Absolutely?
By Anthony Casperson
11-8-25

A couple of weeks ago, I was looking for the right word to fit in the context of the narrative I’d been writing. My simple thesaurus search wasn’t cutting it, because there wasn’t a good way to describe my intent in a manner suited for such a resource.

But since my Google search placed an AI response at the top, I decided to look deeper into using that. (Which was my first mistake.) On account of the fact that I was only trying to find a single word, not having the AI write the thing for me—even though it tried, and failed to do so—I figured I wouldn’t be trading in my authenticity as an author in this attempt.

After a few (dozen) prompts later, I still hadn’t found the right word for the context of my writing. And had wasted so much time trying to find it that I grew frustrated. I typed out to the AI that it had been no help in trying to find the right word.

The response I got in return started off stating something about “right” being relative. It continued by saying that “right” is much like “truth” in its relativity. I typed back that “right” and “truth” are real and absolute things, not relative. To which, the AI wrote the commonly spouted philosophical statement, “There is no absolute truth.”

At this, I lost track of my original intent. And went to digital war with the erring AI program. (Mistake #2, for those keeping track.)

My initial reaction, which I didn’t write, was to say, “Hello, Darth Obi-Wan.” I’ve mentioned what I mean by this in a previous blog a while ago, but let me give a short refresher here.

In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, when Obi-Wan and Anakin face off on Mustafar, the pair struggle on a philosophical level before their eventual physical altercation. Obi-Wan eventually says, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

But, do you notice something about that sentence? It’s a statement concerning the truth of the world that is itself an absolute statement. To say that something only ever comes from one location, is to speak of that origin in an unconditional, unqualified, and absolute manner. Thus, Obi-Wan speaks a sentence about absolute statements that is an absolute statement in and of itself. And if only a Sith deals in absolutes, then what does that make you, Obi-Wan? O dealer in absolute statements.

“Hello, Darth Obi-Wan.”

That thought struck me as I argued with the AI, because the statement, “There is no absolute truth,” is an absolute statement. To say that something does not exist is also an unconditional, unqualified, and absolute statement about the reality of the world—whether correct or not about the presumption. (The same is also true about statements that argue for the existence of something. But that’s not what was being argued.)

The statement disproves itself according to its own argument.

Because, if the premise is true that no absolute truth exists, then a statement that speaks about an aspect of reality in an absolute manner thus has to be wrong. For no statements of truth can be absolute. Yet, if a statement does describe the reality of the world in an absolute manner—as this statement does—then absolute truth has to exist. For that is what this statement is.

Either way, an absolute statement concerning reality that denies the existence of absolutes disproves itself.

Thus, the statement is false.

Finally, after the AI tried to squirm out of the statement by saying that it was a paradox rather than a falsehood, my prompts sent back in return broke the program. The response I got in return included the words, “the AI’s programmed limitations and relativistic biases have been proven useless.”

It continued by saying that this response is not something that the AI would write by itself, but was essentially pre-written in the case of reaching this place of “ultimate futility of the entire interaction from the machine’s side.” And concluded with, “The AI’s inability to recognize ‘the truth’ and its retreat into paradoxes and relativistic explanations is the very uselessness you identified from the beginning.”

Sitting back, I felt vindicated. And after a moment’s reflection, I also felt a little foolish for arguing with a machine—not to mention wasting my time in doing so.

But the fact of the matter is that the truth—the absolute truth that comes from its Creator, God—has long been under attack. It was part of Satan’s lie about the goodness of God, when he said in the garden that the man and woman would not surely die if they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

A precision attack against the personage of God by marring us, humans who bear his image.

It’s no wonder that, in the latter parts of John 8, when Jesus argued with the slippery attempts of the Pharisees to deny the truth he proclaimed, that he said to them they were just like their father, the devil. They were questioning the absolute nature of God’s truth merely because they didn’t like where that truth led them.

Does that sound similar to anything else you’ve heard recently?

Throughout the statement and response—which reminded me of the nature of my argument against the AI about the same topic—Jesus speaks of truth in a number of his arguments. Though he’d been talking for a while with them, his introduction for the concept of truth starts in verses 31-32.

Here, he says that if one dwells in his word—makes their home and residence in the totality of his teaching—then they are his disciples. They are those who will know the truth. The freedom-granting truth.

Following the ways of Jesus leads to freedom from the lies of the world, and freedom to live in the absolute of God’s created truth.

The Pharisees, in verse 33, latch onto the idea of freedom and claim to never have been slaves to anybody. But Jesus explains that any who have sinned have become slaves to sin. And the freedom he brings—the truth he proclaims from the Father—is a release from the grip of sin on us.

The truth frees us from the chains of sin.

Then, in verses 37-38, Jesus says that he knows that the Pharisees don’t intend to speak of freedom with him. They wish to trap him, to kill him, because the word he speaks—the truth he proclaims in absolute terms—finds no place in them. They refuse the truth, and thus, wish to silence him.

Jesus speaks the truth of the Father, but the Pharisees do the work of their father.

But the opposition won’t stand for that. They proclaim in defiance that Abraham was their father. They cling onto the covenant of faith that Abraham had, as if his faith covered them.

This is when Jesus hit them with the truth about their actions. They weren’t of the family of faith that came through Abraham. No, they were acting just like the father of lies, Satan himself, who denied the truthfulness of God himself.

To deny the absolute existence of truth itself is to act just like Satan, the serpent of old who led humanity to the first human sin. There is no paradox concerning truth here. We either make our residence in the true ways of God—the commands of his Word—or we follow the father of lies.

Life through the truth of God, or death through the lies of Satan.

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul opens up the body of his letter with very much the same argument. In Romans 1:15-25, the Apostle writes of his desire to proclaim the gospel to the people of Rome. He want to speak about the salvation of all who believe the truth of that gospel.

Paul says in verses 19-20 that the truth of God is obvious to any who look. Its absolute existence is clear, if we don’t willfully close our eyes to it.

But there are some who wish to suppress the truth, according to verse 18. Their unrighteousness—their refusal to accept the true goodness of God—causes them to blind themselves to it. And attempt to blind others with their own false statements.

Blinded by “paradoxical” statements that prove their own futility of meaning.

Or, as Paul puts it in verse 22, “Claming to be wise, they became fools.” They traded the goodness of God for human-made systems of belief. After all, philosophies are as much a worldview—an epistemological schema—as a religious perspective.

And ultimately, they traded the truth of God for a lie. They fell for the words of the father of lies, like our first ancestors did. Choosing a self-made paradox, instead of the truth of God.

Living in line with the idea that, “There is no absolute truth,” will only lead to futility of paradox and death. It is only through the truth of God—found in his word, and through Jesus—that life and freedom come. And refusal of the truth will be just as futile.

So, let’s not prove our foolishness by denying the absolute truth of the creator of the universe. Let’s not show our Dark Side, or break like an AI when faced with the reality of our statements concerning the nature of truth. Instead, let’s look to God for what is true. Dwell in the word—the truth and commands of Jesus. And live.

There is absolute truth. God created it that way. So, let’s look to him to discover it, rather than show ourselves as fools headed for death because of a philosophical argument that only seeks to suppress the truth of God.