Absolute Truth

[secondeve]

So often, I think people arguing about God v. evolution don't realise how absolute truth relates to both their positions. Some Christians see evolution and/or science as weak and subjective because the theories can change, while some athiests/believers in evolution see Christianity as weak because it allows no margin for human error.

Ultimately, though, both science and Christianity are rooted in the search for absolute truth.

When you boil everything right down, scientists are looking for the one correct explanation for how things came to be - which, logically, must exist. In this sense, they are believers in absolute truth, but at the same time, they're skeptical of the human ability to correctly identify and explain this truth - and with good reason. This is why science can change, and why, ultimately, it's a good thing: when something is proven false, it is stripped away, paving the way for the discovery of the real truth.

Christians, too, are looking for ultimate truth, which they believe exists in God (and which, it must be pointed out, is not always incompatable with science or even, for many believers, evolution). Because God is beyond human comprehension, he's the one part of the equasion which can never be disproven, nor does it need to be challeneged - but as with science, the rest is up to humanity to puzzle out. The search for absolute truth can encompass searching for the one correct interpretation of the Bible and/or its individual books/verses, or figuring out other scientific aspects of the world.

In both cases, people are looking for absolute truth. In debating each other, however, I feel that people from these different positions often forget this commonality, and instead think that their oponent believes as they do only because it is convenient, because they haven't thought about it, because they are stupid, or because they are wilfully ignorant. While there are certainly instances when one or more of these criticisms is true of one or both parties, it is always better to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they, like you, are ultimately looking for absolute truth, even if they are coming at it from a different angle and have drawn different conclusions to you.

Just some food for thought.

[InternalFlame]

It's true in some aspects: different paths, but with the same conclusion in mind, truth.

but also meaning, I search for both truth and meaning, myself.

This is why I don't usually debate...I don't know that many people have been convinced through debate anyway, so I leave it alone. Often when people do debate it isn't really about convincing a person but about them validating their own beliefs by arguing them (happens on both sides), which is the wrong reason to do so.

I think It's better for both parties to present their beliefs, and instead of them challenging each other simply go their separate ways and let the exchange of knowledge help them on their own quest for truth. It doesn't HAVE to be a contest. If they were to ever agree to what you said I think it would come later in their own introspection anyway.

My take on it anyway

[secondeve]

It's true in some aspects: different paths, but with the same conclusion in mind, truth.

but also meaning, I search for both truth and meaning, myself.

This is why I don't usually debate...I don't know that many people have been convinced through debate anyway, so I leave it alone. Often when people do debate it isn't really about convincing a person but about them validating their own beliefs by arguing them (happens on both sides), which is the wrong reason to do so.

I think It's better for both parties to present their beliefs, and instead of them challenging each other simply go their separate ways and let the exchange of knowledge help them on their own quest for truth. It doesn't HAVE to be a contest. If they were to ever agree to what you said I think it would come later in their own introspection anyway.

My take on it anyway

I agree about meaning, and about people coming to ideas later through thinking about them rather than during a debate.

I think, often, if I do debate, it's to counter what I percieve as a falsehood or a misconception - if, for instance, someone said that all athiests were in favour of abortion, then I would counter that, not so much out of a desire for conflict, even though that might ensue, but to correct or aid a misunderstanding. The grey area comes when what is 'correct' cannot be proven: nobody can "prove" God exists anymore than anyone could "prove" that evolution makes more sense than creationism. In those kinds of discussions, then what you really are doing is laying out your perspective for someone else to see, and it becomes futile when and if one or both parties make it into, as you say, a competition.

I guess I just wish there was more understanding in the world, or at least more honest attempts at it.

[Guest]

Absolute Truth

JESUS

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

The Way

And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

Psalms 139:24

The Truth

Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

Psalms 119:142

The Life

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

John 11:25

Reason vs. Sin

Come Now

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isaiah 1:18

Sin Bearer

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

.

Hebrews 9:27-28

Rest

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Matthew 11:28-30

Sin vs. Love

God So Loved

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

Dear SecondEve Be Blessed

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love. Joe

[DarkNebulaWelder]

It's true in some aspects: different paths, but with the same conclusion in mind, truth.

You mean, like the whole "sound of one hand clapping" syndrome...with 2 different paths leading to the same result? Well, since most people cannot agree on what is absolute truth, the only conclusion that can hope to be reached in life is death.

Anyhow, I think that the only one who can really reach a TRUE skeptic is God. In most cases, human debate is just futile....circular and going nowhere. That's why many times I try not to "argue" the concept of God, or try to convince that person that He exists. Only God knows the heart, and what it takes to reach that person.

[LadyRaven]

It's true in some aspects: different paths, but with the same conclusion in mind, truth.

