There are many theories on the meaning of truth, and with those theories come beliefs and questions as to why one is more adequate than the others. An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact. The concept of absolute truths (what they are and whether they exist) has been debated among many different groups of people. Philosophers have been butting heads when it comes to the definition of absolute truth for hundreds of years. Alternatively, many believe in relative truths, where facts may vary depending on the circumstances. (Towart) The theory that I will discuss as the most adequate is the correspondence theory. Honestly, I don't possess the capabilities to fully determine the most sufficient theory of truth. I do, however, have empirical evidence and solid reasoning to support the correspondence theory. There are many valid arguments and questions of this theory that I am not qualified to completely refute. I am only able to continue this age old discussion, not to conclude with an exact theory of truth to follow, just my perception of it. The concept of the correspondence theory says that a “statement is true only if the facts given match up with reality”. (Marian) This can be a very simple approach to determining the truth. The basic idea is that if, based on my understanding of reality, the statement given matches that reality then the statement is true. If the statement does not correspond to reality then it is false. A statement is a sentence that can be determined to be true or false but not both at the same time. So ultimately I use past experiences and beliefs to determine my concept of reality. Then, based on my idea of reality, I determine if a statement is either true or false. "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true" (Aristotle) This was Aristotle's belief in