I believe that Truth does in fact exist. I believe it is impossible to state that truth is relative without making an absolute statement. Though a simple discussion unfortunately convincing complex arguments are made that state otherwise.
Opponent
The problem with the question "does truth exist?" is that it can only be answered within a framework that assumes the existence of truth. If one says "truth exists", what they are really saying is "truly, truth exists", and when someone says "truth does not exist", what they are really saying is "truly, truth does not exist", or "truth has a truth-value of zero", a contradiction not just of terms but of logic. If this point is answered by saying, "how do I know that logic is true?", we can see that the disbeliever of truth has it all ahead of them: if one does not believe in truth, one does not believe in logic, and, of necessity, nothing can be believed. We must concede that truth exists if we are to do or think anything. The exact nature of this truth is another matter, but truth undoubtedly exists.
The only way my opponent can win this debate is if he can prove their is a fact that has been verified and it is complete. Meaning he has to prove that it is not relative to opinion or situation. He has to prove their is a truth that can apply to every single situation regardless. I will offer up some common misconceptions of truth to show my opponent this is impossible
"Everybody Breathes"
Not dead people, you have to be talking relative to the living.
"Everything is in the Universe"
It hasn't been proved, for all we know their might be a Heaven or Hell outside the Universe, this idea would depend on who you are talking too.
I challenge my opponent to come up with a single "absolute truth" that is not relative to the people or humans that agree with the truth. Essentially, a truth that will be universally accepted on by every little thing which would complete the ideas of a "Complete fact that has been verified". If I can find even one way to prove his truth wrong by showing a group of people that disagree or do not accept this fact, than it is not a complete truth.
Further more their is an extra burden on the Pro; if I do not accept a single one of his truths as a human myself than he has already loss as of right now, because he has a truth that is not accepted completely by all people, because I disagree .
So my opponent to win this debate, has to prove an absolute truth exists without me successfully refuting it and it has to be a truth that I am willing to accept, or else he has not proved that their is a truth that is not relative to a person.
The only way my opponent can win this debate is if he can prove their is a fact that has been verified and it is complete. Meaning he has to prove that it is not relative to opinion or situation. He has to prove their is a truth that can apply to every single situation regardless. I will offer up some common misconceptions of truth to show my opponent this is impossible
"Everybody Breathes"
Not dead people, you have to be talking relative to the living.
"Everything is in the Universe"
It hasn't been proved, for all we know their might be a Heaven or Hell outside the Universe, this idea would depend on who you are talking too.
I challenge my opponent to come up with a single "absolute truth" that is not relative to the people or humans that agree with the truth. Essentially, a truth that will be universally accepted on by every little thing which would complete the ideas of a "Complete fact that has been verified". If I can find even one way to prove his truth wrong by showing a group of people that disagree or do not accept this fact, than it is not a complete truth.
Further more their is an extra burden on the Pro; if I do not accept a single one of his truths as a human myself than he has already loss as of right now, because he has a truth that is not accepted completely by all people, because I disagree .
So my opponent to win this debate, has to prove an absolute truth exists without me successfully refuting it and it has to be a truth that I am willing to accept, or else he has not proved that their is a truth that is not relative to a person.
Matt
I'd First like to thank my opponent for accepting this discussion. I hope I may address all proposed arguments to both my opponent and the peoples satisfaction.
I'd like to start off stating that we sub-consciously demand truth daily. Not always is the full truth given whether it be lack of information or present understanding, there is a desire in us to find it. I believe perceptions of truth are subjective but truth in itself is not. A simple absolute truth would be (and this is very simple). Today at least two people wore shoes to work today. Now this statement may seem like little to no thought was put into but it demonstrates two things. First, even though evidence is not provided with the statement it is accepted because logically speaking shoes are necessary for many job occupations. Second, this statement is absolutely true seeing how I witnessed at least two people where shoes to work today. Another absolute truth is the sun provides necessary raw energy for photosynthesis, this has been proven through science. We know that logic exists because we use logic to determine whether or not logic exists. It would be illogical to state that that a scientifucally testible process is only relatively true to those who decide to embrace it and false to those who simply dont believe. It is important to mention that truth is not an attitude. Truth is not how we know, truth is what we know. Besides the problem with self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there is no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore cannot logically make absolute negative statements. If there is no absolute truth , no standard of right and wrong than we are that we are accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want (murder, rape, steal, lie etc.) and no one could say those things would truly be wrong. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. The burden lies on my opponent to provide an argument for obvious evidence for the following absolute truth statements.
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.
This debate is written in a language the opponents can understand.
Energy can be transformed from one form to the other, but cannot be created or destroyed.
I'd like to start off stating that we sub-consciously demand truth daily. Not always is the full truth given whether it be lack of information or present understanding, there is a desire in us to find it. I believe perceptions of truth are subjective but truth in itself is not. A simple absolute truth would be (and this is very simple). Today at least two people wore shoes to work today. Now this statement may seem like little to no thought was put into but it demonstrates two things. First, even though evidence is not provided with the statement it is accepted because logically speaking shoes are necessary for many job occupations. Second, this statement is absolutely true seeing how I witnessed at least two people where shoes to work today. Another absolute truth is the sun provides necessary raw energy for photosynthesis, this has been proven through science. We know that logic exists because we use logic to determine whether or not logic exists. It would be illogical to state that that a scientifucally testible process is only relatively true to those who decide to embrace it and false to those who simply dont believe. It is important to mention that truth is not an attitude. Truth is not how we know, truth is what we know. Besides the problem with self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there is no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore cannot logically make absolute negative statements. If there is no absolute truth , no standard of right and wrong than we are that we are accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want (murder, rape, steal, lie etc.) and no one could say those things would truly be wrong. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. The burden lies on my opponent to provide an argument for obvious evidence for the following absolute truth statements.
