At any time, a person tries to determine for himself what truth is. How many times has a person tried to determine the veracity, the truth of this or that judgment or statement, and just as many times he has encountered the complexity of this issue. The problem of the truth of knowledge, the criteria of truth, have long been of interest to outstanding minds. And even now, not a single area of knowledge can do without solving this problem for itself, regardless of whether it is based on so-called axioms or on continuously changing and refined foundations.
The purpose of this work is to present the concepts of objective, absolute and relative truth, which most fully characterize the procedural nature of truth.
The very concept of “truth” is one of the most important categories of epistemology as a science about the relationship between subject and object. Indeed, one of the simplest definitions of truth is its definition as the correspondence of subjective knowledge about an object to the object itself, that is, truth is adequate knowledge about an object. This concept of truth is called classical and is the most ancient and at the same time the simplest. For example, Plato also has the following characteristic of the concept of truth: “... he who speaks about things in accordance with what they are, speaks the truth, but he who speaks about them differently lies...”.
Aristotle characterizes the concept of truth in a similar way in his work “Metaphysics”: “... to speak of a being that it does not exist, or of a non-existent that it is, means to speak false; and to say that what exists and what does not exist means to say what is true.”
It is important to note that supporters of the classical concept of truth are characterized by the belief that its defined goal - the correspondence of thoughts to reality - can be achieved relatively simply, that is, there is some intuitively clear and unquestionable criterion that allows one to establish whether thoughts correspond to reality or not. This belief is based on the belief in the possibility of bringing thoughts into simple, unambiguous correspondence with reality. However, it is not at all obvious that a person actually has such a possibility; on the contrary, it is rather an unattainable ideal of the cognitive process.
Concept of truth
The origins of the so-called classical philosophical concept of truth go back to the era of antiquity. For example, Plato believed that “he who speaks about things in accordance with what they are speaks the truth, but he who speaks about them differently lies.” For a long time, the classical concept of truth dominated the theory of knowledge. Basically, she proceeded from the position: what is affirmed by thought actually takes place. And in this sense, the concept of correspondence of thoughts to reality coincides with the concept of “adequacy”. In other words, truth is a property of the subject, consisting in the agreement of thinking with itself, with its a priori (pre-experimental) forms. So, in particular, I. Kant believed. Subsequently, truth began to mean the property of ideal objects themselves, unrelated to human knowledge, and a special type of spiritual values. Augustine developed the doctrine of the innateness of true ideas. Not only philosophers, but also representatives of special sciences are faced with the question of what is meant by reality, how to perceive reality or the real world?
Materialists and idealists identify the concept of reality, reality with the concept of the objective world, that is, with that which exists outside and independently of man and humanity. However, man himself is part of the objective world. Therefore, without taking this circumstance into account, it is simply impossible to clarify the question of truth. Taking into account the current trends in philosophy, taking into account the uniqueness of individual statements expressing the subjective opinion of a particular scientist, truth can be defined as an adequate reflection of objective reality by a cognizing subject, during which the cognizable object is reproduced as it exists outside and independently of consciousness. Consequently, truth is included in the objective content of human knowledge.
But once we are convinced that the process of cognition is not interrupted, then the question arises about the nature of truth. After all, if a person perceives the objective world in a sensory way and forms ideas about it in the process of individual cognition and his mental activity, then the natural question is: how can he verify the correspondence of his statements to the objective world itself?
Thus, we are talking about the criterion of truth, the identification of which is one of the main tasks of philosophy. And on this issue there is no agreement among philosophers. The extreme point of view comes down to a complete denial of the criterion of truth, because, according to its supporters, truth is either absent at all, or, in short, it is characteristic of everything.
Idealists - supporters of rationalism - considered thinking itself as a criterion of truth, since it has the ability to clearly and distinctly present an object. Philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz proceeded from the idea of self-evidence of primary truths, comprehended with the help of intellectual intuition. Their arguments were based on the ability of mathematics to objectively and impartially reflect the diversity of the real world in its formulas. True, another question arose: how, in turn, can one be convinced of the reliability of their clarity and distinctness?
Logic with its rigor of proof and its irrefutability should have come to the rescue here. Thus, I. Kant allowed only a formal logical criterion of truth, according to which knowledge must be consistent with the universal formal laws of understanding and reason.
