Presence of a universal truth

Here goes: Simply put, the position of Rezzealaux states that there is no universal truth. However, considering the fact that universal truths can be either true or false, Rezzealaux's own claim is a universal truth (as his claim is false). If his claim were true, it would only be contradictory. "Everything is based off of interpretation; nothing is objectively true or false. To begin with, not everyone has the same definitions for things. A kiwi that may be sweet to me may be very sour to someone else, whereas a car that seems to be traveling very fast to one person may look as slow as a snail to some others." Allow me to explain: Everything may be subject to individual interpretation; in that you are obviously correct. However, simply because something is subjected to individual interpretation does not mean it is not universally true/false. Of course, not everyone might share a mutual definition for a particular word, but regardless, a word matters little when compared to its definition and intent by the one using it. Arguing that "not everyone has the same definitions for things" is irrelevant in this debate, as it should be naturally assumed that the definition for a given word choice by the word user is mutually agreed upon. Also, I did not say that ALL statements must have a universal truth value as either true or false. Such statements that do not have a particular universal truth value include opinions. One may ask how to identify and distinguish an opinion from other statements. An opinion uses adjectives (i.e. words that can not easily be defined, and are subject to the arbitrary preferences of an individual). In your kiwi example, the words "sweet" and "sour" are subject to an arbitrary value scale by each particular individual. One may say the kiwi is sweet, and another say it is sour. Is either one of them wrong? No, considering that it is in the eye of the beholder for such opinions. However, if one says that the kiwi is on top of the kitchen table, they are issuing a universal truth. The kiwi either is on top of the kitchen table or it is not; it is not subject to any arbitrary opinions. Ultimately, opinions are in the eye of the beholder (containing particular adjectives that are meant to be subject to arbitrary preference, and therefore are not defined on a universal basis for everyone). Other statements, besides opinions, are considered universal truths (i.e. true or false on a universal basis). Of course, though, one may disagree with a universal truth, but the universal truth still stands. All definitions must be identified in a universal truth to determine the true intent of particular words. Referring to your AIM conversation with your friend: So, basically, two plus two does not have to equal four. However, the initial claim by PSC (2+2=4) utilized no definitions, and therefore, one does not know for certain whether PSC was referring to raindrops or not. For the sake of proving this argument to support my initial claim (a universal truth does exist), let us briefly assume that PSC was referring to raindrops. Therefore, two raindrops plus two raindrops equals one raindrop. Is the preceding statement not a universal truth? Truth is a matter of perspective until definitions are used. Once one defines the twos used (i.e. defining what the twos refer to), and any other essential definitions necessary, the perspective drops. Of course, one may still say that two raindrops merged into two raindrops equals 3.14 raindrops or whatever other number they want to use, but then they are simply incorrect. In your AIM conversation with your friend, you seemed to be cleverly taking advantage of the fact that no definitions were provided, and therefore devised your own universal truths (i.e. two raindrops plus two raindrops always equals one raindrop when merged). "In the United States we don't have much of a problem with people looking at each other, but in Japan, it is common for a person to have Jikoshisen-kyofu, which is a phobia of eye contact. Different cultures and different beliefs have different definitions for what's right and what's wrong, and most of them claim that their definitions are the ones that are objectively true." I have no intentions of speaking for different cultures, but only for our own, as that is the one I am a part of. I did, however, get to experience Japanese culture, as I have visited the country before. I am therefore aware of such a phobia. In a given culture, it can be either right or wrong to make eye contact. That (i.e. preceding statement) could substitute as a universal truth, as the world is quite plentiful with a variety of cultures. Of course, there can be a culture that does not even care if one makes eye contact or not. Yet, by the use of "can be" in the universal truth I just devised, this is permitted. There is an absolute/universal truth. The preceding statement, I claim, is also a universal truth (stating that there IS one). That statement can be either true or false. Are you absolutely sure that it is false? Or is it merely a point of view, in which case I would still be correct? Next, you claim that it "is definitely false, as nothing can be absolutely true or false." So, basically, you are using a universal truth to establish that a universal truth does not exist. The other option would be to state that there is a universal truth. Either way, you are not contradicting my claim. I look forward to your rebuttal.