Truth is perspective, all perspectives prove true by interpretation of perspective viewer.

The question is whether or not truth is perspective. What should first be done is to define truth. I will go with these definitions that the Merriam Webster dictionary gives: Truth: (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) With truth defined, I will now give three theories of truth. The correspondence theory: "The theory"s answer to the question, "What is truth?" is that truth is a certain relationship, the relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact. Perhaps an analysis of the relationship will reveal what all the truths have in common." The neo-classical correspondence theory: "The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity, "a fact", to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false." The coherence theory: "A Coherence Theory of Truth will claim that a proposition is true if and only if it coheres with ___. For example, one Coherence Theory fills this blank with "the beliefs of the majority of persons in one's society". Another fills the blank with "one's own beliefs", and yet another fills it with "the beliefs of the intellectuals in one's society". The major coherence theories view coherence as requiring at least logical consistency." What each of these theories hold in common is that they allow for claims to be false. For example, I will give a proposition and claim. Proposition 1: 1 = 1 Proposition 2: 1 + 1 = 2. Claim: 1 + 1 does not = 3. This is truth because there exists an appropriate entity,"a fact", to which it corresponds. The fact is 1 + 1 =2. Since we can determine truths without the need of a perspective, Pro's claim inevitably fails. I will now address Pro's statements. "After reading through debates on god and morality, I questioned the ultimate usefulness of such arguments in general as most people partaking in them leave with a stronger conviction than when they started." The usefulness of arguments should not be an indicator of whether or not truth can be found. There are arguments where both sides completely disagree in the end, and there are arguments where a person concedes. It doesn't make truth any less real in either situation. "Debate has its purpose in coming to a consensus, or agreement." The very fact that you claim debate has purpose in coming to a consensus shows that people can change their point of views by seeing evidence for one side being true. The perspectives they previously held could then be considered false, unless the evidence presented if falsified or evidence arises for a different idea. "Paradox, or the binding of two opposite principles pervades every inch of our limited limitless universe, with dark matter and gravity pushing/pulling together what dark energy pushes/pulls constantly apart." The definition of paradox you gave is a bit off. I will go by Merriam Webster's dictionary again: "an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises". Given this definition, there is no paradox between dark matter, gravity, and energy. Gravity is a well understood physical concept, while dark matter and dark energy are still being researched. Since we don't know enough about these ideas, we certainly could not assume they are actually paradoxical with each other. The nature of these things certainly do not make truth unattainable either. Qualities and characteristics of the universe can be understood and quantified. "Heat and Cold are also two explainable ultimately unexplainable polar extremes that own their own seperate nature while also meeting in the middle to create a life sustaining planet." If by heat, you mean the "form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation", then it is completely explainable through science. I think the problem here is in relating a scientific phenomenon, heat, to an adjective, cold, that is used to describe a certain amount of heat in relative terms. Cold is not a scientific property. It is a description of something that is relative to different quantities of heat. For example, 100 degrees Celsius is cold compared to 200 degrees Celsius. "Many worldviews hold a similar approach of creation, although each is tainted with personal dogma. As each of us carries and creates our own through our personal, transpersonal, experiences. In the Argument for Athiesm I agree. In the Argument for Theism I agree. As I see no difference in description. Only transpersonal interpretation." I'm not sure how you see no difference in description. One is the disbelief in God, the other is the belief in God. One could not logically agree with both as they are contradictory. I now bring it back to you. http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.merriam-webster.com...