The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

truth has evidence advantage

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 101383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)



and the lier has a lie


I will be con arguing that truth itself may not have enough evidence to be considered to be universally true, as that is what truth is.

My arguments will cover topics including the concept of Last Thurdayism, Relativism, Mary's Room thought experiment/Knowledge argument, zombies, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Quantum Mechanics, Multiverses, the nature of the Law of Contradiction, simulation, and the infamous tree falling in forest. The limitations of human minds will also be explored and lead into different biases of the mind as well.


1. zombie - A physical entity in which it has no conscious, that is indistinguishable from a human.
2. Relativism - The idea that there are no absolute truths or that some truths are not absolute. This includes different kinds, including cognitive relativism, ethical relativism, aesthetic relativism, among many others. Be indicative in your argument or counterargument which you are to refer to, to ensure no mistake is made
3. Truth - An idea that is right no matter what.
4. simulation - in philosophy, the idea that reality is merely an illusion
5. Multiverse - A universe out of a set of all possible universes, all different outcomes and events

It should be suggested that one refrains from trolling, personal insults, or use of fallacies. Also be recommended one does not assume any biblical text to be true to make their point unless it is undoubtedly proven to be true and literal at that section one refers to.

Also pro I am assuming we are in structure of the following.
1. Acceptance
2. Opening Statements
3. Rebuttals

If not please let me know.

I look forward to an educated and informed civil discussion with you on the nature of knowledge.
Debate Round No. 1


its simple, like lies leave no foot prints


You have shown no arguments or evidence of your claim. In fact, you have presupposed a truth in that it is absolute, to prove it is true, or in other words, presupposed truth is absolute to prove truth is absolute.

1. Mary's Room/Knowledge Argument - Consider a neuroscientist named Mary, who knows everything there is to know about color vision but has never seen color. Quite clearly, when she sees color for the first time, she has learned something, what seeing color is like. In fact to make this more extreme, we can study other wavelengths of light but never know what it looks like, because we can't see it, we can not reconstruct the 'color' of it so that we can see. Suppose some entity that can see infrared. It will be true of what they see, but literally improvable of what they see, because nothing else can construct the brains own awareness of itself, as trying to simulate indicates you aren't a part of the brain being aware of itself. Therefore there is truths that are improvable that are true.

2. Last Thursdayism/Descartes Evil Demon/Simulation - Suppose there is an evil demon that is constantly to deceive you in life. Is there anything that the demon can't deceive you in? Descartes came to the conclusion that this is the ability to think, because if the demon deceives you to think you can think, then you are still thinking, therefore to prove ones existence is their ability to think. However that is the only thing that is to be trusted, worst still is that the thought itself can be doubted, which is the point. The same could be said that we may live in a simulation or the demon conceived us Last Thursday. But whether or not it is true if we are in a simulation, we ourselves can not and will not be able to prove whether we are in a simulation, because our whole mind can be programmed to think we are real. We can not prove our own consistency. It is an improvable truth within our realm, as they seem like zombies to us but to them are conscious. Whether or not they are zombies or not has some truth value, but once again, does not have evidence of the sort to support it. Thus there are truths that are improvable to be true.

3. Godel's Two Incompleteness Theorem - This is an infamous result in mathematics that proves that with any given mathematical system that is consistent, it will never be such that an effective procedure is capable of proving truths of arithmetic of the natural numbers, but still they will be true. Actually, that is only the first theorem, the second states that no system can prove its own consistency. Quite clearly, if there is a system in which something is true but unprovable, then it has no evidence. It is to be noted though this only applies to an axiomatic statement and does not rely on empiricism.

It will be noted that I did not manage to make all the arguments I was claiming to make, in that upon further realization, came to the conclusion that these do not prove my case. These other statements pointed to there not being an absolute truth, but they still had evidence to support, and thus are not fit into this argument.

Debate Round No. 2


its simply true, lies are not real dude

truth is truth

my mind is self evidence i would say, not sure i understand nr 1.. many things can be proven through their effects

sense is absolute.. reality is true
illumination requires a shadow, everything has an opposite for it to exist

if we are in a simulation.. negated, its a a question not an answer.. so you can believe it, but it isnt true

in nr 3, you say no system can prove its own consistency, eh how did you prove that then?

is a lie a truth?


My opponent has not explained any of his ideas or refuted any of my arguments in a logical manner.

Pro says "truth is truth" which does not advance to argument anymore, and just uses identity, and negates the point of the debate, on whether truth has evidence.

Pro says "My mind is self evidence I say, not sure I understand number 1.. many things can be proven through their effects" which indicates he did not read or understand my argument, in that I was saying you can not prove other peoples conciousness, even if they are concious. Even then, the mind is only self evidence of your ability to think, but can not be proven to show what you think is indeed correct, because there could be something you don't know that you don't know.

Pro says "sense is absolute.. reality is true." By the nature of sense, it is not absolute. Sense is how each person interacts with the world, and everyone has slightly different to wildly different senses. Blind people can't see but other people can, so who is right here? What about two people who when looking at the same object, see two different shades of red, who's interpretation is correct? Colors aren't innately red, but are a tool for us to navigate. We can not see infrared, simply because our eyes were not evolved to see them, which would only produce a tool for navigation, but it in itself is not the color of infrared you see. Therefore, senses are not absolute by the nature of senses. Then there can be no such thing to proove reality is true. Not even reason can as noted below.

Pro says "if we are in a simulation.. negated, its a question not an answer.. so you can believe it, but it isn't true" the point was that you can not prove you are or aren't in a simulation, as your mind could be simply programmed to think that in a simulation. The point then is that a truth value of us being in a simulation simply is not proovable.

Pro says "in nr 3, you say no system can prove its own consistency, eh how did you prove that then?"

Sources on the idea and proof are here.
-Concept explained at
-General idea at's_incompleteness_theorems
-Proof at

Pro says "is a lie a truth?" this assumes alternate ideals of a person are lying, or that there can not be a truth which is unprovable. It attacks nothing the debate was on.

Pro has not defended any of your points or refuted any of mine using logic but rather assume the claim itself to prove the claim itself. This is a fallacy known as circular reasoning, and also shows pro does not have the best arguments. Pro does not have the best grammar as well.

Vote con.

Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
I like my cat. Well there are evidence that cats are true..There are evidence that I am I can say "I like my cat...i like my god..Well there are evidence that I am true/ exist. So a god must be what I am..Great advantage..
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
name 1 thing that is true, there is no evidence for..
Posted by LearnerLogic 3 years ago
Evidence must exist for something to be true? No, that is necessary to justify it. You are mixing up truth and knowledge. Also that logical connective at the end, I don't see how you jumped to that conclusion.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
and where is your evidence of a god
Posted by TrapdoorMajesty 3 years ago
I can post comments on this thing? Cool. The topic is "truth has evidence advantage" ... Truth is truth. Truth can not be changed. Not everything true can be readily be proven. Evidence must exist for something to be true. This is how we know God exists.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
That is an advantage without evidence and truth = religion.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
language is for communication.. i still dont see a point
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
E=energy=positive negative and balance
Posted by canis 3 years ago
No. no no. No limet.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
mental limit=unawarness+act
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro side never makes an argument during the debate, therefore I automatically negate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.