But reliance on logic did not eliminate difficulties in searching for the criterion of truth. It turned out to be not so easy to overcome the internal consistency of thinking itself; it turned out that sometimes it is impossible to achieve formal-logical consistency of judgments developed by science with the original or newly introduced statements (conventionalism). Even the rapid development of logic, its mathematization and division into many special areas, as well as attempts at semantic (semantic) and semiotic (sign) explanations of the nature of truth did not eliminate the contradictions in its criteria.
Subjective idealists - supporters of sensationalism - saw the criterion of truth in the immediate evidence of the sensations themselves, in the consistency of scientific concepts with sensory data. Subsequently, the principle of verifiability was introduced, which received its name from the concept of verification of a statement (checking its truth). In accordance with this principle, any statement (scientific statement) is only meaningful or meaningful if it can be verified. The main emphasis is placed precisely on the logical possibility of clarification, and not on the actual one. For example, due to the underdevelopment of science and technology, we cannot observe the physical processes taking place in the center of the Earth. But through assumptions based on the laws of logic, it is possible to put forward an appropriate hypothesis. And if its provisions turn out to be logically consistent, then it should be recognized as true.
It is impossible not to take into account other attempts to identify the criterion of truth with the help of logic, characteristic especially of the philosophical movement called logical positivism. Supporters of the leading role of human activity in cognition tried to overcome the limitations of logical methods in establishing the criterion of truth. The pragmatic concept of truth was substantiated, according to which the essence of truth should be seen not in accordance with reality, but in accordance with the so-called “ultimate criterion”. Its purpose is to establish the usefulness of truth for practical actions and actions of a person. It is important to note that from the point of view of pragmatism, utility itself is not a criterion of truth, understood as the correspondence of knowledge to reality. In other words, the reality of the external world is inaccessible to man, since man directly deals with the results of his activities. That is why the only thing he is able to establish is not the correspondence of knowledge to reality, but the effectiveness and practical usefulness of knowledge. It is the latter, acting as the main value of human knowledge, that deserves to be called truth.
And yet, philosophy, overcoming extremes and avoiding absolutization, has come closer to a more or less correct understanding of the criterion of truth. It couldn’t be otherwise: if humanity were faced with the need to question not only the consequences of the momentary activities of this or that person (in some, and not uncommon, cases very far from the truth), but also to deny its own centuries-old history, it would be impossible to perceive life differently, how absurd.
Objective truth
Evaluation of what has been comprehended is a necessary element of cognition. Thanks to assessment, a person selects the acquired knowledge in accordance with its truth or falsity, its applicability in practical activities. It determines the inclusion or non-inclusion of the acquired knowledge, determines its capabilities and impact on a person and the spiritual activity of the individual. Therefore, not only epistemological, but also practical, ideological, and moral criteria act as the basis for assessment. Evaluation is included in the cognitive process. In their activities, scientists not only evaluate their own methods and scientific results, but also focus on possible reactions from the scientific community, authorities, and the church. At its core, any knowledge is a search for truth. The problem of the truth of knowledge is important in any type of cognitive activity. Therefore, the most important basis for assessing knowledge is its truth. Truth is an absolute cognitive value. Giordano Bruno in his dialogue “The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast” wrote: “Truth cannot be suppressed by violence, it does not rust due to the antiquity of years, is not diminished by concealment, is not lost by dissemination, for reasoning does not confuse it, time does not sharpen it, place does not hide it, darkness does not consume the night, does not obscure the twilight.”
True traditionally understood as correspondence of thoughts and statements to reality. This concept of truth is called classical and goes back to the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers and. Here are their statements on this matter:
Plato: He who speaks of things in accordance with what they are speaks the truth, but he who speaks of them differently lies. Aristotle: To say of a being that it does not exist, or of a non-existent that it is, is to speak falsely; and to say that what exists and what does not exist is not means to say what is true.
Polish-American logician and mathematician Alfred Tarski (1902-1984) expressed the classical formula of truth this way: The statement “P is C” is true if P is C. For example, the statement “Gold is a metal” is true if gold really is a metal. Thus, truth and falsity are characteristics of our thoughts and statements about reality and are impossible outside of human cognitive activity.
Relative and absolute truths
Relative truth- this is knowledge that approximately and limitedly reproduces reality.
