Veyron,
You have actually been offered 2 answers to your request for what is absolute truth. The question has been answered directly.
May I simply point out that it is not reasonable to try and handwave away direct answers to a question by only saying they are not answers to the question.
Vehn's math answer particularly, is a good example of an absolute truth in abstract form, verifiable as such in reality.
The Nature answer stands too and not just specifically in regard to earth as you allude, but for everything there is, in and of the Universe.
Here's another absolute truth; Existence.
These answers are examples of what can be termed absolute truth, as demonstrations of them produces the very thing itself.
So now you have 3 answers. If your only response is to be "They are not answers" as it has been up to here, it's not anything like the healthy debate in which you say you don't mind engaging.
However the only debate there appears to be is between yourself and an imaginary 'atheist', wherein you provide all the questions and answers.
More constructively perhaps you might be prepared to undertake a little experiment which I put forward to illustrate one particular mistake out of the many present in your last post particularly.
I have extracted the following statements. I hope you can follow their own line of reasoning which should demonstrate at least one serious flaw out of all the other similar illogical and logically faulty assumptions you've made so far.
Now in light of what you state above can you see a problem arising in what you say next.....
Well, it would seem you are capable. Capable by making the mistake of stating and assuming everything must have another cause..or "its own point of instantiation"
From what you say must be , God " must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin."
ID, just like Creationism, which is what ID is, falls over completely every time in that sorry state of infinite regress.
Completely unlike real answers such like math, nature and existence, ID/Creationism as would be expected from any fantasy, provides no answers. It merely begs more questions.
You have actually been offered 2 answers to your request for what is absolute truth. The question has been answered directly.
May I simply point out that it is not reasonable to try and handwave away direct answers to a question by only saying they are not answers to the question.
Vehn's math answer particularly, is a good example of an absolute truth in abstract form, verifiable as such in reality.
The Nature answer stands too and not just specifically in regard to earth as you allude, but for everything there is, in and of the Universe.
Here's another absolute truth; Existence.
These answers are examples of what can be termed absolute truth, as demonstrations of them produces the very thing itself.
So now you have 3 answers. If your only response is to be "They are not answers" as it has been up to here, it's not anything like the healthy debate in which you say you don't mind engaging.
However the only debate there appears to be is between yourself and an imaginary 'atheist', wherein you provide all the questions and answers.
More constructively perhaps you might be prepared to undertake a little experiment which I put forward to illustrate one particular mistake out of the many present in your last post particularly.
I have extracted the following statements. I hope you can follow their own line of reasoning which should demonstrate at least one serious flaw out of all the other similar illogical and logically faulty assumptions you've made so far.
".....if a thing within our known universe exists, there must a point of instantiation for said thing."
" if absolute truth exists, then it must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin. "
" if intelligence exists, then so to must it have its own point of instantiation "
Now in light of what you state above can you see a problem arising in what you say next.....
" And, if God exists, then who or what among His creation is capable of proving otherwise? "
Well, it would seem you are capable. Capable by making the mistake of stating and assuming everything must have another cause..or "its own point of instantiation"
From what you say must be , God " must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin."
ID, just like Creationism, which is what ID is, falls over completely every time in that sorry state of infinite regress.
Completely unlike real answers such like math, nature and existence, ID/Creationism as would be expected from any fantasy, provides no answers. It merely begs more questions.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
I guess this question will never get answered straight forwardly.
So, here's the point:
If you had said "no," absolute truth does not exist (as so many Atheists and Evolutionists do when asked), then that statement alone would have been enough to end the debate, as you would have clearly demonstrated a strong propensity towards circular logic. Using an "absolute" to rule out an "absolute" is by its very definition, circular and therefore eliminates one from having the intellectual capacity to argue on a broader scale about the source and origin of the Universe.
If you had said "yes," absolute true does exist (without the slick qualifiers of 'in mathematics' or 'in nature' etc.) absolutely, then you would have been correct in your assessment and bound to answer the follow-up question of:
Where does absolute truth obtain its source and origin?"
Following the well established universal constant that for every effect, there must be an associated causality within the known universe, one has to also conclude that there can be no cause without a preceding effectual outcome. This if a thing within our known universe exists, there must a point of instantiation for said thing. Forward, therefore, if absolute truth exists, then it must also have a point of instantiation, source and/or origin.
That, resolved, would lead to the primary universal question:
What is the source and origin of the Universe itself?
Knowing and accepting that absolute truth is contained within cause and effect, and that cause and effect is therefore contained within the universe, it begs the next logical question about the causality for the Universe itself. And, that question would logically lead to the physical instantiation of the Universe, namely the layman's term: The Big Bang. Mathematically derived as the first causality point of singularity.
Of course, if one believes in standard cosmological principles (as I do) that the point of singularity was a real historical event within our universe, then one would therefore have to deal with the question of:
What was the source and origin of the first cause point of singularity - The Big Bang?
At this point, most Atheists start looking for the nearest Exit sign as they find their way out of the debate, claiming "victory" as they mumble something about "parallel universes," "multiverses" and/or "colliding membranes with infinite substrates," as their be-all, end-all explanation for the source and origin of the "Big Bang." None of it true, logical, rational or even reasonable at this stage, but it is typically what the erudite Atheist pulls out of the final bag of tricks.
Of course, my (typically final) retort is:
Ok, then what was the source and origin for the colliding membranes?
To that simple question, most Atheists then break full speed into the personal insults about how I sheepishly follow the "Bible" - even though I NEVER once used the "Bible" to disprove their illogical claim that you can get something from nothing in our known universe. Typically, the Atheist then declares victory and then moves on.
Oh, well - at least here we did not have to go through all that, because no Atheist could muster enough wherewithal to handle the question outright.
The only thing that can possibly explain the known universe and its potential for and exhibition of, intelligence through mankind, is the absolute existence of a Creator with extensibility both within and without our physical frame of reference. There can be no other answer.
Why? Because if intelligence exists, then so to must it have its own point of instantiation as mathematically [0+0] = 0. Thus, if intelligence by definition exists, then its value must be > 0. And, if its value is > 0, then it would be mathematically impossible for [0+N] = 0 (where N must equal a positive value in order for intelligence to exist).
So, you see, using some very basic math an some common sense and intellectual honesty, one can show the logical proofs for the existence of God. And, if God exists, then who or what among His creation is capable of proving otherwise?
The logic is unbreakable, but I don't mind a healthy (on the merits) debate with anyone who thinks they can.