Who believes in absolute truth? If not, please explain why...?
83800
Explain that to our government.
212379
the Bible is the only book with absolute truth
908666
Believing is one thing.  Knowing is another.  As most people have said in here, yes you can believe in whatever you want.  That doesn't make it the truth.  And NO, not everyone has to believe in something.  What everyone should have is the knowledge of the truth and the openmindedness to receive the truth.  Not mumbo jumbo from books that you just accept as your truth.
531562
If there was any truth behind Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) then it would be reasonable to assume that we would all be able to discern it, so we would all have the same beliefs.  Since there are in fact hundreds or thousands of different beliefs, there's no reason to suppose there is any underlying truth in any of it, including 'Jesus'.  So, the answer is 'No'.
807376
My belief is Atheism. The proof of its truth is obvious. (Above you will find an excellent explanation by 'Michael' which helps to explain 'How' it is obvious.) \n\nAnyone who claims direct knowledge of God or gods, ghosts, spirits or the like is either insane or an outright fool and a liar.  We live in an infinitely changing universe of matter, energy and space - there is nothing supernatural which has been found anywhere within it.  There is no truth to the belief that there is life after death or before birth.  That, by definition, is just nonsense.\n\nUntil I am presented with believable evidence that I am incorrect, I have no choice than to remain solidly atheistic.  It is the only logical course available.\n\n{}{}{} r u randy? {}{}{}\n.
474400
How is it rational to say with certainty that something does exist when the possibility will always remain that it does not?\n\nNOT believing is what atheism means.
956002
What absolute truth are you talking about? I believe in Jehovah God as my Heavenly Father & Jesus Christ as His son. I believe that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's active force.
331110
Let's address the issue of truth: is it relative or is it objective?\n\nTechnically speaking, all religions could tap into the same spiritual truth therefore even if you wrongfully excluded a religion -- your own religion would still contain this thing called "truth."  That's one way in which all religions could contain truth at the same time.\n\nHowever what you want is for someone to say that they ALL cannot tap into the same spiritual truth and that there must be a "wrong" religious doctrine.  Suppose this is true.\n\nMost spiritual texts DEMAND -- not ask -- but DEMAND that their followers seek the truth. The texts claim that in seeking truth, they will ultimately come to this "religion" as what is true.\n\nTruth-seeking comes BEFORE the religion. Once one is converted, it takes blind faith, but it is important to know what you believe and evaluate it critically.\n\nNo "church" wants an ignorant believer to convert because they saw an movie and hey, it looked cool. They require that you KNOW how to respond to accusations and that your faith actually began in logic.  Orthodox Judaism has one of the most beautifully restrictive tests: in order for conversion to occur, a believer must endure these attacks against Judaism and have so many years of experience within the Jewish church.\n\nFaith and logic are not opposite or oxymoronic.\n\nWith that said, if your spiritually has a religious text, it basically demands you know why you believe what you believe. The first step is realizing truth, the second is conversion, and the third is preparation for your role within that religion.\n\nThe importance of this is: you're not supposed to believe blindly. So if someone said, I believe in X, you better be prepared HOW to back up your belief with evidence outside of that religion: hardcore evidence. THEN tie in the religious element showing that these two worlds not only agree but are the same.\n\nIn theory, if someone truly seeks truth independently of religion, they will pick the "true" religion.
394545
Logic is not used to ASCERTAIN truth, it is used to reason truth and prove it's fallability.\n\nThe aspect used to ASCERTAIN truth is the question.
524841
The statement that the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth isn't a paradox- it's a load of crap.  It conflicts because it's wrong.  I have a tendency to fall back on pedophilia when trying to prove that there MUST be moral absolutes (and that they MUST come from something other than humans if they're absolutes).  If you're willing to say that pedophilia is a-okay as long as the pedophile thinks it's okay, then I can't reason with you.  If, however, you admit that pedophilia is wrong, then you're admitting to a moral absolute.  \n\nI'm with you, nice girl.  You can't create truth.  You can only observe it or choose to turn away from it.  There's no middle ground.