Absolute truth- this is complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality that cannot be refuted.
Development is characterized by the desire for absolute truth as an ideal, but the final achievement of this ideal is impossible. Reality cannot be completely exhausted, and with each new discovery new questions arise. In addition, the unattainability of absolute truth is due to the imperfection of the means of knowledge available to man. At the same time, each discovery is simultaneously a step towards absolute truth: in any relative truth there is some part of the absolute truth.
The statement of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (5th century BC) “the world consists of atoms” contains a moment of absolute truth, but in general, the truth of Democritus is not absolute, since it does not exhaust reality. Modern ideas about the microcosm and elementary particles are more accurate, however, they do not exhaust reality as a whole. Each such truth contains elements of both relative and absolute truth.
Approaches according to which truth is only relative lead to relativism if it is believed that it is only absolute, then dogmatism.
Absolute truth in its broadest sense must not be confused with eternal or banal truths, such as “Socrates is a man” or “The speed of light in a vacuum is 300 thousand km/s.” Eternal truths are absolute only in relation to specific facts, and for more essential provisions, for example for scientific laws, and even more so for complex systems and reality in general, there are no complete and exhaustive truths.
In Russian, in addition to the concept of “truth”, the concept is also used "Truth", which is much broader in its meaning: truth is the combination of objective truth and moral justice, the highest ideal not only for scientific knowledge, but also for human behavior. As V.I. Dal said, truth is “truth in practice, truth in good.”
Lies and deception
Lies and deception act as the opposite of truth and indicate a discrepancy between judgment and reality. The difference between them lies in the fact of intentionality. So, delusion there is an unintentional discrepancy between judgments and reality, and lie - deliberately elevating misconceptions into truth.
The search for truth can thus be understood as a process constant struggle against lies and delusion.
Absolute truth and the absolute in truth
Speaking about the relative nature of truth, we should not forget that we mean truths in the sphere of scientific knowledge, but not knowledge of absolutely reliable facts, such as the fact that today Russia is not a monarchy. It is the presence of absolutely reliable and therefore absolutely true facts that is extremely important in the practical activities of people, especially in those areas of activity that are associated with the decision of human destinies. Thus, the judge has no right to reason: “The defendant either committed a crime or not, but just in case, let’s punish him.” The court does not have the right to punish a person if there is no complete certainty that a crime exists. If the court finds a person guilty of committing a crime, then there is nothing left in the verdict that could contradict the reliable truth of this empirical fact. Before operating on a patient or using a potent medicine, a doctor must base his decision on absolutely reliable data about the person’s disease. Absolute truths include reliably established facts, dates of events, births and deaths, etc.
Absolute truths, once expressed with complete clarity and certainty, no longer meet with demonstrative expressions, such as, for example, the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to the sum of two right angles, etc. They remain truths completely regardless of who claims them and when. In other words, absolute truth is the identity of concept and object in thinking - in the sense of completeness, coverage, coincidence and essence and all forms of its manifestation. These are, for example, the provisions of science: “Nothing in the world is created from nothing, and nothing disappears without a trace”; “The Earth revolves around the Sun,” etc. Absolute truth is the content of knowledge that is not refuted by the subsequent development of science, but is enriched and constantly confirmed by life. By absolute truth in science they mean exhaustive, ultimate knowledge about an object, as if reaching those boundaries beyond which there is nothing more to know. The process of development of science can be represented as a series of successive approximations to absolute truth, each of which is more accurate than the previous ones. The term “absolute” also applies to any relative truth: since it is objective, it contains something absolute as a moment. And in this sense we can say that any truth is absolutely relative. In the total knowledge of mankind, the share of the absolute is constantly increasing. The development of any truth is an increase in moments of the absolute. For example, each subsequent scientific theory is, in comparison with the previous one, more complete and profound knowledge. But new scientific truths do not at all derail the history of their predecessors, but complement, specify or include them as moments of more general and deeper truths.
So, science has not only absolute truths, but to an even greater extent relative truths, although the absolute is always partially realized in our current knowledge. It is unreasonable to get carried away with asserting absolute truths. It is necessary to remember the immensity of the still unknown, the relativity and once again the relativity of our knowledge.
