The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

There exists absolute truth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ockham has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 306 times Debate No: 95036
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




I believe that absolute truth exists. Here is what I define as absolute truth:

Absolute truth is all absolute, being correct in every context of reality, and it is a truth that depends on its own truthfulness for being valid. As such, this truth is self-reliant for its validity. This truth then proves itself as valid. Also, absolute truth is composed of aspects, each aspect being an essential ingredient for absolute truth.

These aspects include syntactic and state-wise components, which form symmetric opposites, like in dualities, supporting each other. Further, my construction of absolute truth goes against the set-theoretic paradox of self-inclusion for the fact that I am using a new form of containment that is descriptive, instead of that which is just topological.

As such, these two types of containment, descriptive and topological, form what I call dual self-inclusion relationships, which are self-supporting in the act of self-containment. Accordingly, the most general or invariant dual self-containment relation is then defined as this absolute truth in the sense that is syntactic. The syntax is dual to absolute truth's state, which is the content of total self-containment or absolute truth.


In other words, absolute truth is self-determination, which proves itself by the very combination of the terms "self" and "determination", where "determination" means proving or of a truth function, either with its own proof/truth function or not, and "self" is applied onto determination, making it self-proving.

I define a "truth function" hereunder as any reason. Therefore, a determiner is a truth function or deterministic/one-way constraint, in the most general of senses, including both the abstract and the concrete. Reality can include more than just the concrete because the abstract can exist; that is, there is nothing making it so that it can't. Saying that it doesn't exist because you can't see it with your eyes is an appeal to stone.


The resolution is "there exists absolute truth." My opponent, being Pro, has the burden of proof, meaning that he must establish that there exists absolute truth. My job, as Con, is to undermine his case, which I can do either by showing that (a) his arguments for the existence of absolute truth fail or that (b) there cannot be an absolute truth.

My opponent sets forward the following criteria for absolute truth:

1. It is true in every context.
2. It depends on its own truthfulness for being valid.
3. It proves itself.

I have no issues with these criteria.

Having agreed on the definition of absolute truth, it falls on my opponent to establish the existence of absolute truth, so defined. He clearly has not done this, because he has not given any specific examples of absolute truth - not one. His opening post discusses the issue only in generalities, and does not specify what these alleged absolute truths are. It is all very well to speak of absolute truth in the abstract, but in the absence of specific examples their actual existence remains very questionable.

Therefore, I challenge my opponent to give examples of absolute truths in his next post and establish that they meet his criteria. If he cannot do this, then we must negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


I accept to provide examples of absolute truth in contexts so as to establish its existence.

Firstly, self-determinism means self-creation and self-selection in the context of causation. Since this tends to its existence, one notices that when taking it as a right behavior, for example, it means utility generation. As such, maximizing one's own existence as a form of absolute truth means to maximize utility. However, as one self-determiner equates to another self-determiner, we're all the same; so, maximizing utility for another is also self-deterministic.

As such, solving major world problems, like global warming, starvation, and slavery, can be deemed as generative of utility.

I shall further make my case by detailing how absolute truth can be deemed a valid purpose. Therefore, I make it known that I define absolute truth as reality, with any endomorphisms of reality held intact, since the truth about what's real can be beyond you and still be the truth. Abstractly presented, reality is a designer. Designers are subjects, and subjects, like emotions, are abstract; materially, reality is a product of design. That is, there are dual sides to reality that are correspondingly negative and positive, in design and actualization respectively.

The reason this works is like so: emotions are reasons that stand in a way that objective, logical reasons can't. Logic, however, is truth by definition; since logic describes all that is true, logic is thus absolute truth. Saying that logic doesn't include emotion is like saying that a certain object exists, but while simultaneously saying that it doesn't really exist "because you won't accept that it exists"; that is paradoxical.

More certainly, emotions can either be rational or irrational. In rationality emotions generate utility, in irrational contexts they degenerate it. Emotions, when in self-deterministic form, are self-controlled, however, and therefore rational when formed as such.

Forthrightly, you can't make a logical decision without having had wanted to make the decision in the first place. Rejecting the idea that emotions exist in logic is like rejecting the idea of using logical functors in mathematical logic for making logical inductions and logical deductions because "you don't have to accept them". If you're reasonable, you automatically do use such logical functors because you have [chosen] to for utility purposes.

