Dear Read,
I pray you will not dismiss this post. No matter what your religious sentiments, I believe this is an important, foundational concept that far too many of us do not understand. I think it’s time we at least give it the consideration it is due.
What do I mean when I say:
“One Truth, One God: One God, One Truth?”
This is actually a deep, philosophical discussion, but I’ll do my best to keep it as simple as possible. Basically, if there is such thing as one, singular Truth (with a capital ‘T’), then, whether we can ever ascertain that Truth or not, it means there can only be One God. Conversely, if there is only One True God, then there can only be one Truth. The question now is, how can we know whether or not there is one Truth or One True God?
We’ll start with the easiest question first:
“How can we know whether or not there is one Truth?”
This is actually an easier question to answer than most people realize — mostly because they do not bother to think for themselves. I am aware that there are those who would tell us that reality is different for everyone, and that each person creates their own truth. OK, I’ll accept that. Guess what? These people just proved — proved — that there is a single reality and, thus, a single Truth for all of us. And, if there is a single Truth for every individual, that is Truth with a capital ‘T,’ then that Truth is also a universal law.
Now, I suspect you may be thinking I missed something because I just said that I agree with the premise that everyone creates there own truth, and that this assertion actually proves there is a single Truth. This is why I said we do not think for ourselves. If this statement is true for all of us:
“The only truth that exists in this world is the truth we each create or perceive for ourselves.”
Then that is a universal statement. A universal statement means it is universally true for every individual: it applies equally to all. Well, that is not only Truth with a capital ‘T,’ it is also the definition of ‘universal law.’ Do you see it? If it is true for all — no matter what truth we create for ourselves — then there is a Truth above all things. This proves that Truth exists.*** Which means that the ‘clever’ people who thought they were escaping the consequences of this conclusion didn’t succeed: quite the opposite. Instead of escaping Truth, they proved that Truth exists.
Now for the part that is just as easy to see and understand, but harder for most of us to accept.
“If there is such thing as a universal Truth, then there must be a Creator, and if there is a Creator, there can only be One Truth.”
Let’s stop and take a good, hard look at this last statement. Let’s do so by constructing a semi-formal, logical argument:
If there is such a thing as universal Truth, then that is also a universal law (i.e. a Natural Law). This is by definition (which means, we do not get to disagree with the fact of the statement; it is true by definition, by its nature).
If there is such thing as a law, then there must be a law-giver.
If there is a law-giver who can create and enforce laws upon this entire universe, then that law-giver must be above, outside of or in control of this universe.
If there is a Law-Giver who exists above or outside of and has control over this universe, then — by definition — that Law-Giver is God.
The question before the philosophers among us now is, “Is this a sound, valid and rational argument.” If it is, then the conclusion(s) must be accepted unless and until a stronger sound, valid and rational argument is made refuting it. But, for those of us who are not philosophers, I’ll explain it in ‘dinner table’ terms.
If the first premise is true, and Truth is a Universal Law, does the rest of the premises follow? In other words, if the first statement is true, than does it make sense that each statement after it is true as a result of the first. So, let’s look at our premises again, and see if we can determine whether or not the first is true and the rest are true because of it:
1 — Does universal Truth exists? — Yes, we proved that — by definition — before we created the argument.
1A — If Universal Truth exists, does that mean it has to be a Natural Law? — Yes, this is by definition (look up Natural Law)
2 — Does the existence of Natural Law necessitate a Creator of that law? — Yes, the notion of a law-giver is inherent in the definition of ‘law’
3 — If there is a law-giver, must that law-giver have the ability to enforce a law? — Yes, again, this is inherent in the concept of ‘law.’
3A — If there is a law-giver who has the ability to enforce laws on this universe, does that make that law-giver outside of, above or in control of this universe? — Yes, again, this is by definition
4 — If there is a law-giver who is outside of, above or in control of this universe, does that make that law giver a god? — Yes, again, this is true by definition.
Now for the tasty part. Did you notice how all of the premises that follow the first are true ‘by definition?’ This means this argument is one of the strongest of all possible arguments. Why? Because it is sound, valid and rational, and everything rests on definitions. In short, you literally have to change the nature of this entire Universe to make this argument false! Have you ever heard someone say, ‘You cannot prove the existence of God?’ Well, we just did. Therefore:
There is One Truth, which means there is One God: and because there is One God, there is only One Truth!
Now, there is another discussion we will need to have about why One God is sufficient and there is no need for more than One God, but we can tackle that discussion another time. For the moment, this should be enough to keep the majority of us thinking for a while — and that is all I seek to do: get you to think for yourself!
***
This is a pretty inescapable concept: if you make a statement addressing the non-existence of universal Truth, you prove that universal Truth exists. It does not matter what you say or how you try to frame it, by trying to prove it does not exist, you will prove universal Truth must exist. This is because any statement you make against the existence of universal Truth will be a blanket — or ‘universal’ — statement that you are asserting is true. Therefore, if your statement is true, then it is universally true — which proves the existence of Universal Truth. It is a vicious circle, and many have argued it is a fallacy, or have just denied the reality of this Truth, but, never-the-less, it is True. This is how we know Universal Truth exists. It is similar to how we know we exist: “we think, therefore, we are!” The key to accepting this is in a clause I asserted at the beginning of this blog which so many people overlook: “Though we may never be able to correctly ascertain its nature, Truth still exists.” Not knowing its true nature does not mean it doesn’t exist, it just means we can know it exists, but we may never know everything there is to know about it.
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 