Concreteness of truth and dogmatism
The concreteness of truth - one of the basic principles of the dialectical approach to cognition - presupposes an accurate account of all conditions (in social cognition - concrete historical conditions) in which the object of cognition is located. Concreteness is a property of truth based on knowledge of real connections, the interaction of all aspects of an object, the main, essential properties, and trends of its development. Thus, the truth or falsity of certain judgments cannot be established if the conditions of place, time, etc., in which they are formulated are not known. A judgment that correctly reflects an object under given conditions becomes false in relation to the same object under other circumstances. A true reflection of one of the moments of reality can become its opposite - a delusion, if certain conditions, place, time and the role of what is reflected within the whole are not taken into account. For example, a separate organ cannot be comprehended outside the whole organism, a person - outside of society (moreover, a historically specific society and in the context of the special, individual circumstances of his life). The statement “water boils at 100 degrees Celsius” is true only if we are talking about ordinary water and normal pressure. This position will no longer be true if the pressure is changed.
Each object, along with general features, is endowed with individual characteristics and has its own unique “life context”. Because of this, along with a generalized approach, a specific approach to the object is also necessary: There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete. Are the principles of classical mechanics, for example, true? Yes, they are true in relation to macrobodies and relatively low speeds of movement. Beyond these limits they cease to be true. The principle of concreteness of truth requires approaching facts not with general formulas and schemes, but taking into account the specific situation, real conditions, which is in no way compatible with dogmatism. The concrete historical approach acquires particular importance when analyzing the process of social development, since the latter occurs unevenly and, moreover, has its own specifics in different countries.
The truth of a thought or idea is based on how much it corresponds to objective reality, how much it corresponds to practice.
“This rope will not support 16 kg. - No, it will ...” no matter how much we argue, we will find out whose opinion is most true only after we hang a weight on the rope and try to lift it.
Philosophy distinguishes between concrete and abstract, relative and absolute truth. Relative truth is incomplete, often even inaccurate knowledge about an object or phenomenon. Usually it corresponds to a certain level of development of society, the instrumental and research base that it has. Relative truth is also a moment of our limited knowledge of the world, the approximate and imperfection of our knowledge, this is knowledge that depends on historical conditions, the time and place of its receipt.
Any truth, any knowledge that we use in practice is relative. Any, even the simplest object, has an infinite variety of properties, an infinite number of relationships.
Let's take our example. The rope supports the weight, which is stamped “16 kilograms”. This is a relative truth, reflecting one, but not the main and by no means the only property of the rope. What material is it made of? What is the chemical composition of this material? Who, when and where produced this material? How else can this material be used? We can formulate hundreds of questions about this simple subject, but even if we answer them, we will not know EVERYTHING about it.
Relative truth is true as long as it meets the practical needs of a person. For a long time, the postulate about a flat Earth and the Sun revolving around it was true for man, but only as long as this idea met the needs for navigation of ships, which did not leave sight of the shore when sailing.
In addition, relative truth must correspond to human needs. The primitive potter did not need to know the firing temperature of the clay in degrees - he successfully determined it by eye; the surgeon did not need to know the number of relatives of the patient, and the teacher did not need to know the shoe size of the student.
Absolute truth is an adequate reflection by the subject who knows of the cognizable object, its representation as what it really is, regardless of the level of human knowledge and his opinion about this object. Here a contradiction immediately arises - any human knowledge cannot be independent of man, precisely because it is human. Absolute truth is also an understanding of the infinity of the world, the limits to which human knowledge strives. The concept of “infinity” is easily used by mathematicians and physicists, but imagining and seeing infinity is not given to the human mind. Absolute truth is also comprehensive, reliable, verified knowledge that cannot be refuted. For a long time, the concept of the indivisibility of the atom was the basis of the worldview. The word itself is translated as “indivisible.” Today we cannot be sure that tomorrow any truth that seems indisputable today will not be rejected.
The main difference between relative and absolute truth is the completeness and adequacy of the reflection of reality. Truth is always relative and concrete. “A person’s heart is on the left side of his chest” is a relative truth; a person has many other properties and organs, but it is not specific, that is, it cannot be a universal truth - there are people whose heart is located on the right. 2+2 is a truth in arithmetic, but two people + two people can be a team, a gang, or equal to a number greater than 4 if they are two married couples. 2 units of weight + 2 units of weight of uranium may not mean 4 units of weight, but a nuclear reaction. Mathematics and physics, and any exact sciences, use abstract truths. “The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs,” and it does not matter where the triangle is drawn - on the ground or on the human body, what color, size it is, etc.
