Does Absolute Truth Exist?
Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 223 viewsNotes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed.
To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical.
How would you respond to someone who says, “There is no absolute truth”
“Are you absolutely sure of that?”
If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes.
People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven.
Law of Non-Contradiction: ALL religions claim they have the exclusive truth
ALL religions claim they have the exclusive truth
The Law of Noncontradiction is a self - evident first principle of thought that says contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense. In short, it says that the opposite of true is false. We all know this law intuitively, and use it every day.
Jesus is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven ().
The Resurrection of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in world history.
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.
Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”
Either morality and ethics originate from the mind of God, Who is the source of all goodness, or they originate from within man himself.
God, Who is the source of all goodness, or they originate from within man
The person who refuses to recognize the existence of God has only one choice when it comes to explaining morality—it must have originated within man.
choice when it comes to explaining morality—it must have originated within
However, since man is viewed as little more than the last animal produced by the long, meandering, chance process of evolution, this becomes a problem.
himself.
man. However, since man is viewed as little more than the last animal produced
by the long, meandering, chance process of evolution, this becomes
A lion is not plagued by guilt after killing a gazelle for its noon meal.
a problem. A lion is not plagued by guilt after killing a gazelle for its noon
Believe it is an illusion, our choices are purely dictated by prior chemical and electrical reactions in our brains
We cannot be held accountable for our actions (no moral accountability)
The problem of planning for the atheist
Our ability to deliberate about our decisions and ponder the options before acting presupposes we have the freedom to think independently from deterministic physical processes.
meal.
Free will is difficult to deny (unless, of course, we have the freedom to deny it)
This freedom to make choices — even the freedom to reject truth — is what makes us moral creatures and enables each of us to choose our ultimate destiny. This really hits at the heart of why we exist at all, and why God might not be as overt in revealing himself to us as some would like.
God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling.
Morality - Can we be good without God?
Morality - Can we be good without God?
The question is not : Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?
There’s no reason to think that nonbelievers cannot live what we’d normally call good and decent lives.
Again , the question is not : Can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God?
The question is not about the necessity of belief in God for objective morality but about the necessity of the existence of God for objective morality.
ATHEISTS: The objection is that if our moral beliefs have been shaped by evolution , then our moral beliefs will be selected for their survival value, not for their truth
Darwinian evolution cannot produce truly objective morality.
Is it just relative to each individual (objectivism)?
If moral truth is subjective, nothing distinguishes what one person considers morally virtuous from what another considers morally vile.
Mother Teresa was entitled to her opinion ; Hitler to his. Neither could be said to hold a superior position if there is no transcendent standard by which we could measure either of them.
If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did — he just had bad molecules
If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did — he just had bad molecules
If one person isn’t thrown overboard , then everyone will die. Students labor over the dilemma, come to different conclusions, and then conclude their disagreement proves that morality must be relative.
But the dilemma actually proves the opposite — that morality is absolute . How ? Because there would be no dilemma if morality were relative! If morality were relative and there were no absolute right to life , you’d say , “ It doesn’t matter what happens ! Throw everyone overboard ! Who cares ? ”
The very reason we struggle with the dilemma is because we know how valuable life is:
The reason we believe we ought to do good rather than evil — the reason we believe we should “help people” — is because there’s a Moral Law that has been written on our hearts.
In other words , there is a “prescription” to do good that has been given to all of humanity
The fact that a moral standard has been prescribed on the minds of all human beings points to a Moral Law Prescriber
Without a Moral Law, there would be nothing objectively wrong with Christians or Muslims forcibly imposing their religion on atheists.
There would be nothing wrong with outlawing atheism, confiscating the property of atheists, and giving it to Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham.
There would be nothing wrong with gay - bashing, or racism. Nor would there be anything wrong with prohibiting abortion, birth control, and even sex between consenting adults !
In other words , without the Moral Law, atheists have no moral grounds to argue for their pet political causes
So by rebelling against the Moral Law, atheists have, ironically, undermined their grounds for rebelling against anything
Moral obligations exist between persons; if moral laws are transcendent, it seems reasonable for us to look for the transcendent person to whom we are ultimately obligated.
Moral obligations exist between persons; if moral laws are transcendent, it seems reasonable for us to look for the transcendent person to whom we are ultimately obligated.
Naturalism fails to explain two attributes of the universe related to objective moral truth. It cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths, and it cannot explain objective, transcendent personal obligations.
Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral law source , and an all - powerful , nonmaterial , nonspatial , atemporal , purposeful , personal Creator would certainly qualify.
Atheists have no real basis for objective right and wrong . This does not mean that atheists are not moral or don’t understand right from wrong . On the contrary, atheists can and do understand right from wrong because the Moral Law is written on their hearts just as on every other heart.
But while they may believe in an objective right and wrong , they have no way to justify such a belief (unless they admit a Moral Law Giver , at which point they cease being atheists)