CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There must be at least one absolute truth. It cannot be, that there is no absolute truth, because if this were true, the following statement would constitute an absolute truth, and be self refuting...
"There are no absolute truths"
If there was only one absolute truth, it would be a statement synonymous with the following...
"No statements are absolutely true except for this one."
I can see why you think that. But I could say you copied mine from a earlier debate where I made the same point in a different way. Would you like to hash out who between us expressed this idea first at this website, or can you cope with the fact that people sometimes think alike without copying others?
This whole argument is based upon the assumption that logic provides valid insights into the metaphysical structure of truth. Relativism only necesarilly leads to a metaphysical impossibility if we maintain this assumption.
Without regarding logic as a valid means of ascertaining truth, this argument AND every other possible argument that could possibly made to validate or invalidate ANY truth claim is useless.
Another assumption. You assume that we have no other way of knowing truth, there's only logical investigation. But tell me, why are you so sure that logic corresponds with truth? It sure isn't logic itself, that would be circular. You can't rely on logic to show that logic works, so there must be another route of investigation. Logic is content-free, there's nothing within logic that ensures that logic actually corresponds with truth. Logic is totally capable of proving the most absurd things, so again, there must be another route of investigation, one that ensures us that this content-free game actually happens to produce true statements.
So you are wrong. Logic is a tool, a very useful one indeed, but this tool mustn't be mistaken for the end, it is only a means towards truth. If this different route of investigation eventually shows us that nothing is absolute, then it seems that our rules and ideas of constants must eventually all break down.
Logic assumes constants, to show logically that the lack of constants is wrong is to beg the question.
Your argument is based on what may be false assumptions just like mine is, would you dispute that?
You assume that we have no other way of knowing truth, there's only logical investigation.
I assume that knowledge itself consists of a logical framework of ideas and that this is universally true. Try persuading me otherwise if you like.
why are you so sure that logic corresponds with truth?
I don't assume that just because knowledge exists as logical frameworks, that these frameworks are flawless.
You can't rely on logic to show that logic works, so there must be another route of investigation.
That's like saying you can't rely on your mind to show that your mind works.
Logic is content-free, there's nothing within logic that ensures that logic actually corresponds with logic.
Oops! We all trail off into nonsense now and again. I won't hold it against you. :)
Logic is totally capable of proving the most absurd things, so again, there must be another route of investigation, one that ensures us that this content-free game actually happens to produce true statements
Sure. Not all logic is sound. When it's not, the application of this faulty logic will cause us to fail at what we set out to accomplish. When our logic fails, our plans fail, and we are motivated to reexamine and make improvements to it.
So you are wrong.
That's one assumption you could make. Perhaps a better one would be that I am neither entirely wrong or entirely right....I'll pick the latter.
Logic is a tool, a very useful one indeed, but this tool mustn't be mistaken for the end, it is only a means towards truth.
You must have missed where I described it as " a valid means of ascertaining truth"
If this different route of investigation eventually shows us that everything nothing is absolute, then it seems that our rules and ideas of constants must eventually all break down.
You assume this "different route of investigation" must exist (according to your logic). Too bad you can't tell me anything about it. Or can you?
Logic assumes constants, to show logically that the lack of constants is wrong is to beg the question.
I cannot digest that statement in it's current form.
My argument is that the non-existence of a second route of investigation is wrong, therefore a second route must exist. I don't need to tell you anything about, it's sufficient for this discussion to say that it exists.
I don't assume that just because knowledge exists as logical frameworks, that these frameworks are flawless. ... Not all logic is sound
If you agree that a statement isn't necesarilly true in virtue of it being logical then you must also agree that we need something more than logic to know truth.
You must have missed where I described it as " a valid means of ascertaining truth"
If you believe that something is necesarilly wrong because it's logically selfcontradictory then you uphold logic as truth, not as a means towards truth.
I believe this points are the heart of the matter.
My argument is that the non-existence of a second route of investigation is wrong
And how did you demonstrate that? Or is this just an assumption you expect me to regard as axiomatic?