Even seemingly absolute moral truths often turn out to be relative. The truth about the need for respect for parents is so universally accepted, from the biblical commandments to all world literature, but when Miklouho-Maclay tried to convince the wild islanders of Oceania who were eating their parents that this was unacceptable, they gave him an argument that was undeniable from their point of view; “We would rather eat them and maintain our lives and the lives of our children than be eaten by worms.” I'm not talking about such a moral imperative as respect for the life of another person, which is completely forgotten during war; moreover, it degenerates into its opposite.
Human knowledge is an endless process of movement from relative to absolute truth. At each stage, truth, being relative, still remains true - it meets the needs of a person, the level of development of his tools and production in general, and does not contradict the reality that he observes. That’s when this contradiction of objective reality occurs - the search for a new truth, closer to the absolute, begins. In every relative truth there is a piece of absolute truth - the idea that the Earth is flat made it possible to draw maps and make long journeys. With the development of knowledge, the share of absolute truth in relative truth increases, but will never reach 100%. Many believe that absolute truth is Revelation and is possessed only by the Omniscient and Almighty God.
Attempts to elevate relative truth to the rank of absolute are always a ban on freedom of thought and even on specific scientific research, just as cybernetics and genetics were banned in the USSR, just as the church at one time condemned any scientific search and refuted any discovery because The Bible already contains absolute truth. When craters were discovered on the Moon, one of the church ideologists simply stated about this: “This is not written in the Bible, therefore, this cannot be.”
In general, the elevation of relative truth to absolute is characteristic of dictatorial authoritarian regimes, which have always hampered the development of science, as well as of any religion. A person does not have to search for the truth - everything is said in the Holy Scriptures. Any object or phenomenon has an exhaustive explanation - “This is so because the Lord created (desired) it. At one time, Clive Lewis formulated this well: “If you want to know everything, turn to God, if you are interested in learning, turn to science.”
Understanding the relativity of any truth does not disappoint in knowledge, but stimulates researchers to search.
In order to understand whether there is an absolute/universal truth, we must start with the definition of truth. According to the dictionary, truth is defined as “correspondence to reality; a statement proven or accepted as true.” Some people argue that there is no true reality - only subjective views and judgments. Others argue that absolute reality or truth must exist.
Proponents of one point of view argue that there are no absolutes that define reality. They believe that everything is relative and thus factual reality cannot exist. Because of this, ultimately there are no moral absolutes, no authority upon which to base decisions about what is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to "situational ethics" - the belief that "right" or "wrong" depends on the situation. In this case, what seems right at a certain moment or in a certain situation will be considered correct. This kind of ethics leads to a mentality and a way of life in which what is right is what is pleasant or convenient, and this in turn has a destructive effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society in which all values, beliefs, lifestyles and truth are absolutely equal.
Another view suggests that absolute reality or standards that determine what is fair and what is not, actually exist. Thus, depending on these absolute standards, actions can be defined as right or wrong. If there were no absolutes or reality, chaos would reign. Take the law of attraction for example. If it weren't absolute, you could take one step and find yourself high in the air, and the next time you wouldn't even be able to move. If 2+2 did not always equal four, it would have devastating consequences for civilization. The laws of science and physics would be meaningless, and commercial activity would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Luckily, two plus two always equals four. Absolute truth exists and can be found and understood.
The claim that absolute truth does not exist is illogical. However, many people today support cultural relativism, which denies any type of absolute truth. People who claim that there is no absolute truth should be asked: “Are you absolutely sure about this?” By answering “yes,” they are making an absolute statement, which presupposes the existence of absolutes. That is, in essence, the statement that there is no absolute truth is itself an absolute truth.
Besides the problem of internal contradiction, there are several other logical problems that must be solved in order to believe that there is no absolute or universal truth. One is that people have limited knowledge and mental capacity and therefore cannot make absolute negative statements. According to logic, a person cannot say: “There is no God” (although many say just that) - in order to assert this, he must have absolute knowledge about the entire Universe, from beginning to end. Since this is impossible, the most logical formulation would be: “Based on the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe that God exists.”
