Absolute Truth Exists

It has been awhile since I've debated this topic, and I look forward to testing the insight he brings to the table. Also, the reason I put my round one argument up front is because I tried this debate once with someone who forfeited in round two. Since I started this with three rounds, I figured to give us an extra round for argumentation, it might behoove me to set up my argument right out of the gate. I do tend to use "absolute truth" and "objective truth" interchangeably, since they are basically the same thing (the difference being that "objective truth" tends to refer to statements made rather than truth in general). However, I will try to remember to use the term objective truth for the purposes of this debate. I still believe my argument about absolute truth is a valid one. After all, if we are arguing subjective truth, then if you were to simply make the claim "we cannot know what is true," then it seems to me that the concept of truth should be abandoned altogether since it cannot be known. And to say "there is truth" would be an erroneous statement, since truth may not be the same for everyone. Therefore, any arguments used to back up the claim "there is truth" would not be reliable. There must be objective truth in order to have any truth in the first place. I will now answer my XimenBao's objections. First, regarding Subjectivity. If I were Con, I don't think I'd be so quick to dismiss the example of H2O. Con says: "…consider a community of people using a different periodic table of elements where H corresponds to Helium rather than Hydrogen. For this community, water is not H20. " First of all, the Periodic Table of Elements is the generally accepted table to label the elements around the world. Hydrogen is H here in the United States, and also in England, Italy, and Australia. So H2O is H2O no matter where you go. And any culture that doesn't use the periodic table of elements probably is not advanced enough to understand Chemistry. However, even if each culture had a different Periodic Table of Elements, to where H could, in fact, be Helium to a different culture, the truth still remains that water would be made up of two of the same molecules, and one of a different molecule, even though different cultures may label them differently. It is still true that water is made up of those molecules. Con also argues thus: "…However, in many cultures, such as Teutonic Tribes or ancient Egypt, there was no word for death. It would not be truthful to say that ‘everyone dies' there, because ‘dies' would have no meaning. Again, whether or not we can label everything the same is irrelevant. People still die in the cultures that have no word for death. They come into existence through a sexual union, and they eventually cease to function as living beings when their cells stop communicating with each other. There is still a circle of life and death, even if they don't have a word for it. And kudos for the Star Trek reference. But as we know, in science fiction, people rarely die for long. :D Con additionally argues: "All truth statements are by necessity composed of some form of language. " Is this true? I don't disagree that language is a powerful thing. However, I contend that language helps us to learn more about the world and universe around us; it is not the basis for truth. For example, we now know that the Earth revolves around the sun when at one point common belief was that the entire universe revolved around the Earth. Now it would be unthinkable for anyone to question this belief. The only reason the geocentric view of the universe was challenged and eventually changed is not because we said it should really be the other way around. Now, regarding Fallibilism. Con said: "This is the thesis of Fallibilism, that no matter how convincing our evidence or solid our logic seems, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. " My response here would be, tell that to Evolutionists. I am a Creationist myself, but Evolutionists contend that there is nothing we know with greater certainty than that Evolution happened. They are dogmatic about it and in their minds, they are not wrong. Whenever I pipe up that I disagree, they scoff and insult. So obviously the concept of objective truth is not a foreign one to most people. I also believe in life after death. Now, I cannot prove that empirically here in the natural world. However, not being able to prove it does not mean it's not true. It's true or false regardless of whether we believe in it or not, or know how to describe it, and once we die we will either not know anything or discover that there really is an afterlife. Con also argued: "The only possible exceptions are tautological statements which rely exclusively on the subjective language in which they exist. For examples [sic], if we were to use the convention that the second number in an equation is always one greater than depicted, 2+2=4 is no longer a correct statement. Even in these cases, while it is certainly unlikely that usual convention would be used, it is not absolutely unlikely and Pro can never be sure it isn't the case. " Actually, we can be sure it's the case. For example, if I'm in a math classroom and I have to answer the equation 2+2=? , then the answer will be four. I have never known anyone who would make the case that 2+2 equals anything other than four, and unless Con can find a case in which it would be different, I think the argument is pretty well moot. -Conclusion- I believe in the power of language. But I don't believe it has so much power that it can define the nature of truth, it can only aid us in understanding truth. Whether or not we label things differently, it doesn't negate the fact of the truth being truth in the first place.