I don't need to tell you anything about, it's sufficient for this discussion to say that it exists.
So you suppose it exists, but you can't tell me anything about it. It is nothing more than a supposition then from what I can tell.
If you agree that a statement isn't necesarilly true in virtue of it being logical then you must also agree that we need something more than logic to know truth.
I must admit that for all I know, it is only through logic that we can ascertain truth. I may be poorly informed, but until I learn something about this alternative method you suppose, I will hold my current opinion.
If you believe that something is necesarilly wrong because it's logically selfcontradictory then you uphold logic as truth, not as a means towards truth.
I don't follow your logic here.
I believe this points are the heart of the matter.
I actually don't think we disagree, but that we are beset by more or less subtle semantic idiosyncrasies between us regarding the meaning of logic, knowledge and truth. If you were to describe what truth means to you as succinctly as possible (without referencing a dictionary please) and I were to do the same, I think it would be enlightening to compare what we independently come up with.
I believe that the correspondance theory of truth is our best theory of truth.
And how did you demonstrate that?
I said that:
"You can't rely on logic to show that logic works, so there must be another route of investigation."
"Logic is totally capable of proving the most absurd things, so again, there must be another route of investigation (ensuring us that it's conclusions are true)"
I believe that the correspondance theory of truth is our best theory of truth.
So much for finding a difference there...My thinking is similar if not identical. I believe that truths exist only in relation to communicated statements. In so much as a statement is in accord with the state of affairs it explains, it can be said that the statement is true.
Hence when I state that the suns rays are hitting the earth as I type this, it's absolutely true. There are absolute truths.
I said that:
"You can't rely on logic to show that logic works, so there must be another route of investigation."
"Logic is totally capable of proving the most absurd things, so again, there must be another route of investigation (ensuring us that it's conclusions are true)"
Though those particular arguments weren't convincing to me, I have no reason to doubt that there are multiple "routes of investigation". Experience through the senses comes to mind right away
I agree that the senses are a prime candidate for another route of investigation. Our senses allow us to see that our theoretical truths indeed are true of the world.
As for your remark about absolute truths. There's a problem of complexity in asserting that the suns rays are hitting the earth. We have statements defining what a ray of sunlight is, and we have a definition of what the earth is. The problem of complexity arises when we try to relate our conceptional knowledge to the actual facts of the world. Our definition of sunlight is vague - our concepts simply fall flat when we try to encompass what's going on out there. Sure we can give a description of the broad tendencies, but to propose that we understand every phenomenon involving photons is simply wrong.
Now, why is this a problem for the statement that 'sunlight is hitting the earth'? It's a problem because because for this statement to be absolutely true, the term 'sunlight' has to correspond to something out there in actual experience. But we can see that our current concepts don't omnipresently and encompassingly account for the reality of photons. In other words, we have no case for arguing for the ontological existence of 'sunlight'. But if we aren't in a position to say that there's such a thing as 'sunlight', then we aren't in a position for saying that 'sunlight' actually describes reality. But if 'sunlight' doesn't describe reality, then the sentence can't be absolutely true.
Boiled down to the essentials: The most important premise required for this conclusion is that actual Reality is too complicated to be described by concepts. If we accept this premise then it follows that we can't make the claim that the terms 'sunlight' and 'earth', even the verb 'hitting' actually correspond to anything in actual Reality. Since these concepts don't correspond to reality the sentence that 'sunlight is hitting the earth' is not absolutely true.
What...you see no problem of complexity in "I"? Earlier you said that "our concepts simply fall flat when we try to encompass what's going on out there"
What about what's "In" there?, Do our concepts not also "fall flat" when we try to describe what is, and is not definitely self?
I am actually glad you brought that up. I do believe there's a problem of complexity with this "I", actually I believe that we won't find anything that this "I" refers to. What this mind contains, even what this mind is inclined to think changes all the time. This problem can be stretched quite far, we can even take it to the conclusion that there's no observer, only oberservation.
