What is truth? The age old question. In the post modern world it has become a great dilemma.
Few people believe in absolutes so a concept of relative truth has evolved. Yet there has been demonstrated by science that there are laws of physics. They are called laws because science has demonstrated that certain actions will result in predictable and repeatable reactions. The law of gravity basically says what goes up must come down. Simplified but true. There is no ambiguity here. When one understands the law and works within its parameters great things can be accomplished. To defy the law courts disaster. So an absolute exists.
Truth to be truth in its absolute sense must be independent of opinion. The laws of science remain regardless of what anyone thinks about them. They exist outside the objects they govern. But what about moral truth?
Here is where to debate about truth centers. The post modern mind says what is true or right for an individual depends on his experience and viewpoint. Though a widely held view its reliance on the capricious nature of the individual makes any attempt to define morality impossible. The great majority of individuals will agree that theft is immoral. Along comes a pure communist who believes that ownership of personal property is immoral. How can one condemn his actions when he takes the property of other? Is he not acting according to his own moral understanding? for moral truth to exist it must exist outside the persons it governs. Where does such a source come from?
A document such as the Constitution of the United States could be drafted and every one could agree to abide by its tenets. When there is a dispute the document can be referred to as the standard for behavior. But this is still an inadequate source for absolute truth. At any time a gathering of individuals can by agreement alter the document. Though that may not happen for generations, it still makes it impossible to always predict a cause and effect relationship as in the laws of physics.
When I purchase a new car I receive a manual. This manual lays out the details of how the car can and must be used to preserve the warranties made by the manufacturer. The manufacturer by virtue of having produced the car and offered the warranty as a condition of the sale has every right to ask me to abide by the rules in the manual if I expect the warranties to be honored. This is the "moral truth" governing my behavior as it pertains to my ownership of the car. It exists outside of my opinion and has predictable results according to my actions.
For moral truth to exist it must emanate from the source of our existence. This is the essence of the struggle between the Atheist and the Theist. The Theist finds a moral truth from the direction of a creator God, the Atheist looks within himself and or others. The Theist finds order established as agreement with the creator is made, the Atheist must compromise with the capricious nature of humanity to find a consensus which must be redefined as necessity dictates. For the Theist there will always be moral truth, for the Atheist there can never be moral truth.