You mean, like the whole "sound of one hand clapping" syndrome...with 2 different paths leading to the same result? Well, since most people cannot agree on what is absolute truth, the only conclusion that can hope to be reached in life is death.

Anyhow, I think that the only one who can really reach a TRUE skeptic is God. In most cases, human debate is just futile....circular and going nowhere. That's why many times I try not to "argue" the concept of God, or try to convince that person that He exists. Only God knows the heart, and what it takes to reach that person.

I don't think the OP was referring to the whole nonsensical one hand clapping idea. The point was that while we have different presuppositions and rules the scientist and the believer are both in the business of searching for absolute truth.

The TYPE of truth each search for, however, though it is absolute, is not necessarily the same. The scientists wants to know how things got here, how they work that sort of thing. There is no need or indication of any moral conclusion to be reached from that information if indeed it was ever found.

The believer doesn't necessarily want or need that information to reach absolute truth. Absolute truth might lead to certain conclusions about the way the world began and how it works, but it isn't limited to that information. The absolute truth the believer seeks is full of moral implications from the start and it only gets more intense as the journey goes forward.

As to the statement "the only one who can reach a true skeptic is God" is true insofar as it goes.

It must be remembered that the faith of everyone that has true faith is a gift and we did absolutely nothing to receive it. There may have been vehicles and conduits and means to reach us, but in the end it was ONLY God who did so. The preacher who preached the sermon the night I was saved did not reach me, God did. He was the means. If anyone is converted after anything I said, I did not reach them, God did.

Scripture says the the unbeliever cannot accept the things of God. If he can't, he can't, period. The only way to change that is for God to change the nature of the unbeliever in the first place. We who believe were all once so and are now changed. Therefore the true skeptic is no more a challenge than the seeker, neither will reach God without God changing their ability to see and hear with spiritual ears and eyes.

[Botz]

I don't think most of us search in so many words for the 'absolute truth' about things, we are happy to settle for our own limited perceptions about things, unless they have serious implications directly related to our lives. I do not have to understand the physics, chemistry or biology of something to be able to acknowledge it functions, or it works for me, I just accept that when I turn on the light it will work, when I turn on the radio I will hear sound...understanding the intricacies of how they operate is to me and most people irrelevant.

However knowing the absolute truth about something becomes more important to us when our lives are directly influenced by the result. For example when booking a flight it generally becomes a necessity to know where it is going for obvious reasons. Likewise some might find their eternal destiny an importnant issue about which the absolute truth is of vital personal importance. Perhaps it is also worth bearing in mind that the Bible (to those who believe what is written) does say in relation to the nub of the gospel...

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Which to me suggests that there has to come a child-like belief and trust in the things of the Father, revealed through the Son, before any of us will qualify to have the essential truths of who we are and why we are here, revealed to us by revelation of the Holy Ghost. It is not our intellect, our opinions, our education, our abilities that ultimately reveal the Kingdom of G-d to us, but rather the willingness to lay down all that we are and trust what G-d says about us....most of us are and have been unwilling.

If theories of evolutions can continue to enthrall individuals to a myriad of unbiblical possibilities many of which do not work with G-ds word, but against it, then I think it is extremely difficult to reach the necessary child-like acceptance that G-d actually loves us and desires us to know Him. It seems to me that many peoples interest in evolutionary theories are predominantly used as a means to justify their position that G-d does not exist.

[traveller]

Which to me suggests that there has to come a child-like belief and trust in the things of the Father, revealed through the Son, before any of us will qualify to have the essential truths of who we are and why we are here, revealed to us by revelation of the Holy Ghost. It is not our intellect, our opinions, our education, our abilities that ultimately reveal the Kingdom of G-d to us, but rather the willingness to lay down all that we are and trust what G-d says about us....most of us are and have been unwilling.

Beautifully said

[Guest AV1611_USER]

Non-believers are not honest seekers of the truth. How do I know this? Simple; if non-believers were honest seekers of the truth, there wouldn't be any non-believers.

[Botz]

Non-believers are not honest seekers of the truth. How do I know this? Simple; if non-believers were honest seekers of the truth, there wouldn't be any non-believers.

So an honest seeker of the truth is someone seeking Christianity? Sounds awfully close minded and circular.

Yep...I would have to concur with that observation... but I think it was probably tongue in cheek.

I think the most basic need in the heart of man is to know beyond any shadow of a doubt why he is here, and what is the meaning to his own existence...G-d has made it fairly obvious, but man has sought out many inventions/alternatives, and used any means at his disposal to try and discover things his way, and according to the dictates of the limitations of his own capabilities.

The answer has to come from without, and not from within, because when you understand something of your own nature and failings, it is obvious that truth does not lie in that direction.