There are no absolutes.

I confess that they gave me much thought on this subject. However, there is one main flaw that I see with Pro's arguments. His argument against the existence of absolutes is that since people do not agree upon them, absolutes do not exist. This is a false premise. The very nature of absolutes makes them true for all; absolutes are true for all mankind. Think of it this way. Suppose there is a kindergartener who has trouble with math. He comes to the conclusion that 2+2=3. His teacher corrects him, saying that 2+2=4. But the little kid is dogmatic that 2+2=3. Does the statement that two and two make four become any less true simply because a kid, or maybe a whole class of kids, does not agree? Certainly not! This is the same principle with all absolutes: they exist even though some may not agree with them. Let me point out that my opponent failed to respond to my points about absolutes in general. My two main examples were language and lifestyle. Simply by debating with me, my opponent concedes that there are absolutes in language. If there were not these absolutes, our debate would devolve into nonsense. If each word did not have a particular and absolute meaning, how could I tell what my opponent really said, or what his meaning was? Why, if there are no absolutes, I could claim that my opponent agreed with everything I said in my last speech and conceded the round to me. Obviously that is far from the truth, as anyone could tell by reading my opponent's actual words. Words have specific and absolute meanings. This was not refuted, with good reason. The human lifestyle (meaning in general, not specific lifestyles) also confirms that there are absolutes. As I said before, people may claim that there are no absolutes, or that they cannot know if there are absolutes. But their lives belie their words. All people live as if there are absolutes. I will be discussing this more when I talk about physical absolutes. But first we will discuss my burden in this round. My opponent insists on construing the semantics of my statement of belief to mean that if he proves that there are no absolutes in just one of the areas I mentioned, then he wins. If this is the case, then we will prove our positions like we would prove math proofs. He must show that in all cases, there are no absolutes in these areas. I, on the other hand, need provide only one example of an absolute in these areas that stands, in order to win. So let's look at these areas of absolutes. Moral: My opponent's argument here was that there are no absolutes in morals because not everyone agrees on those absolutes. I have already explained the flaw in this argument above. Moral absolutes must come from a source greater than a single human or a group of humans. Otherwise they cannot be universally binding and therefore cannot be absolute. If anyone can condemn anything as wrong, or condone anything as good, it can only be because he appeals to a standard greater than himself. There are moral absolutes. Killing another human being in cold blood is wrong; genocide is wrong; stealing is wrong. People may say they do not agree with the standard of moral absolutes, but very often they do once the evil touches them personally. What if it was your $1 million that was stolen? What if it was your mother who was murdered? All of a sudden, that absolute moral standard is what you appeal to in order to get justice. By the way, what is justice, if not another absolute? And it is one that we all cling to. If somebody roars by us at 100mph on the freeway, we want him to get a ticket because "it serves him right. " If somebody shoots up a school, we want him to get life in prison or the death penalty in the name of justice. There is a moral code that is absolute. Just because those who break it don't want to admit it exists, this does not mean that moral absolutes do not exist. They do indeed exist. Physical: This is probably the easiest realm to prove absolutes for. My opponent says that physical absolutes do not exist because we cannot be sure of reality. However, my opponent himself seems to be very sure of reality. After all, he is debating me over the internet. Thus, he is depending on the facts that the internet is real, that his internet-accessing device is real, that the words that he is reading on the screen are real, that his mind is real, that his fingers are real, etc. Moreover, by having a meaningful debate with me, he depends on the fact that this reality is not real for him alone, but real for both of us and for the person(s) who will judge this debate. Like I have said multiple times before, our lives are lived according to certain absolutes. We live according to the absolute of gravity, of the existence of objects, and of the basic reliability of our senses. If you still need an example of physical absolutes, here are three: this debate is real, your chair is real, and the truck driving down the street is real. Don't believe me? You can try jumping in front of that truck, but I guarantee you it won't turn out so well for you. And that pain that sends you to the hospital (if you are still alive), will be completely, absolutely real. I admit that you have no basis for these absolutes if you do not accept the absolute existence of an infinite-personal God who is orderly and who has revealed Himself to mankind. There are just certain things you cannot know for sure if you remove this foundation. The existence of reality is one of them. But this does not make it less absolute. It just means that you have no foundation for knowing that it is so. Though you can know there are absolutes, you have no foundation for them. For a more in-depth discussion of this issue, see "How Shall We Then Live? " by Francis Schaeffer and "The Ultimate Proof" by Dr. Jason Lisle. Intellectual: My opponent did not deny that there are intellectual and logical absolutes. Again, I think this was with good reason. He has effectively conceded the point that there are intellectual absolutes. If you wish to refresh your memory on this point, reader, please refer back to my previous argument. Spiritual: There are spiritual absolutes. I have discussed their basis in my previous points here. Again, the flaw in my opponent's argument is the same as that of his moral absolutes argument. People do not need to agree for there to be absolutes. My burden is not to prove what those absolutes are, but rather is to prove that they exist. Absolutes do exist in the spiritual world. There either is a heaven and hell, or there is not. They cannot exist and not exist at the same time. I believe that they do exist, and I have very good reasons for believing so. You might disagree with me. Nevertheless, there is an absolute here: one of us is right and the other is wrong. This is true for all spiritual things, just as in physical things. Alligators may exist, or they may not. I personally have never met one. I could claim that alligators do not exist, and you could claim that indeed they do. What we say about the matter does not change the reality that alligators do exist. The same is true for spiritual things. There are absolutes. Either God exists, or he doesn't, but it can't be both. This is a spiritual absolute. Either the Bible is God's Word or it isn't, but one or the other is absolutely true. Just so I eliminate any potential confusion about what I'm saying . .. I am not making the claim that we always know what the truth is regarding spiritual absolutes. There are things we know, but many things we don't know. What I am saying is that absolutes exist. Disagreement does not change the facts that absolutes do indeed exist. To sum up my case, absolutes do exist. Whether people deny the existence of absolutes, or whether they disagree about what those absolutes are, is irrelevant. What we say does not change the existence of absolutes, just like whatever the kindergartener says in defense of his math mistake does not change the truth of 2+2=4. The fact that we can communicate by written language and the fact that we function in this world in accordance with these absolutes bear witness to the fact that there are indeed absolutes--morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually. Thank you to the reader for taking the time to read my case. And thank you to my opponent for the stimulating debate. It was a sincere pleasure for me to debate you on this matter.