Resolved: There is at least one absolute truth.

Hello kcirrone and voters, hopefully, by the end of this debate, we can have further understanding of this long fought philosophical concept. In interest of fairness, I agree with the definition that my opponent has established. Furthermore, I'd like to offer a more detailed look upon the words individually. Therefore, I'd like to offer the following definitions as well; ABSOLUTE: viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic TRUTH: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle source: http://dictionary.reference.com... _____________________________________ ANALYSIS OF BURDENS: The affirmative burden is to prove the resolution true. Meaning, he has to offer ONE absolute truth. Please recall the definitions of absolute and truth. They equate the fact that the example my opponent offers CANNOT be relative nor disputable. This is by definition. My opponent has already accepted the fact that the absolute truth cannot be up to interpretation. You may have already noticed the flaw within my opponent's argument, that is that everything is relative. Reality itself is relative. For all we know, you could be imagining everything that you call reality. BUT I'm not here to argue that. I am only going to refute the two example's that my opponent has to offer, he believes that these are both absolute truths, I contest that fact, thus I have acclaimed the position of CON. Therefore, my burden is simply to prove my opponent's two contentions, that he offered in round one, are not ABSOLUTE truths. Thus, if I prove both his example's as either relative, disputable or up to interpretation, I win. Simple? Read on to find out. ____________________________________ My opponent leaves me with two contentions, to which I'll argue them both collectively, then individually. Collectively, I would argue thus; A statement cannot be absolutely true, because everything is relative. Example, (I obtained this information through the consent of Rezzealaux) http://www.debate.org... Thank you. This is an AIM conversation Rezzealaux and his friend had a while ago. [Rezzealaux is RZA and his friend is PSC] RZA: truth is a matter of perspective. PSC: no it is not. true is true. 2+2=4 RZA: always? PSC: yes RZA: alright. RZA: i challenge that statement. RZA: advocacy: 2+2=1 RZA: warrant: 2 water droplets + 2 water droplets = 1 water droplet. RZA: impact: it is a matter of perspective who wins the argument and who loses the argument, as you can take it from the perspective of volume or entities that appear. RZA: from a volume standpoint RZA: it would be 4. RZA: from an entities standpoint RZA: 2 water droplets merged with 2 water droplets makes 1. PSC: [ Woah, I guess everything really is relative] My opponent defines Absolute Truth as something that is true no matter what, not up to interpretation. This clearly shows that a once simple question, can have more than one interpretation. Since everything is relative, an absolute truth cannot exist. _____________________________________ Now I will argue my opponent's point individually: CONT1: "[The] Law of Gravity. Gravity exists everywhere no matter what. It is a scientific law. This cannot be disputed" My opponent's first contention is flawed, because this is once again a relative situation. FIRST: Gravity is not absolute. There are many people out there that enjoy magic. Some people even believe in magic. I for one, believe magic exist, whether magic is a miracle or not, people believe in it. Thus, since people believe in magic, they could equally believe in the notion that gravity ceases to exist through the manipulation of mind over matter, AKA levitation. So, since may not exist all the time, according to some, it is not absolute. SECOND: Gravity is relative Certainly, a person on the moon or in space, would feel a lot less gravity as opposed to someone on Earth. I'm not going to get into the science of how this works, but the varying gravitational pulls is a commonly known fact. A second grader knows that the moon has less gravity than Earth. Thus, because gravitational pull differs from place to place, it is relative. http://www.youtube.com... ______________________________________ CONT2: "The Truth of no truth. Lets say there is no truth. Then thats a truth. If the truth is that there is no truth, then there is truth. Therefore, even by claiming no truth, you are claiming truth." His second contention is much harder to refute. Therefore, I will approach it in two ways. WARNING: The following analysis is extremely analytical, so please read with caution. ;D! FIRST: A logical system of reasoning using a the Godel statement. Roughly speaking, the Gï¿½del statement, that, "there is no truth", asserts: "there is no truth" cannot be proved within the theory that "there is at least one absolute truth". If "there is no truth" were provable under "there is at least one absolute truth"'s axioms and rules of inference, then "there is at least one absolute truth" would have a theorem, "there is no truth", which effectively contradicts itself, and thus the theory that "there is at least one absolute truth" would be inconsistent. If the theory that "there is at least one absolute truth" is consistent then "there is no truth" cannot be proved within it. This means that "there is no truth" is in fact true. Thus provability-within-the-theory-"there is at least one absolute truth" does not capture what we mean by truth: in other words, the theory that "there is at least one absolute truth" is incomplete. One can try to get around this by creating a "bigger" theory that "there is at least one absolute truth" that contains the whole of "there is at least one absolute truth", PLUS "there is no truth" as an additional axiom. "There is no truth" is indeed a theorem in "there is at least one absolute truth" (trivially so, since we have made it an axiom) but we can construct a new Gï¿½del statement that "there is no truth" for "there is at least one absolute truth", showing that "there is at least one absolute truth" is incomplete also. _____________________________________ SECOND: This statement is not a postulate for the impossibility of a negative claim. It is a paradox. My oppenent puts it this way, if I claim the resolution is false, that couldn't be true, because that would be an absolute truth, therefore an absolute does exist, but if it did exist then it couldn't exist... PARADOX. I'd like to explain to you that me claiming something true, or false, is relatively speaking. Relatively speaking, I negate the resolution. Certainly, there are going to be people out there that disagree with me. Therefore, I am not claiming the absolute truth, rather, I am denying the resolution from my relative perspective. ONE DOES NOT WIN A DEBATE FOR BEING ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Nor, will I attempt to be absolutely correct. I am speaking from my personal perspective, so is my oppenent. IF I were an omniscient being, then my opponent's contention two would work as a paradox, not as a truth. It would be a median between true and false. It is not true nor false. I am not claiming the resolution false, I am just saying it is not true. Be careful, because there IS a difference. If you have read Plato's symposium, you probably know what I mean by saying there is ALWAYS a median, just as there is a median between true and false. THEREFORE, this statement is not valid, because it is a paradox, it does not equate truth nor falsehood. _____________________________________ "Refute that Con..." I just did, now it's your turn. :D! -Alexander