Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
A brief anecdote ... while living in California, I had a conversation with a window installer who vehemently argued, "There are no absolute truths". I asked him, "Are you sure?" He replied, "Yes." I then asked, "Are you absolutely sure?" He didn't answer and, since then, I have never been able to find another relativist as gullible as he was.
I think it is fair to say that mankind is incapable of ascertaining absolute truth on his own. Absolute truth, by its very nature, must be reveled (rather than discovered). We can test a claim of absolute truth using our any number of tests (scientific method, legal-historical reasoning, logic, etc.) and determine whether it is reasonable to believe the claim was revelatory, but I don't believe we can know with absolute certainty that an absolute truth claim is absolutely credible. We can know with reasonable certainty that an absolute claim is revelatory and, accordingly, reasonably believe that the absolute claim is absolutely true. But I believe "reasonable certainty" marks the limits of our human comprehension.
While I don't think it is possible to know with absolute certainty that absolute truths exist, making a statement such as "There is no absolute truth" is simply irresponsible. It is one thing to say "There is no gold in my hand". It is another thing entirely to say "There is no gold in Alaska". Universal negatives are not something I would like to try to prove logically (in fact, I don't think it can be done). An agnostic position is much more honest, in my opinion.
On another hand, making the claim that there are absolute truths prompts a couple of questions. What truths are you suggesting to be absolute? What are the origins of those respective truths? Can the veracity of the events surrounding the revelation of these truths be subjected to testing? Are those "truths" consistent with one another? What is the appropriate manner of responding to those absolute truths?
Not an easy question. No easy answers.