I am not doubting that there's observation, but I do believe that it's impossible to pin down this sense of self.
I was going to say 'no', but then saw the thread on '2 + 2', and realized that I was confusing absolute truth with absolute good vs. bad. I do believe there is an absolute truth, which we try to perceive through the filter of our senses. We may err in interpreting the evidence of our senses to reconstruct that truth, and in fact it would be hubristic to assume that we're reconstructing the truth without error, but that doesn't mean that the truth doesn't exist.
But consider that the idea of mathematics having absolute truth as something entirely created by humanity. The concept of absolute truth, as defined as a truth that is undisputable, makes it very difficult to ascertain what we see as truth. When looking at things like time and math, it is quite easy to see the rational behind truth. Truth is a word we throw around as if it is easy to figure out, when in reality we have no idea if an absolute truly exists. Such as Descartes said; the only thing I know with certainty is that I exist in some manner.
This is not to say that I do not agree with our stance, but your logistical analysis is built around human construct.
Upon perceiving more than one thing, people began to form the concept of numbers. They didn't create this concept, they discovered it. The symbols used to represent math were created, but the actual relationship of quantities to quantities was discovered.
One's beliefs cannot contradict their factual recall. This would be psychologically impossible. Thus, it follows that to believe there is absolute truth is to consider there to be absolute truth to begin with.
There is no viable psychological loophole whereby one can believe in absolute truth and simultaneously deny its existence.
I can't prove that it is false...just as well as you can't prove that it's true. It's like debating over whether God exist or not...actually it's beyond that. Even if God itself were to come forth and show its godly abilities, whether this is really real or not would still be question.
Wait why can't I prove it exists? My evidence would be everything I come into contact with. Matter in general would be my evidence. Existence would be my evidence.
I didn't say anything about proving that we exist. We do exist, the things we see exist, even if we are just a figment of imagination we still exist as something, but that doesn't prove that this is actually reality and not just a figment of imagination.
I understand that. My point is that there was a point in history where imagination had no existence. It was just matter. You cannot say this reality isn't really here if it existed before you and I did.
I don't put belief into things like that soo... Either way, the "big bang" is something that was interpreted in this possibly false reality. You don't know that it isn't also just a figment of imagination. Imagination can exist without the use of the interpretation "imagination", which is merely used to describe a particular process...
You don't know that it isn't also just a figment of imagination
So if I die and someone else records the same data I did that would break this theory you have here.
Imagination can exist without the use of the interpretationÂ
It cannot. Interpretation of stimuli is the component of imagination. One cannot create with having knowledge beforehand based on something else and in order to imagine one must interpret and understand the stumuli. I think you just putting some random shit together now.
So if I die and someone else records the same data I did that would break this theory you have here That could just mean that it was recorded in the "imaginers" memory, the one who could be imagining this possibly false reality...
And that second part wasn't the whole sentence, which completely changes what I meant...soo please reread the sentence, grab every detail and reassess your answer.
Imagination can exist without the use of the interpretation "imagination", which is merely used to describe a particular process...
Imagination is an ability. Its the ability to gather and integrate information recieved from experiences and encounters. Imagination cannot work without interpretation. That part of your sentenced flaws your entire argument over imagination.
Lol no. That could just mean that it was recorded in the "imaginers" imagination.
How so? Or better yet what about double-blind case studies? Pre-existing knowledge cannot be obtained if one is blind to the objective of the study. That is why I do not agree with your theory on this subject.
Imagination is an ability. Its the ability to gather and integrate information recieved from experiences and encounters. Imagination cannot work without interpretation. That part of your sentenced flaws your entire argument over imagination
You misunderstood what I meant. I meant the process/ability would still exist even without the explanation of it i.e the interpretation.
Of course. However nothing would fufill its process and thus it wouldn't exist since it had yet to be done. In a relative sense sure we can say it was always a possibility.
How so? Or better yet what about double-blind case studies? Pre-existing knowledge cannot be obtained if one is blind to the objective of the study. That is why I do not agree with your theory on this subject.
