Truth is relative

I take your definitions for truth, and gladly. (As an aside, I would like to make it clear that by accepting them, I am not saying they are absolute. These definitions are clearly relative to this particular debate and to your particular source) As I stated initially, my opponent must "prove that some absolute truth exists absolutely." Your analysis of these definitions does not show that (1) "relativism and the truth are not compatible," and (2) that these definitions lead to an absolute truth. Definition 3: for a "verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like" to be an "absolute" truth, it would be necessary that the truth is either "verified" or "indisputable" ABSOLUTELY. As such, I contend that this definition is incompatible not with relativism but with absolutism. Any statement that is "verified" is necessarily relative to the authority and process by which it is verified. And any statement that is "indisputable" can only be "indisputable" relative to an authority or source that determines it as "indisputable." You have yet to prove that it is possible for a statement to be absolutely indisputable. I contend that a claim can be indisputable only in relation to some factor that, when varied, can make the same claim disputable. To take your example "that the sky is blue," this claim varies relative to many factors. You state that this is an "objective truth." The color "blue," to begin with, is the subjective interpretation of a wavelength, and therefore, this claim is not objective. Rather, your claim varies relative to how we determine the color "blue," as well as the levels of pollution in the atmosphere, to the time of day (at night it is often black, and in some places, orange) [1]. As for mathematical truths, they are also relative. You state that "1+1 obviously equals 2." If it is "obvious," prove that 1+1=2…. In different fields, addition and multiplication are different operators, they do different things. As such, 1+1 can equal anything, dependent on the field chosen by the mathematician [2]. Your example of David saying it is "both 2 and 3" is indeed correct, according to the current understanding of mathematics. The "axiom of choice" further demonstrates that mathematical truths are relative; mathematicians either accept or do not accept the axiom, and in both cases, the results are different yet nonetheless considered "mathematical truths" [3]. Therefore, mathematical truths are necessarily relative. I can provide further evidence if need be. Definition 5: you show no argument that suggests "actual existence" is not relative. I look forward to hearing one, if you believe that is the case. Definition 6: Same argument as Definition 3 Definition 10: Truth defined as "accuracy" is relative to the "position or adjustment." There are different degrees of accuracy, and they vary with the presence or absence of certain properties and factors. Therefore, truth defined as "accuracy" is relative. In conclusion, your entire argument rests on the notion that there exist "objective truths that are not a matter of opinion." The problem with this argument is that "objective truths" are not necessarily "absolute" truths. Rather, they are just as likely to be relative as opinions. An example to help make my point: it is an objective truth that light is a wave, but it is also an objective truth that light is a particle. Whether it operates as a wave or a particle is relative to an observer's frame of reference [4]. A final example: it is an objective truth that you are involved in this debate with me. But a hundred years ago, this would not have been objectively true because, in all probability, you and I would not have been born yet. As such, this truth is relative to the particular place in time that an observer occupies. Sources: 1. Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1 2. Spivak's Calculus 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...