Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VinceField
So many arbitrary responses on this thread, I'm just going to make one post to cover them all.
Here is the refutation:
You: "All truth is relative. There are no absolutes."
Me: "Are you absolutely sure about that?"
If you answer yes, then you've just refuted yourself. You do believe in absolutes. If you answer no, then you admit that you could be wrong, and you are wrong, because the idea that there are absolutely no absolutes is self-refuting philosophical suicide.
I too once believed there were no absolutes. I was too blinded by stubbornness and attachment to my belief to see how illogical the concept was. Now I share my insight with you. Take it or leave it.
Note that if you answer that there is no absolute truth, you will be quickly and efficiently refuted. Just a heads up!
|
You seem to base your proof/belief of absolute truth on the premise that those who claim there is no absolute truth will be refuted. Your supposition also assumes that truth has to be either absolute or relative when it can possibly be something else altogether known or unknown. How about we turn this around and start with the premise of your belief in the absolute truth.
You: All truth is absolute
Me: How do you know?
You: Because I can infer that those who believe in relative truth actually believe in absolute truth
Me: That does not constitute proof of absolute truth, besides how do you know the truth has only the possibility of being absolute or relative?
Checkmate
This is actually a no win scenario for either argument, only a philosophical exercise at best