The "imaginer" has the information already. The information that one of us "artificials" posses is completely determined by what the "imaginer" wants us to know.
The only information an "artificial" could even bring forth as evidence would also just be more imagined evidence.
And who is this imaginer? Also my fault. I thought we were talking about you. Damn. Sorry bout that man. Anyways are you talking about the possibility of a higher power and we are the imagination's components?
We just can't know the imaginer. Even if you were imagined, then you still couldn't prove that you were imagined. The artificials have no control whatsoever, we can only assume that we are real and the imaginer could very well be making us have those thoughts.
And yeah, technically this imaginer would be our Creator and the higher power. I couldn't stoop to calling it God because there is the possibility that there is a higher higher power.
I don't even know what you just wrote or said since words and language are all human constructs....I guess the human construct of human thought can be abandoned as well.
Well I thought one must know truth, not believe in truth. If it's a belief, then you don't know that it's true. Knowing is truth. If you believe, then you don't know.
So it seems contradictory to call it "truth" when you don't know.
It's like saying. "I don't know, but I know." I guess?
Oh yea, you are right. It makes no sense to believe in absolute truth; absolute truths seems like the kind of thing, that if you aren't sure about their status, then they probably weren't absolute to start with. The way I read it was "Do you believe absolute truths exist?".
There maybe alternate realities/universes were things we interpret to be truths, don't apply, but then again, that would mean there's an absolute truth. The truth being "There are universes where our truths don't apply."
How do you know there are other universes...where truth would matter?
All we know is what is right in front of us. We live on earth...it is all we know. Are there other planets with people on it like earth? Not that we know....Isn't it odd that we are like we are and no other life exists on other planets that we know of?
But don't you know rape is bad? Or can rape be acceptable?
I agree, that's what people don't seem to see. They put there own logic and emotion into a narrow way of thinking. Just because you or i would perceive rape as bad, doesn't mean it truly is bad. It's good for the one committing the act. So there is those who view it as one way and the others viewing it as another. Yet there is no one who holds the gavel, there isn't a superior human who dictates. There is no way to be absolutely certain, that it is good, or bad. So i agree with.
Only for a sociopath, and only for them if they get away with it, and only when viewed within the context of the act and not within the context of their brain condition.
There are very few actual sociopaths even among rapists, damaged people yes, but not true sociopaths as in that part of their brain does not work.
So no, even for the person committing the rape, even in that moment, it is not good for the one committing the rape.
But all of that is a singular example and even if your example could be proven true, it would not prove the overall ideal that absolutes do not exist.
Absolutes exist. Whether we have the tools to understand what those absolutes are is debatable, but their existence cannot be debated.
If you take my entire quote in context then you see that even for the sociopath it is still a negative thing, I see how you could make that mistake. Let me know if you need further explanation however and I'll explain it.
However I am a bit worried as to why you would bring up this subject if it were not to disprove absolutes.
My assumption was that truth is in the eye of the beholder was your argument against absolutes.
If that assumption is incorrect what precisely is your point within the context of the debate?
The truth of something is determined by its relationship to reality. A comet that has not been perceived is, in truth, still there.
To say that "perception is reality" is not correct. We should have all learned this as toddlers when we realized that mom and dad leaving the room did not mean they left existence.
Absolute truth is simply "that which is". No amount of perceptual contortions can actually change the nature of reality.
Without absolute truth, there are no truths. If there is a truth at all, it would not be so without absolute truth.
If there is no absolute truth, there is no reality, and if there is no reality, there can be nothing. Clearly there is something, so there must be truth.
Why can't it? Two is a cencept created by a man right? Its a title for a quantity right? What is 2 +2? Could be 6. From my perceptual view point. 1 + 1 can equal three depending on what I perceive.
How is two a concept that is created by man? Would there no longer be the concept of "2", if man no longer existed? Nonsense! The concept of "2" is absolute and eternal.