686883
"Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause." \nWhy do you say this?  As you should know, absolute statements are frequently wrong.  Still, I can roll with this.  Okay, for the moment I'll play along and say that everything must have a beginning.\n\n"Only God is self-existing without beginning, without a cause outside Himself." \nWhat?!?!?!?  What about your statement above?  Can't you see that you totally contradict yourself?  You have just violated logic and trashed your own argument.  Sigh.  If everything needs a beginning, then so does a creator.  If you make an exception for a creator, then you could also make an exception for the universe.\n\nWhere is your evidence for either of these two statements?  Where is your evidence for a creator without beginning?  I think you are trying to avoid falling into the "Who created the creator" question, but skirting the question does not eliminate it.\n\nOccam's Razor:  which is the simpler theory?  A universe without beginning or a creator without beginning that created a universe?\n\nI hesitated answering this question because I felt that you merely asked it to find someone who agreed with you, and that you would choose that as the "best answer".  I didn't want to screw up my best answer ratio... but thought it more important to show you the flaws in your logic.\n\nGood luck in your Q&A's.
413213
As a seeker of the truth and a student of life, and after many years of observation,\nResearch and comparative study, it appears to me that people often base their beliefs and judgments\nOn weak, sandy foundations. Rather than on the solid foundations of rock that Jesus recommended.\nConcerning the topic at hand, I have noticed some major differences between what is\ncommonly and officially understood about god in Christianity, and what the Bible itself states!\nIn this booklet, I would like to share with you-out of love and concern what I have noticed and\nLearned through my continuous journey of research, analysis, and study.\nThe intent of this work is to honestly and sincerely present the truth that I found, not to\nHurt the feelings of anyone.\nNow let us turn to discuss some issues and questions concerning the nature of god In Christianity,\nnamely the trinity and divinity of Jesus.\nJesus said "Seek the truth and the truth will set you free"\nIs God one or three?\nIs Jesus God or part of God?\nWhat do you think??\nWhat is your answer??\nLet us get the answer from the Bible:\nOne came and said unto him, Good Master, what good\nThing shall I do. That I may have eternal life? And he(Jesus)\nSaid unto him, why callest thou me good*? There is none good\nBut one, that is, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the\nCommandments.\n(Matthew 19:16-17)\n\n*Why callest thou me good? Or in modern English " why do you call me good "we\nWould not find this wording and meaning in some Bible! This text is found in king James\nVersion. Don`t take my word for it! Chick your Bible!\nSeveral questions can be asked about the above verses. Some of the more intuitive ones are:\n>"why do you call me good?" why did Jesus question his own goodness?\n>Jesus emphatically stated that "there is none good but one, that is, God"\nWhy did he refer to the one God as the " good" one only?\n>Why did he exclude himself from being good, if he were God?\n>Jesus explicitly pointed out that " if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."\nWhy didn`t Jesus command the questioner to believe in him (Jesus) as God in order\nTo enter into eternal life?\n>Based on Jesus` testimony, Isn`t keeping the commandments enough for getting\nEternal life?\nNow, let us re-read verses of Matthew (19:16-17) as stated in King James\nVersion and the same verses as reported in the New International Version\nOf the HOLY BIBLE.\nPDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com\nOne came and said unto . him, Good Master, what good\nThing shall I do. That I may have eternal life? And he\nSaid unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good\nBut one, that is, God.\n(in king James version)\n.Now a man came up to Jesus and asked "Teacher, what\ngood thing must I do to get eternal life?"\n"why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied.\n"there is only one who is good. If you want to enter life,\nobey the commandments."\n(in the new international version) .\nTo make is easy to compare, here are Jesus` two different questions:\nAccording to King James version (KJV), in simple English, Jesus asked:\n*Why do you CALL ME GOOD?\nBut, according to the New International Version (NIV), Jesus said:\n*Why do you ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD?\nPlease honestly camper between Jesus` question in the King James Version and\nHis questions in the New International Version. Do they have the same\nMeaning? Can they both be correct?\nGoing back to the critical question, Is Jesus God?, I think that if Jesus\nWere God or part of God, his logical response would be to approve of what the\nQuestioner called him (i.e., "Good Master").\nSound reasoning and plain logic tell us that God is good. And if Jesus were\nGod or part of God (part of the Trinity) he MUST BE GOOD! Don`t\nyou agree?\nPresumably, some of the possible, expected response that Jesus cold utter in r
1013639
Philosophers have wrangled with this question for centuries and I comes down to this:  You simply cannot prove that you exist.  You can't even prove that the outside world exists.  After all, 'you' could just be a brain in a vat somewhere being stimulated by electrodes that make you 'see', 'feel', and 'touch'.  What philosophers have come up with is the concept of a "Properly Basic Belief".  It means that if there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, then you can probably safely assume that it's true.  However, that doesn't mean you can prove it.  And of course you have to be open to the possibility that evidence may turn up at some time.  So until there is evidence that I don't exist, I'll stick with the philosophers and say it's a "Properly Basic Belief" that I exist.  And of course, there's the old standby of "I think, therefore I am."
