Is there an Absolute Truth?
Debate Rounds (4)
Absolute: Applying to all man.
Particular: Applying to only some men.
Man: The Human race.
Truth: What is correct and in accordance with reality.
DISCLAIMER: I am a Catholic. If you want to debate, keep in mind that I may refer to scripture, beliefs, and faith rather than science and the experimental method.
Absolute truth is necessary for order and for well-being.
Absolute truth gives order to society, while particulars will tear it apart. A government that used particulars to govern its citizens was the Roman Empire. The government allowed their people to believe whatever they believed, as long as they would worship Caesar. When Christianity exploded onto the scene, however, the Romans didn't know what to do! They had some who worshiped Caesar, and some who refused to. The Romans resorted to killing the Christians, to show an example, but the Christian influence kept growing and growing, to the point where Emperor Diocletian had to divide the empire into two halves: one that was governed by Rome, and one that was governed by Christianity. "One of the many factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire was the rise of a new religion, Christianity. The Christian religion, which was monotheistic ran counter to the traditional Roman religion, which was polytheistic (many gods). (http://www.ushistory.org...)." The Roman Empire fell apart because it divided its people into two different groups by using particulars rather than an absolute.
Second, absolute truth gives well-being to a society, while particulars give danger. Absolute truth gives morals to everyone, and particulars give morals to only some. For example, let's look at a particular society. In America, there are many thieves. According to his morals, stealing isn't wrong, it's a source of income. However, to you and me, stealing is wrong, because it deprives someone else of their earnings. The reason for these different morals are because we believe in different particulars: one which allows theft without moral repercussion, and one that advises against it. If these two people were governed by an absolute, this problem would subside, as they would have the same moral guidelines. The world would be much safer than it is today.
Thus concludes my opening.
I rather enjoy it when both sides take a philisophical debate seriously. Have you ever seen one? They are so nice and fill me with delight.
This debate is on existence of an absolute truth. I will argue that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and Con will argue that there are only particulars. My round 2 argument was an opening, as headed and finished. It explains my position on the topic and where I will be going with my arguments. In my opening, I talk of how absolutes give structure (order), and how absolutes give morals (well-being). Round 3 is for constructives. Seeing as you have opened with, well, hugs, I'll begin my constructive.
Absolutes are proven because they are apperent in structure and in morals.
Structure: the way that a group of people are organized. (Merriam-Webster)
Morals: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior. (Merriam-Webster)
In order for any society to have a solid structure, they must have a strong intelectual base without dividing their people into different groups based on thier beliefs. This is exactly what an absolute does: it gives a common set of beliefs to all people. In a particular society (for example, a secular-humanistic society), however, it does the opposite. Now, the people have been divided into different groups, governed by different particulars. We will see prosperity and growth in the first form of government, while the latter will slowly detirorate.
Secondly, morals are only existent with a absolute. Particulars will always confilict with each other, but absolutes affirm each other. For example, one doesn't kill his neighbor for money, food, or other materialistic things. Why? There is the obvious answer that they will be punished by society, but this will only apply if they are caught. No, the real reason is because they know it is wrong. A quote from Francis Schaffer explains this well (1).
Corm_onthe_Cob forfeited this round.
Seeing that Con has forfited, extend my arguments from both rounds.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.