If concepts are set by man, then logical absolutes are set by man. If logical absolutes are set by man, then logically absolutes will be non-existant, if man is gone. If logical absolutes are non-existant, then there is nothing to withhold A from equaling not A. If A can equal not A, then reality can equal not reality. If reality can equal not reality, then reality is literally subjective. If reality is literally subjective, and A can equal not A, then logical can be illogical, while the illogical can be logical. If this is so, then logical is absolute and not absolute at the same time. If logical absolutes exist, then 2+2=4. Hence, if concepts are set by man or if concepts are not set by man, 2+2 will always equal 4.
Logical absolutes? Seems like you just want to take this another direction. We are talking about concepts.
Concepts: an abstract idea; a general notion.
For example. Lets say we had ten fingers on each hand and each finger was the sum of 1/2. Therefore two fingers would equal 1. Are they incorrect? No. They are only observing the world through their perceptual set. To you they are hold up two fingers. To them they are hold up 1 finger. Who is correct? Both according to your mental schema set beforehand.
In order for something to be true it must be perceived as something that is applicable and able to be generalized for all if we are talking about absolutes. This is not the case.
In order for something to be true it must be perceived as something that is applicable and able to be generalized for all if we are talking about absolutes.
This is not true in any sense. It does not follow from the fact that we perceive different things that absolute truth is not real. You are begging the question by assuming that absolute truth requires everyone to perceive the truth. I would agree that we do not have any one perceived truth, but that does not make that truth any less absolute.
You pretty much just agreed that multiple truths exist. Which means that more than one absolute can exist. That cannot be. If it is absolute it is above all.
Multiple truths do exist, but NEVER in contradiction to one another. Mathematics is defined in human terms to be more easily understood, but that does NOT mean mathematics was created by man.
No 2+2 cannot equal 6, because that would be to deny the definition of the numbers 2 and 6, addition and equality. You can change your definition of any of these parts and 2+2 would equal 6, but then it seems the case that you aren't even talking about the same issue you were before.
So you have to follow the definitions of the problem given; if you don't then you aren't talking about the same problem at all. Following the definitions we have it's undeniable that 2+2 doesn't equal 6 and therefore it's simply not a matter of choice.
2 + 2 can clearly equal whatever I would wish it to. Your two may not be my two. Do you understand that? If the definition changes then the concept can remain constant but it cannot remain an absolute. It doesn't deny the definition of 2 and 6. It simply restates them as a different quantity based on my schema or perceptual set. I am not sure you understand the point of my argument.
If the definition of "two" changes, then it is not 2 any longer. The ontology if 2 is such that it is 2 things always; the only thing we can do is re-name it to something else, such as "dos". However, when we now say "dos" it is simply "two" just renamed. Thus, regardless of the name of 2 things, the ontology of 2 is always such that it is 2 things. You can't get around that fact.
For example, I can rename 2, and the symbol of it, to be 987. However, by the ontology of the number itself, which is existent regardless of the name, will make 987+987=4 always. However, that is because we have renamed 987 to be equivalent to 2. That does not make the ontological state of "2" any less absolute, though.
If two changes two will still be what two could have been which is any conceptualized number. Two could be erased and counting could continue without it. If I can count with out it and still perform and carry out my tasks the number two is not absolute. If it is not applicable to all and generalized over all it is not absolute.
No, two is not a concept created by man, it is a descriptive term to define a thing which exists. The number 2 exists, we name it 2, we did not create 2. If the universe were void of any type of intelligent life at all 2 would still exist.
Your argument is that you can call numbers different things, which is fine. There is no reason we could not call "2" "hippopotamus"
Okay Johnny, show us how you count to 5
1, hippopotamus, 3, 4, 5
Yay, you did it!claps all around
but it still represents a real thing that exists.
Now, could humans be wrong about things like 2?
Sure. As long as some thing is not self-defined and does not create any self-contradictions, there is a chance.
But to what extent we allow those things to cloud debate matters.
If you are arguing something as basic as whether or not 2 exists (not you personally I understand you are just making a point), there really is not reason to debate anything at all. All things are dependent on point of view and therefore nothing ever anywhere can ever be defined no matter the argument.