266439
I am sorry you have received some really harsh answers to this question.  I believe your answer can be found in the definition of agnosticism.  \n\nThe doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. \n\nThe belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.\n\nAsk yourself one more question, especially in regards to the root of all churches, the Catholic Church.  What is it they claim their Holy Trinity to be?  He or They are the answer to all questions.  The beginning to understanding and the end to suffering.  This to me is a wonderful belief to hold.  It gives some a sense of comfort.  However, this belief for many is difficult to understand given scientific reasoning, current global situations, and the reputation of the Christian faith.\n\nAgnostics are easy to equate in this manner.  Say you had been blind your entire life, and all your life everyone told you the sky was blue.  You would form this idea of an unidentified "blue."  Then one-day science comes along with a cure for your ailment.  The first thing you want to see is the sky.  When you look at it, it looks nothing like your idea of "blue."  Had you been wrong your entire life?  No.  Your concept of the idea of "blue" has no shifted from an idea to a reality.  Same thing with agnostics.  They have an idea of a higher power.  Yet since they have not physical proof of this power, it remains an idea.  Nothing more than that.\n\nI hope this helps.
496215
Simple answer:\n\nThe definition of truth entails that it is absolute. Truth is defined as "that which conforms to reality." An absolute truth is true, relative to the situation, in all places, and at all times.\n\nSo for example, right now I'm sitting at my computer in NY at 12:32 AM typing this answer. That is an absolute truth. It is true anywhere in the world right now that I'm typing at my computer in NY at 12:32 AM relative to me. It is true a 1,000 light years from here. It will be true 1,000 years from now and was true 1,000 years ago that at this moment in time at 12:32 AM in NY I am typing this answer at my computer right now. That is absolutely true. It cannot be refuted.\n\nSo an absolute truth is any fact that conforms to reality which makes it true anywhere in the universe at any time for all time.\n\nAs to which religion "owns" the truth I must side with Biblical Christianity since it is the only religion that is confirmed not only with dozens of properties but also by the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus being resurrected proved that He was God. Jesus claimed that the Old and New Testaments were both the truth. As God that means that they must be. \n\nBiblical Christianity is also the only religion that can be historically verified.\n\nhope this helps.
347887
'truth' (or fact) is simply the perception of the individual.  If someone really believes in something then it is 'fact' for them even if it is fundamentally illogical for others.\n\nI do have a problem when some religious people abuse people for not believing although I think they are the minority.  \n\nLive and let live, if someone wants to believe in the God, the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot that's cool with me as long as they don't abuse me for not.\n\nPeace out.
576391
The thing is, you can CLAIM that anything is truth -- Count Chocula is as good an example as any.  It's when the non-Choculites inquire "can you show evidence to back up your claim?" that things get sticky.  \n\nYou see, non-Choculites are a troublesome lot.  They've seen plenty of unwashed dishes, so they will not be impressed when you point to the recently-emptied cereal bowl and insist "He was HERE!"  They've read their share of cereal boxes and can recite the nutritional analysis at least as fast as you can, so unless you've got a brand-new translation don't waste your time trying to change their minds with that.\n\nThey don't scare easily, either.  Telling them that General Mills (or is it Nabisco) will be angry if they don't play along with your game, will only get you into trouble with the ACLU or the Supreme Court.  First Amendment and all that ("Congress shall make no law dissing those who choose not to believe in Count Choculism....")\n\nThis business of getting at the truth will obviously require some serious thought.  Better have another bowl while you think it over....