Another problem is that the rejection of absolute truth does not stand up to what our own conscience tells us, our experience, and what we observe in the real world. If absolute truth does not exist, then ultimately nothing is right or wrong. Just because something is right for me doesn't mean it will be right for you too. Although upon superficial examination this type of relativism seems very attractive, giving each person the opportunity to set his own rules in life and do what, in his opinion, is right. However, sooner or later one person's rules will begin to conflict with another person's rules. Imagine what would happen if I decided that I could ignore traffic lights, even if they were red? By doing this I endanger the lives of many people. Or perhaps I will decide that I have the right to steal from you, while you will consider this completely unacceptable. If there is no absolute truth, no absolute standards of what is right and what is wrong, and everything is relative, then we can never be sure of anything. People will do as they please - kill, rape, steal, deceive, cheat, etc., and no one will be able to say that it is wrong. There will be no government, no laws, no justice, because the majority of people will not have the right to elect and set standards for the minority. A world without standards would be the scariest place imaginable.
From a spiritual perspective, this type of relativism leads to religious confusion, suggesting that there is no one true religion and no right way to have an intimate relationship with God. That is why today we often meet people who simultaneously believe in two diametrically opposed religions. People who do not believe in absolute truth follow universalism, which teaches that all religions are equal and they all lead to heaven. In addition, people who prefer this worldview will strongly oppose Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life” and that He is the highest manifestation of truth and the only way to heaven (John 14:6).
Tolerance has become the single key value of society, the single absolute truth, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief - especially the belief in the existence of absolute truth - is considered intolerance, an absolute sin. Truth deniers often say that it is good to believe what you want as long as you do not try to force your beliefs on others. But this opinion is a belief about what is right and wrong, and its proponents most certainly attempt to impose it on others, thereby violating the principles they stand for. They simply don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards, and then we are held accountable according to them. This responsibility is what people are actually trying to avoid by denying the existence of absolute truth.
The rejection of absolute truth and the general cultural relativism that comes from it is logical for a society that follows the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. If evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and nothing can be absolutely right or wrong. A person has the right to live as he pleases and is not obliged to answer to anyone for his actions. And yet, no matter how far a sinful person is willing to go to deny the existence of God and His truth, he will still someday stand before His judgment. The Bible says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For what can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has revealed it to them. For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creatures, so that they are irresponsible. But how, having come to know God, they did not glorify Him as God and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; calling themselves wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18-22).
Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? First, evidence of the existence of absolute truth appears in our consciousness. Our conscience tells us that the world must be built a “certain way,” that certain things are right and others are wrong. It helps us understand that there is something wrong with suffering, hunger, rape, pain and evil. It makes us realize that there is love, nobility, compassion and peace that we should strive for. This applies to all people who have lived at all times, regardless of their culture. The role of human consciousness is spoken of in Romans 2:14-16: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do what is lawful by nature, then, not having the law, they are a law unto themselves: they show that the work of the law is written among them. hearts, as evidenced by their conscience and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another - on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secret deeds of men through Jesus Christ.”
The second proof of the existence of absolute truth comes from science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, it is the exploration of what we know and the attempt to know more. Therefore, all scientific research must necessarily be based on the conviction that there is an objective reality in the world around us. What could be explored without absolutes? How would one know that the conclusions reached are correct? In fact, the laws of science must be based on the existence of absolute truth.
The third proof of the existence of absolute truth is religion. All religions of the world strive to convey the meaning and definition of life. They are born from the fact that humanity strives for something more than just existence. Through religion, people seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is truly proof that humanity is not just an advanced animal species. This indicates a higher purpose, as well as the existence of a purposeful creator who put into the mind of man the desire to know him. And if the creator really exists, then he is the standard for absolute truth, and it is on his authority that this truth is based.
Fortunately, we have such a Creator, and He revealed His truth through His Word - the Bible. If we want to know the truth, the only way to do it is through a personal relationship with the One who is the Truth - Jesus Christ. “Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth exists shows us that there is a Lord God who created heaven and earth and revealed Himself to us so that we could know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. This is the absolute truth.
When writing this answer on the site, materials from the got site were partially or fully used Questions? org!
Owners of the Bible Online resource may partially or not at all share the opinion of this article.
