The Instigator
bpv1
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Truths exists irrespective of the observer..

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 3 votes the winner is...
bpv1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 5413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

bpv1

Pro

Many people argue that the Truth is a relative concept. I understand that truth is always absolute but the perception of truth is relative and depends on the observer. The difference in perception do not alter the nature of truth but our understanding of it..
Yraelz

Con

I disagree. I think truth is very relative. State a case.
Debate Round No. 1
bpv1

Pro

As the post was started I understand Truth as an absolute concept.

1. God Exists or Do not 2. The universe was created or it came into being by itself 3. There is life after death or do not.

To debate, there will be a large number of statements like this. According to the law of contradiction two contrary statements pertaining to a concept can't be both true at the same time. Either one is true or both false.

Taking one of the above statements; God Exists or Do not exist. Bot can't be true. An attempt to prove the existence and non existence simultaneously will be a definitely a tautology.

A Physicist believe in the existence of God referring to the order of universe and the other believe in the non-existence referring to chaos in universe have a relative understanding of the something absolute. Regardless of the relative perception here, only one of the beliefs can be true as their perception and conclusions contradicts.

Taking an example from daily life - "Mr. X was present in the office Yesterday" and "Mr. X was absent in the office Yesterday"; can't be true at the same time.
Yraelz

Con

Hmmm, that's a pretty difficult burden to uphold.

For starters, what are you considering truth to be? The correct thing? And to who? God exists or god doesn't exist, alright but what god are you talking about? Are there different forms of gods? I would say their are. In fact I'd go as far to say that the definition of a god changes from one person to the next. Which leads me to another interesting question, are those really the only two choices? We have a being that is often considered to be outside of time, a concept that we can barely understand. And a being that is also considered to have been made from nothing, thus defeating the natural causality of the rest of our world. Is that being truly bound by either existence or non-existence? Why couldn't that being be a bit of both? Perhaps somewhere else entirely? Or even more likely, somewhere that we haven't thought of yet?

Which brings me to your second example. The Universe was created or it came into being by itself. Are we really bound by just those extremes? Perhaps it was a little bit of both? Or once again something that we just flat out haven't considered yet. And your third, there is life after death or there is not. I don't know, depends on what you consider life to be I suppose? Would life be what I am living right now? In other words when the status quo changes out of my currently livelihood then I am no longer living? Perhaps, but I could just as easily argue that life is simply the ability to think, which one is the truth? Seems pretty subjective......

Hypothetically the human race has been around for a while, and throughout that time their have been men known as philosophers. They've done a great deal of work inside of our constructs and mindsets but honestly they've done almost nothing in the realm of metaphysics. Honestly "Cogito Ergo Sum" I think, therefor I am, is about as far as we have come. And that's not even a truth irrespective of the observer, it's a personal truth. I can say I think therefor I am but I know that for absolutely no one else. It's entirely possible that everything happening right now is completely and utterly subjectively in my "mind". Without a great amount of proof on the subject I fail to see how we can at any point reach the conclusion that truths exist irrespective of the observer.

My entire experience on this earth is completely subjective, and while I can't speak for whoever else is reading this I will assume under my own subjectivity that each of you are acting as your own individual. Which means everyone reading this debate understands that everything they think and see is entirely subjective.

Your move.
Debate Round No. 2
bpv1

Pro

Yraelz, thanks for accepting this debate and your effort to discuss. I think, throughout the discussion you were trying to explain the perception of truth alone, which I too agree with you. My thought was on the absolute existence of the truth.

God or gods? According to me 'the gods' are the result of the perception or understanding of "God" and is probably the explanation of the absolute in relative terms. You are very much right that the concept of God changes from person to person. But, Individual perception or belief of something does not alter the essence, nature or property of the truth which exists independent of one's understanding of that.

Human perception is based on the collection of stimulus through the senses and its interpretation by the brain. There are various factors that affect our perception and hence, different individuals interpret the same concept in different ways. Our understanding is always epistemologically dual and indirectly real which some philosophers call Representationalism. The truths with regard to the existence of Matter, God and everything tangible & intangible is objective and hence not prone to relativity.

Blinds perceiving the elephant through the sense of touch may interpret as rope, trunk, spear or fan depending on the part of the body they touched. This never alters the structure of elephant as a whole but only develops the individual's perception of the truth.

"I don't know, depends on what you consider life to be I suppose?"
Let whatever way we consider life be, there exists some realities and truths pertaining to it. There is is something that differentiates the state of physical living and non living. Considering "thinking" as that attribute will straight away deny the existence of every non thinking matter, with a nihilistic interpretation and subjective explanation, which in turn will nullify the validity of any discussion and debate concluding in meaninglessness.

Take for example, it is empirically evident that elements Hydrogen and Oxygen combines to form water. This is a scientifically verified truth and existed as truth itself, irrespective of people's unscientific belief in the past that rock produces water or it is made in the sky and fall as rain. These explanations are only based on the limited and closed observations.

Someone asked, what people breathed before Joseph priestly discovered Oxygen? The answer is Oxygen itself which is the truth. The fact is we never knew until the discovery that we breathe oxygen. There is no relative explanation for the this.

Once again let me come back to one of the previous example, "Mr. X was present in the office Yesterday" and "Mr. X was absent in the office Yesterday"; can't be both true at the same time. No relative explanation can be given to this than approving one (which is the truth) and rejecting the other.

I will agree with you on the subjectivity of Experience but not of Existence. Existence is independent of subjectivity.
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bpv1

Pro

As Yraelz forfeited the previous round, I am moving on to my final argument in continuation to my 3rd round.

"Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti" means existence/truth is one, but defined variously; quote from Rig Veda, a very ancient Indian literature. Ages before the age of reasoning and enlightenment, many of the very old wisdom writings of the world accepted the absolute nature of truth, signifying the quest in search of meaning & purpose and the human realization of the existence of eternal truths. I am not trying to state that the truth is absolute, because the ancient literature mentions so; but the quest of human intellect from the past itself, on the absolute nature of truth which is logically acceptable.

While logically analyzing, the statement "Truth is relative" itself is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

When a speaker says "no one knows what the truth is", then he indirectly is persuading those who are listening, to affirm the truth of his statement. And here the speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are numerous philosophers who pent countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on nihilism and the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think, their text is meaningful!

Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

"Absolute truth" is an inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares and you add on....."
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by JRsolidus 8 years ago
JRsolidus
seems plato's forms appear ftw again.
Posted by bpv1 8 years ago
bpv1
Hi Dear friends...
It is now time to vote... Verum ipsum factum "truth constructs itself"...

Thanks
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Forfeits for epic loss.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Who knows, what's your take Ragnar?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I disagree. I think truth is very relative. "

Are you sure?
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Love the link John, hilarious.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
bpv1YraelzTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
bpv1YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by JRsolidus 8 years ago
JRsolidus
bpv1YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30