It's an interesting brain exercise to consider concepts like this,
A bit useless in debate though,
And when applied to social interactions, public policies, humans in general, it's a recipe for disaster.
If 2 somethings + another 2 somethings combine together and then create an explosion, then their fragments could be scattered and the result could be that number.
They never were two things, in absolution; they were two of that thing. If you reduce it to the absolute reduction, then they would be subatomic particles. Add two subatomic particles together and you get 2 subatomic particles.
I don't know. Are you? That's your moral code. Morality isn't objective. No higher power ordains a moral code or a perfect ethic. Deeming murder wrong is a collective agreement within society. Back then women were treated like shit. Why? That was their schema. That is how they perceived the world. They deemed it fit in their society. Some societies still follow that tradition today. Who determines what is right or wrong? People right? They can only do so from their own perceptual experiences. So, basically I cannot determine if you are right or wrong. You have to do that on your own in accord with your own power.
No absolute truth, or anything such as good evil are all just perception. For instance the world was once perceived flat, that was known as "truth." Nothing is absolute, we can no know, we can only speculate and perceive.
By implying someone is wrong, you also imply there is right.
Sorta like saying you can't judge someone...and your judging them by saying it.
If truth is truth, it must exclude something-falsehood. If you correct me, you assume error exists. And if you assume error exists, you assume that truth exists.
If I come to your home and kill your children.....are you telling me that it is not bad...just bad to those who think its bad? The act would not be evil?
Abbsurd and unliveable. Why even attempt to do anything good? We should then abolish prisons...disband our military...and let each one fend for himself. If there is no truth then what does anything matter? If moral relativism is right then there is no basis for opposing genocide, racism or terrorism...etc.
To you the person committing the act, would see it as "good." Or else you wouldn't have done it. You can't dictate if you're right or if i'm wrong, and vice verse.
If we can't dictate what is right and wrong.....can we live in a civilized society that has rules to protect the innocent?
Or don't you think there is innocence?
Can I just kill you...with no consequences to me?
Should I be able to just walk into your home and rob you blind. What you are saying is that you would stand by and allow me to do it? Why? Because I would have the right to do it if I think I have the right to do it.
You could try. Also i'm not saying there isn't a "known," right and wrong. It's just there is no "ABSOLUTE." You're missing the whole concept. "Absolute," means without a doubt. If it were to be absolute there would be no such thing as murder, poverty, rape, and etc. Everyone one would be coherent to the absolute truth in "right," and "wrong." Due to the fact these things happen means there is no absolute, in the area of "right," and "wrong."
Not necessarily, a majority of people would still consider what they were doing was wrong. But that would not stop us from doing what we wanted anyway. Sometimes, you know what you are doing is bad, but you don't care.
My statement is a dictation. I didn't say i was right or wrong. I said right and wrong were unable to be dictated, but i didn't say that i was right.....? What contradiction do you speak of?
I understand. The idea that you can't dictate right and wrong is a value judgment that is self negating, just like the other arguments against absolute truth in other areas. Absolute truth does not mean "without a doubt". It may be absolutely true that there is a comet heading toward earth even though there is doubt. It may be absolutely wrong for a woman to murder her children even though she thinks she is right.
If I come to your home and kill your children.....are you telling me that it is not bad
The Bible teaches us that this is perfectly acceptable, because God did it to the Egyptians in order to set his people free. We also see many examples in the animal kingdom where an individual will kill someone else's children in order to free up resources for their own children.
Believing that there is no absolute right vs. wrong doesn't mean that you don't have a sense of what is right and wrong, only that you understand that your views of right and wrong are not universal. As humans, we have evolved a sense of right and wrong so that we can live together in large groups. The larger the group we live in, the more secure we are from outside invasions, and the better able our group will be to gather and defend the resources we need in order to survive.
