The Instigator
Atmas
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
TheatreVirus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Absolute truth is the absolute truth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Atmas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 62219
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Atmas

Pro

Absolute truth exists absolutely, regardless of the subjective nature of experience. The key here is the difference between what we consider facts and what we consider truth. Facts are conditional and changeable due to entropy, but truths, such as how gravity works, are immune to such change. Because such things are immutable, unchangeable, and constant, they are in fact absolute truths.

The possible existence of another universe doesn't negate these truths because one could come up with any scenario in which something fundamental could not work, but that only proves the power of the human imagination and not the reality in which we find ourselves.
TheatreVirus

Con

Just want to open up by saying what a delight it is to join in this debate. This is definitely a topic that can work the mind. Absolute truth is the absolute truth. Either something is true or it is not? However consider this. We all are bound by gravity and its laws and to me it is true. However what about someone who believes they escaped these laws and was flying around freely. Not that this person claims it but that they believe it in full honesty. In their mind its true. So if it's truth for them who is to say its not true or truth.

We all have various levels of perceiving our world around us for which some truths are more true than others depending on how many people share them in common.

Thank you for taking the time to read my opening.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Atmas

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for stepping into this debate with a mature and thought-provoking response.

First I want to address the issue with subjective experience versus objective experience: If one's reality were to bend toward their subjective opinions and experience, then we would see people performing feats that would otherwise be impossible. This is not what is observed in the collective human experience as we clearly don't see people defying gravity to fly or accessing super speed to dodge bullets etc. Even if a person were to truly believe in their own subjective experience, others on the outside would witness their claims and possibly call them mad. An insane person sitting in a padded room might be unable to distinguish his own illusions with reality and might believe they are flying over Earth's major cities, but that doesn't affect the fact that they are still in that padded room.

Secondly, I want to re-iterate the difference between facts and truths. As said in the initial post, facts are conditional and are more of a snapshot of consequences being pulled from a working logical system while a truth is the logical system itself.

It is a fact that I exist in the country mankind has named United States of America, but if I were to move to another country, that fact would no longer be correct. To say that everyone experiences their own unique set of facts that pertain to their current existence in time/space is obviously correct, but the truths in the universe always apply without any contradictions. While our general vocabulary leads us to use Facts, Truth, True, and Real as synonyms; they should not possess the same definitions.

Another interesting effect of assuming Absolute truth to be real is the existence of dinosaurs. At the moment of their existence, we could say that it is a fact that they exist, but that fact will change over time and become almost untrue (Ignoring the creatures that evolved from them). Now we can say that dinosaurs used to exist and it is no longer just a fact but is an absolute truth because their past existence will never change. It seems that what is true can only be confidently said to be a truth if it is cemented into the past ... besides the universal laws.
TheatreVirus

Con

TheatreVirus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Atmas

Pro

Due to my opponent forfeiting the round, I have no further foundation to build my arguments. My previous one still stands and I'm not sure what to do if my opponent doesn't continue to respond.
TheatreVirus

Con

TheatreVirus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 3 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
lol its all good. I was just curious if that was what you were going off of. I didn't mean to hound you or anything. Just curious.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Every law has conditions.That does not make it any less of a law.And laws are truths.The law of lift works when the conditions are right. That is true.Or truth.Now if you want to state that truth will change facts.From a christain point of view. Sickness is a fact. But the word says ," by the stripes of Jesus we are healed." Now that is truth. And that truth when applied to the sickness will change the fact of being sick.But being sick cannot change truth.
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
While we agree on the topic and I'm glad we do. I do want to point out that an absolute truth cannot be subject to conditions. A 747 flies only when all it's parts function properly, and is thus conditional, making it a fact rather than a truth. I hesitate to discuss the law of lift that you suggest because there are real life areas of our universe where that law will not take hold. The martian atmosphere is so thin that you couldn't get a large plane to take off, so since there is a condition required for the law to be enacted, it is not a truth.
However, I see where you're coming from and obviously agree.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Gravity is a law. It works regardless of what we believe. Just because a person does not believe in gravity will not cause him to go floating off into the atmosphere.The only way to overcome gravity is with a higher law. The law of lift. And it is a law. It works every time its principles are put in motion.747 fly. That is an absolute truth, as long as all the right properties are in play. Mess with the law of lift at 30,000,feet and you will see the law of lift did not get rid of the law of gravity.A 747 would have flown Columbus to America,But no man new how to use the law of lift till 1903.

So, there are absolute truths.
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
Honestly I had no idea and please forgive me if it seems so. This site requires that I complete three debates and so I posted an argument I have with my friends all the time. There are so many debate topics on this site that there are bound to be copied topics.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 3 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
Be honest. Did you steal this from my debate? I just find it coincidental that this shows up right after mine...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
AtmasTheatreVirusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have defined truth under the correspondence theory of truth (truth is that which best corresponds with reality) for clarity, unless he was clearly open to different interpretations of truth, which didn't appear to be the case. Con's opening arguments suggested that he considered truth to be a justified belief, which clearly goes against Pro's definition of truth. This debate has the potential to go completely haywire because Pro is actually arguing "Is there an objective and absolute reality" (he probably didn't realise so I don't fault him on that) but TheatreVirus forfeited, making this decision very simple. Conduct and arguments to Pro. Neither used sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
AtmasTheatreVirusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture