Supremely Absolute

The existence of God is an often pondered and often debated subject amongst many people searching for the difficult answers regarding life and its purposes. The question of the existence of a supreme creator of all things is an inevitable foundation of any basis of fundamental philosophical thought. It would seem as though all philosophy and all philosophical belief systems spring from some sort of belief or absence of belief in deity and what for the deity takes.

Although God can take on a variety of different names across the vast expanse of religious thought and belief systems, this author’s predisposition toward Christianity makes a preference toward the Judeo-Christian God for purposes of having a name for the sake of argument. However, it is likely that the reader could project his own name of Supreme Being without interrupting the arguments written here.

Moral absolutism (or moral relativism) is also a fundamental integral part of belief systems. A person may assert that either each person’s ideas of good and evil are created of the individuals own mind and thoughts, or a person may assert that the ideals of good and evil are absolute, coming from a single source. Either good and evil are relative to each individual, or they are absolute to all people throughout the universe.

If the ideals of good and evil are relative, then there can really be made no assertion of what is truly good or evil at all. What may be considered good to one person might be considered evil by another. Therefore, nothing can be called either universally good or universally evil. This presents numerous problems in how societies deal with behaviors. For example, by what authority can punishment be issued? How can any behavior go either punished or unpunished, since there is nothing that makes the behavior either good or evil? To take the idea of moral relativism to its full conclusion, the world falls into chaos with no path of organization.

Some have asserted that this is an unfair view of moral relativism, and that in practice, moral relativism respects the moral views of others and searches for common ground when confronted with contradictions. In simpler words, so long as ideas of good and evil in practice do not impede on other individuals, any practice or behavior is acceptable. Whatever does no harm to any other individual is acceptable. However, this cannot really be considered moral relativism, because it provides for a single idea of good and evil. There is within it an absolute – the desire for not to impede on another individual.

In the absence of moral relativism, one must have to admit that there has to be at least one absolute. In order for any truth to become absolute, it must come from a source that possesses certain qualities. Firstly, the source of the absolute truth must possess omnipotence, or supreme power over all things. If the source does not possess this power, then it cannot subject any other being to accept any single truth. In order for the absolute to apply, everyone must be subjugated to the power of the source from which the absolute came.

Secondly, this source must possess omniscience, or supreme knowledge. This almost goes without saying. In order for absolute truth to be created, knowledge of all its facets and implications must reside with its creator.

This source must also possess omnipresence. Proper perspective for omniscience requires presence in all places and in all times. To apply truth universally, the source of the truth must be everywhere.

The qualities that the source of absolute truth must possess are the same qualities attributed to what many know as God. In the narrow scope of this essay, God can be defined as the single source from which comes absolute ideals of good and of evil. Either a person must accept that there is a Supreme Being, or must assert that there are no absolutes. In the case of the latter, the author has already presented how this is not really a truly workable philosophy.