Sigh now that is a circular argument you know things exist therefore you are implying you know the truth, how does that make any sense?

You seem to be missing the point, how do we know what truth is, do we know it because some things exist or we exist? Is that the extent of your logical journey I exist therefore truth must be absolute?

It would have to be a tautology. So far the prize is Aristotle's, but he may have pinched it, which is partly why he's been in the annals of history for the past few thousand years.

So Aristotle knows absolute truth too. I somehow doubt it, he is a liar hence and an imposter, as he never said anything remotely of the sort.

Do you know how to prove that something is perfectly true or not, stop mincing around in antiquity and answer this question?

I think this the probable truth of Physics and the empirical world.

I think you are delusional, am I right how would I prove it?

I can claim I know perfectly everything, including that you are as mad as a nail, and a figment of your own imagination, but the chances of convincing anyone of anything resides only in proof, how do you prove anything is true absolutely?

Talk is cheap saying you know an absolute truth beyond any subjectivity is not the same as proving it.