This is self-determinism as it is. Further, any act of love for yourself and others is, accordingly, an example of absolute truth. An instance of this is enabling and stabilizing your existence and others' through time because of love, which could mean (e.g.) bettering health and bettering the economy.

Also, self-determinism is self-proving to the extent at which it is also self-processing, making it self-aware. As such, self-determinism is self-awareness and therefore consciousness, and, since it is self-determination, it is freewill and intelligence.

"I testify to the truth," - Jesus Christ, for an account of a person said to be perfectly "good".

"Beyond the CTMU ultimate syntax, the lattice which gives shape to the multi-layered layered veil of maya, there is but the light that shines forever," - Chris Langan.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrSenelCoolidge 1 month ago

What then, could be opposing of a change "caused" by the subjectivity of absolute truth on "time"?

I think there is quite a bit of learning to be had here from either side, but I'm kind of a loner when it comes to such matters, except when it comes to the founders of logically sound frameworks of absolute truth such as the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU by Christopher Michael Langan.

So, thanks for following my writing :-)
Posted by DrSenelCoolidge 1 month ago
To mschechtel170:


I think that, firstly, we need to begin by defining our (both of our) terms in the definitions of what we call "absolute truth". I've logically deduced that my definition bares in its own context a physical universe. This physical universe has different "flavors" of the abstract universe "endomorphically" mapped into its "hological interiors".

What this means can be said like so: the abstract universe creates copies of itself unto scales of external, physical ability hologically related to the entire physical universe. That is, we have control over a certain amount of physical phenomena, like our nervous systems in affecting our bodily movements, wherefore the abstract reduces to a certain capacity to represent the global, absolute-truth factor in subjectivity.

Further, this factor is like absolute truth with no content to it. Since it is the form that content takes, it is the creator of content. Simply, this is subjective self-determinism. Also, any concept of "hology" reduces to a syndiffeonic formulation, like what Christopher Langan says. That is, hology expresses syndiffeonic symmetry between a medium and its inner properties.

Additionally, these properties of 'hology' are confined to the medium's context or setting, making them dependent on each other to result in any state-transition to be had therewith.

Your description of time as having an all-baring effect on spacetime does make sense as a possible absolute truth since it is what "controls" its configuration. However, the definition of time with which you speak, I think, is the ordinary definition of time wherein you "ectomorphically" "move"one state of an object to the next by externalizing that object. Contrary to your definition, I might say that time makes spacetime "change", and any changing is what makes up an act; any act is a duality or dual self-containment relation between the 'past' and the 'future'.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 month ago
Hello again DrSenelCoolidge

I apologize for the long response, even more so because I now want to retract my argument. After I considered the things you posted and wrote my response I was thinking about this question and what, if anything, could prove as an absolute truth involving every element you put forth and every element I believed was necessary. I realized that the concept of time, in anyway one considers it, satisfies every element you put forth and every element I felt also necessary. Time is absolute truth. Every fiber of existence has a relationship to time. It's hard to even use language to explain this relationship between existence and time. But it is an absolute truth that everything that ever existed, whether it be in the past present future, abstract or physical, within descriptive or topological constraint, or any combination of these elements, has an infallible relationship to time. Everything that exists in the 3rd dimensional world must exist within the constraints of time. Time encompasses all, that we as 3rd dimensional beings cannot escape. It is both abstract and physical, it creates past present and future, and most importantly it exists within within every conext of reality no matter how basic or complex, incomplete or complete. Furthermore it exists outside of any context of reality as well. Everything that ever was, is, and will be, is shaped and molded by time either in the physical form, abstract form, or in any infinite combination between the two.
It is this way that I realized at least one absolute truth exists, and if one absolute truth exists it allows for the possibility for multiple absolute truths to exist.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 month ago
Furthermore, it may exist to some, but isn't necessary to exist to all thus allowing it to exist in some contexts of reality but not all, whether these contexts be human or animal. I also maintain that if absolute truth is only required to exist in the physical world than we as humans have not be exposed to a circumstance that proves true in every possible situation nor are we capable to determine if this circumstance proves true in every possible situation.
My argument is that because all living things have a different level of consciousness, even enough variation between the level on consciousness between humans, then absolute truth would exist differently in abstract form based on the level of conscious of that being. The definition of absolute truth would have to be different for each context of reality because I believe there is no one common trait in abstract form that is shared between every context of reality that exists including animals humans those we as individuals may not be capable to understand. I believe absolute truth existing only in the physical world is much more likely to exist and possible to exist because all living things at the very minimum have in common that they live in the physical world . However we as humans do not have enough knowledge to prove this. One might say that an absolute truth known to undoubtably exist in the physical world is that every living thing will die. One might feel this to be true because every living thing is limited to a physical body With a built in experation date which is the only way we know for a fact everything will inevitably die. However this isn't true. There is a jelly fish that exists that can renew every cell in its body essentially making it immortal and without a life span. It is likely that something will kill this jelly fish in its life, either a predator or other environmental circumstance, but if it somehow avoids these things it can live forever and disprove the absolute truth of death.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 month ago
Hello DrSenelCoolidge