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.
This debate is written in a language the opponents can understand.
Energy can be transformed from one form to the other, but cannot be created or destroyed.
Opponent
What is absolute truth?
A: Absolute truth is something that is true regardless of the context (this definition is subject to change).
•For example we can say that "parallel lines never intersect", but this is only true in the context of Euclidian geometry. Even though it is a math-thing, it is not an absolute truth.
•Another example is "1+1=2", it is a bit more difficult to counter. The statement is true if '+' means "add two numbers", but it could also mean "concatenate", so the result would be "11".
•Try to prove that "1+1=2" without first defining '2' as the next integer after '1'; if you can't, then why not "1+1=3"? (for very large values of '1' :-)
Follow up:
As you can see, playing with math doesn't automatically make you right. The weakest link here is the fact that we use our language as a communication tool, and the language is filled with backdoor, kludges and other things that make our existence a bit difficult. Synonyms, homonym's, homophones - they add ambiguity to a world which has enough uncertainty of its own...
Sometimes we can use language to "prove" something; but the fact that a statement sounds nice in a human language, does not make it more credible. Consider the sentence "Absolute truth does not exist". Something cannot be true and false at the same time, but the problem with this sentence is that if it is true, it is false; sounds like a self-contradiction.
What's the catch? The catch is that if there is absolute truth, it does not necessarily mean that the sentence "Absolute truth does not exist" is one of those absolute truths. So, even if this nifty linguistic trick looks cool on paper, it does not make sense in the real world.
Absolute truth cannot be expressed in words
This will result in the projection of the concept upon our vocabulary, a process that implies the fact that some input information will be lost, therefore there is no guarantee that we will be able to reconstruct the original concept having read its description in words. Think of it as drawing a 3D object on a sheet of paper (you get the projection of 3D on 2D). The vocabulary can be limited, lacking words that represent certain concepts; moreover, words can make a sentence ambiguous.
Even if we use symbols, their definition can vary too (ex: '+' means "add" or "concatenate"; it means 'OR' if we're in the realm of Boolean algebra; while in the case of "Mary+John=Love" the '+' means something entirely different).
Once we accept the idea that words cannot be used to express absolute truth, the problem of "Absolute truth does not exist" is solved, and so is "1+1=2".
Therefore my opponent suggesting this topic for debate fails in turn his case fails.
A: Absolute truth is something that is true regardless of the context (this definition is subject to change).
•For example we can say that "parallel lines never intersect", but this is only true in the context of Euclidian geometry. Even though it is a math-thing, it is not an absolute truth.
•Another example is "1+1=2", it is a bit more difficult to counter. The statement is true if '+' means "add two numbers", but it could also mean "concatenate", so the result would be "11".
•Try to prove that "1+1=2" without first defining '2' as the next integer after '1'; if you can't, then why not "1+1=3"? (for very large values of '1' :-)
Follow up:
As you can see, playing with math doesn't automatically make you right. The weakest link here is the fact that we use our language as a communication tool, and the language is filled with backdoor, kludges and other things that make our existence a bit difficult. Synonyms, homonym's, homophones - they add ambiguity to a world which has enough uncertainty of its own...
Sometimes we can use language to "prove" something; but the fact that a statement sounds nice in a human language, does not make it more credible. Consider the sentence "Absolute truth does not exist". Something cannot be true and false at the same time, but the problem with this sentence is that if it is true, it is false; sounds like a self-contradiction.
What's the catch? The catch is that if there is absolute truth, it does not necessarily mean that the sentence "Absolute truth does not exist" is one of those absolute truths. So, even if this nifty linguistic trick looks cool on paper, it does not make sense in the real world.
Absolute truth cannot be expressed in words
This will result in the projection of the concept upon our vocabulary, a process that implies the fact that some input information will be lost, therefore there is no guarantee that we will be able to reconstruct the original concept having read its description in words. Think of it as drawing a 3D object on a sheet of paper (you get the projection of 3D on 2D). The vocabulary can be limited, lacking words that represent certain concepts; moreover, words can make a sentence ambiguous.
Even if we use symbols, their definition can vary too (ex: '+' means "add" or "concatenate"; it means 'OR' if we're in the realm of Boolean algebra; while in the case of "Mary+John=Love" the '+' means something entirely different).
Once we accept the idea that words cannot be used to express absolute truth, the problem of "Absolute truth does not exist" is solved, and so is "1+1=2".
Therefore my opponent suggesting this topic for debate fails in turn his case fails.
Matt
It does not appear that my opponent wishes to refute the proposed absolute truths in my previous argument. I would agree that if one had no understanding of math and looked at the equation of 1+1 there would be a variety of possible incorrect answers. The response then could be that it is absolutely true that 1+1 does not always equal 2. Through understanding of basic math symbols and logic we are able to formulate answers that are in fact absolutely true. We know if one pencil is added to a box which contains only one other pencil in it, logically speaking there are now 2 pencils in the box which is a greater number of pencils than a box with only one pencil in it. I believe language is a tool of communication that describes truth but it does not prove it. You say something cannot be true and false at the same time which I agree with. A contradicting statement does not validate that absolute truth does not exist. You can't logically argue that against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. I have placed in my previous discussion a few "real world" absolute truths. I urge my opponent to refute them in order to validate his argument.
My oppenent later forfieted this discussion
No comments:
Post a Comment