Pure,
You are arguing semantics -- the “meaning” of “absolute.” I am arguing that the chair I’m sitting on is “absolute” in the sense that it is knowable (at least in part) AS a chair. That is, I will not mistake my chair for a rutabaga. I am not arguing that my chair is the one “true” chair, or the “original” chair, or the one-and-
only chair, but simply that the chair I’m sitting on is a REAL chair, and not some figment of my (our your) imagination. I may not know
everything about this chair (or other chairs), but I know and understand THIS chair well enough to know that it IS a chair. The choice is not between
no knowledge and
exhaustive knowledge. God is “knowable” (via His Word and the created order) but in an admittedly limited sense. But because my knowledge of the chair (or God) is “partial” does NOT mean that the chair (or God) is not absolutely REAL.
You said,
But I don't see how you could have determined that reality is an absolute state.
I would agree that “physical reality” is in a constant state of “flux” (on an atomic and sub-atomic level), but it’s interesting that reality is always “fluxing” or changing in predictable ways. The “reality” is that my chair is in a constant state of motion, even though I perceive it as a “solid.” The kicker is, my chair does not “flux” in another direction, or turn into something else, at least in a way that is not predictable. It is “absolutely” or “really” a chair, and not something else. Yes, it will eventually “wear out” and become something other than a chair, but given what we know about matter, the transformation from a chair into its constituent elements is
predictable.
If the reality of my chair is not “absolute” (as in absolutely REAL), then nothing is absolute, in which case arguing about the absoluteness and existence of God is like arguing about the “shade” of the color “blue” with a blind man. If there is no absolute STANDARD of reality, knowledge is impossible.
Soulman
