D writes:

Summary: Absolute Truth does exist; however, it is something much greater than us (as humans). Therefore, we can only hope to tell or obtain a small fraction of it.

I would argue that a small fraction of Absolute Truth is entirely distinct from Absolute Truth itself, and that since we can't see Absolute Truth in its entirety, we cannot even approach a useful conclusion about its nature.

Consider, as an illustration, the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

Five blind men are examining an elephant. The first feels the elephant's tail and says "Aha! An elephant is long and thin, much like a rope." The second feels the elephant's leg and says "no, no, an elephant is round and cylindrical, much like a barrel or a tree." The third feels the the elephant's side and says "no, the elephant is broad and flat, like the wall of a barn." The fourth feels the elephant's ear and says "you are all wrong... the elephant is like a large, flat leaf." And the fifth feels the elephant's trunk and says "the elephant is like a great snake."

They all have a portion of the truth, but the simple fact is that a portion of the truth doesn't necessarily tell them anything useful about the whole truth.

Worse yet, if they decided to base their actions on the assumption that the Absolute Truth bore some resemblance to the small truth that they had access to, they would end up making some pretty amusing and ridiculous mistakes. Imagine what each of the five blind men would come up with if they decided to build something designed to trap an elephant.

Finally, using the same parable as an example, I think that it is important to realize that the Absolute Truth is not necessarily the sum of its parts. If the five blind men agreed to sit down and use each other's experiences to try to create an accurate picture of an elephant, they would probably fail... what they came up with might well approximate various parts of the elephant, but a conglomeration of snakes, rope, trees, barns and leaves does not an elephant make.

Clear? Good. I'd hate to have to incorporate the sixth blind man into my example.¹