I'm writing an essay arguing against there being an absolute truth, would it make sense

First of all, how are you defining "absolute truth"?
Second of all, it's impossible to have any proof about the existence/non-existence of God, since it boils down to faith.
 
That is disturbing to me that it's even up for debate on whether or not there is a God. If there wasn't, why would millions of people all believe in something like that if it's not real? The United States was built around God and religion. Have you ever been to church and left feeling uplifted and like you can do anything if you put ur mind to it? That's the power of God. It's amazing actually. And people always question things and condemn things that they don't understand or are afraid of.
Try a different approach. This one is just offensive.
 
If you are writing a paper and you don't really believe in the side you are taking, then you can use anything you want to prove your point. On the other hand, there are some absolute truths. For example, if I press the letter S on my keyboard, I press the letter S on my keyboard. That is an absolute truth. Be specific about what kind of truth you are referring to. There are lots of absolute truths. If you are talking about absolute truth as a moral compass, then yes, I think you would have to argue that there is no God in order to make your point.
 
No. That would be a waste of the paper and make it too specific. God is just one of countless absolutes. Others include infinity, eternity, perfection, truth, certainty, and teenage love, LOL, etc.

There are no proofs for or against the existence of God. But to raise that as part of your argument would show that you are confusing an attempt to argue against absolutes with the attempt to refute ONE example of a supposed absolute, and you cannot prove a rule by one example or by an exception.

One argument you can use is to point out that no objective absolutes exist in our universe that you can point to and say that "there is an absolute" like you could with a flower or pony.

You have to also refute the argument that there are absolutes in this universe in the forms of mathematical absolutes and in physics you have absolute zero temperature.

You refute the first by saying that mathematics is the result of following coherent and consistent rules that always produce the same results. Nothing absolute there. The confusion is between consistence and absoluteness.

Absolute zero temperature is absolute in name only. Nothing absolute about nearly motionless molecules and atoms.

Another way to argue against absolute truth is that that would imply complete certainty. We don't have complete certainty in this world but only a probabilistic certainty. You might believe or assume that something will turn out a particular way, you may feel certain, but that doesn't mean it will turn out that way. People have been absolutely certain about all sorts of things that turned out to be false. While a truth table can show truth for complex statements, it is not showing "absolute truth", especially not in a religious sense.

In summary, argue against the concept of absolute instead of any few examples of absolutes. Try to be sensitive to the fact that different people use the term absolute in different ways, so start by defining what is meant philosophically by the term absolute. For example, the person posting immediately after me is confusing absolute with sensorial knowledge. All knowledge including moral knowledge is conditonal which means it is not absolute. So it is easy to get confused.
 
Back
Top