxford or whomever if you have issue with the definitions. However, I think the definitions were fairly clear...

Truth (according to Oxford):

The quality or state of being true, that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality, a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So far, nothing in this definition seems relative to me. So I'm not quite sure what you're on about...

I agree with you and the dictionary definition. Truth is not relative. That's why it's called truth.

Now, you do have one thing right... Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, cannot all be truth because they contradict each other. Unfortunately, some people do believe they are all true - the fact is, they all hold some truth in some fashion... but anyone who is a Christian who can testify through personal experience can confirm that Jesus Christ is the living God, and He is the way, the truth and the light. It is through baptism in the Holy Spirit that we are convicted of that truth. And that is personal experience that cannot be denied by anyone because there is no factual proof against it. And while the non-believer might argue that this would prove that absolute truth does not exist (going back to the true for you but not for me kind of reasoning) -- it truly does not prove it. Just because the non-believer has not experienced it for themselves does not make it any less true.

"I am the truth, the life and the way" John 14:6

[Guest HIS girl]

[artsylady]

Not at all, science doesn't claim absolute truth.

I disagree with that.

You ask the some scientists, like Dawkins, if evolution (macro) occured and most will say "Yes, absolutely". They may disagree on theories and findings etc, etc, but they, will be emphatic that macroevolution occured and there is no room for argument on that.