There are some rules that are universal to all humans, but they extend only to humans, not to other species on our planet, not to potential aliens from another planet, and apparently not to God. We can only conjecture what these universal-to-humans rules might be, but I've heard it suggested that a sense of reciprocity is one of these values, that if I do you a favor, you should do one back for me if the opportunity arises. If you don't, then I'm going to hold it against you, and if you don't do this consistently, with others of your group, then the whole group will treat you poorly, and your chances of survival will go down.
The idea that we treat strangers with a certain amount of respect is something that we've learned, not evolved. It was one of Jesus's messages, and as we all know, it was only learned through a certain amount of sacrifice. However, it has enabled our societies to grow much larger than they were previously, and for those societies that practice it, it enables different societies to exist more peacefully together.
However, getting back to the core issue, these are values that we have developed as humans because they help us to survive. They are not absolute.
So if your standing next to someone who shoots someone dead.....and you eye witness this....the truth about the situation is subjective? Come on.
The people back in the time where they thought the world was flat did not have the capability to prove their assumption. Today we do have that ability and the world is round. Your saying it could be square or triangular or any other shape.
How are you to know, if it's absolute that he died. We perceive a dead corpse to be evident that someone has died. For all we know he could continue on through life without being seen. It's not an ABSOLUTE knowledge that what took place is correct.
It was perceived flat a mere 75 years ago. Just because we see our selves now as advanced doesn't mean we are. We could have everything wrong, the future will reveal. We can't predict and assume we are all knowing beings of truth.
It is not about predicting or knowing something to be fact and for it to remain fact: it is about knowing whether or not something will remain true. We may not know what it is, but we should know if there is a thing.
Absolutes not existing is self-contradictory. Self-contradictory things cannot exist (even with a time machine).
This is one of the few examples of an argument which can be proven beyond any doubt to be incorrect. It is hard to come up with an argument like that, so congrats on that.
I perceive nothing to be absolute as an absolute. Doesn't mean i'm absolutely correct. Just because i perceive something doesn't mean it is absolutely true. I don't absolutely know that nothing is absolute, but i can perceive that it is non existent.
It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong about something which you think may or may not be an absolute, for there to be existence at all, somethings must be absolutes.
The only way for absolutes to not exist is if there is not existence.
"I think therefore I am." -- This quote by Descartes is an absolute truth. But first your question is flawed.
The burden of proof for non-existence is on the one making this claim. For example borrowing from a common theological fallacy, "Oh yeah, prove god doesn't exist." The answer is no, you must prove he/she does exist, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Okay, that aside, the quote is not just a bumper sticker, it's an absolute truth with a long logical argument which shows it as one.
Put as simply as possible, that you are perceiving things around you, whether you are right or wrong about those things you perceive,
that you perceive proves to yourself that you exist. You cannot prove I exist and I cannot prove that you exist, but we each (presumably unless you are a robot) can prove to ourselves we exist.
Existence is an absolute truth therefore. Even if the whole universe around you is an illusion, even if that should be so, you know beyond any doubt there is some sort of existence.
Again, you're not getting the core concept. You're missing something. Think on it for a while instead of replying with the first cliche that pops in your head.
Descartes quot implies self existence, not proof of all existence. I asked on your proof of existence, doesn't mean i doubt it. Also the quote implies the fact that you doubt, means yourself must exist. You imply there is absolute truth, because there is existence. If you claim this fact, you must prove how everything is existent. Descartes only implies self existence not overall existence.
Do you then propose that you, or I for that matter, are alone in our existence? If you prove your own existence but nothing else does and all around you is illusionary or false, then it would all surely be within your own consciousness. If you exist by yourself and nothing else does, then you would be capable of influencing reality. Since you cannot, you have only to conclude that an existence exists apart from your own (or else you would be able to control all of reality). You may be incapable of proving that I specifically exist, but because you can't spawn a giant snow man to destroy Detroit, you must conclude that some other reality contains you at least-independent of you.
nothing in this world is absolute. Everything is relative. Every thing has 2 aspects- good or bad, profit or loss, love or hate,etc. Who will decide what will fall in which category? If someone get profit from one thing, then, there would be a person who suffered loss.. It is only the perspective that makes the difference...