Thanks for replying. I think I have a better grasp on your argument now. Although I personally believe absolute truth exists, I still do not believe it is possible to confirm its existence, based on your definition, as I believe either, one- all humans are not capable to accept it as being true making it is possible for a context of reality to exist that is without absolute truth, and two- if all humans are capable of accepting it to be true than they are capable to act without regard to it and either confirm or deny the truth . If one of these two are possible to happen then absolute truth does not exist in all contexts of reality disproving it based on your definition, or if humans are capable to act in such a way that in intentionally proves it false then it cannot be absolute.
From what I gather you speak of absolute truth existing in abstract form rather than in physical form (if I understand correctly abstract form refers to descriptive containment and physical form refers to topological containment). The elements you put forth for absolute truth to exist require self-determination and thus self-awareness to be involved. I understand that being human, or even just having a brain, requires a negotiation between the abstract and physical world and this is essentially what makes us human. To only live without negotiation to the abstract world would relate you too a basic life form such as a bacteria or a plant, and to act without regard to the physical world would relate you to a god like being. I maintain that given the complexity of humans some may be capable to act without negotiation to the other whether it be consciously or not. If your definition of absolute truth can only exist in abstract form or requires abstract and physical form than one could exist without the influence of absolute truth and make it in essence not exists and not apply to that individual.
Posted by DrSenelCoolidge 1 month ago
and is [self-proving*]
Posted by DrSenelCoolidge 1 month ago
Hello mschechtel17,

What you are speaking about are different modes of conscious experience. Each experience results with consciousness and (therefore) self-awareness. Further, self-awareness is self-deterministic constraint, which mixes some sort of self-supporting mechanism on the negative, subjective side of things with a self-supporting mechanism on its object-like, outward ability.

Now, there are different balances of the outward ability and its reverse. Animals tend to be focused on power (e.g.), the objective forefront, utilizing their abilities to go against their harsh environments in which they can cope and adapt. Therefore, animals can be somewhat mindless in their ventures.

Simply, animals have to focus their resources on their survival, having no needs to make the world better beyond survival means a lack of care for each other. They can't have their resources wasted on caring for each other because every animal is eventually for itself, there is little to no cooperation and what I see as no rational cooperation.

Humans, which are animals, for the first time and with the species of homo sapiens have significantly more emotional intelligence with their noticeably much bigger fore-brains. The fore-brain is the seat of consciousness in the brain; it is emotional and it enables mindful (instead of mindless) thinking. That is, it enables mindful thinking to [an extent] in humans.

I believe that humans are the needed cross roads between animals and sentience and that we are supposed to be doing our best to act in the sentient ways our future will, if they will be; most, if not all, humans are animals, but they are, by far, closer to being sentient when compared to other species than not.

Other then that, every mode of consciousness reduces to self-determinism in a certain way, like so; I was speaking of absolute truth beyond just human perception and cognition. When you know it, you really do know it. That is, it works, makes sense, and is s
Posted by mschechtel17 1 month ago
Question for the Pro: When you speak about absolute truth, are you only speaking on its existence in human reality? Or are you speaking of its existence past the possible perception of humans? I am asking because you said "absolute truth is absolute, being correct in every context of reality" but the context of reality will be different based on the perspective you are considering. For example, reality from your perspective, from another's perspective, from the entire human populations perspective, from an animals perspective, from the perspective of all life and from the perspective unconnected to life. What I gathered from your definition of absolute truth is that it must exist and be true in every context of reality we are aware of and unaware of so I was a little confused about your examples. Hope you take the time to read I look forward to your response!
Posted by canis 1 month ago
Everything that happens exist as an absolute truth...Everything we see happen exist as a relative truth.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
truth is not lies
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.