danny1987 wrote:I would argue that there is no inherent reason why absolute truth is illogical and can only be reached by a leap of faith. 100% is a degree just as much as 75% is or 35%. If it is possible for probable truth to be logical, then why is it not possible for absolute truth to be logical as well?
Admittedly they would both need some qualification basically just laziness on my part.in fact I knew it was quite questionable when I wrote it. so thanks for keeping me honest, its the first time ive expressed this argument formally in language so I'm not actually completely aware of all the premises i have for it yet anyway heres another attempt at what i'm trying to say.
The argument is that belief in any absolute truth would necessarily require a leap of faith to be reached.(not that absolute truth is illogical) and that this leap of faith is illogical because given the possibility of falsity there is no justification for it(its illogical because we know that it could possibly be false). This is because for something to be absolutely true it must be the case that there is no possible situation in which it could be false. But in fact there is no such truth all truths can possibly be false. Thus there are only probable truths. Therefore belief in absolute truth necessarily requires a leap of faith. Now of course this argument has the flaw that its conclusion- there are only probable truths applies to itself so It would have to be that the laws of logic, contradiction etc are only probably true.
we do of course have a concept of absolute truth that is we know what criteria would be required for something to be absolutely true-100% certainty, so you might argue from this that it is possible, but I think this would be hard to justify. We know what criteria would be required for something to be impossible like a circular-square(sorry about the generic phil example) its just that the criteria inherently exclude one another.
So you might say that's very similar to what I'm arguing-that the notions of possibility and probability necessarily exclude the existence of an absolute truth.
I think or would hazard that to reject this argument you really require an actual absolute truth and that would be an achievement great in stature.