Yet, the statement "there are no absolute truths" is a logical derivative of people who accept evolution. As internet posters, it's only natural to scrutinize everything you see immediately instead of going into big picture mode. But forgetting about the contradictive thread title, let's go into specifics -All truths are a matter of opinion Does science disprove this? -"There is nothing more to truth, than what we state is true" Life has meaning. Life has purpose. But it's limits and boundaries are set by the finite knowledge in the human mind so there's no absolute anything. At the same time, whatever we do declare a truth, is only a way to help us sleep at night. Your time starts... now.
if i have 2 pieces of gum. and you give me 2 pieces of gum. i have 4 pieces of gum. you can play word games trying to redefine "pieces of gum"...you can play word games seeking to mystify the very not-so-mystical quantities represented....but you can't REALLY change the ABSOLUTE TRUTH that 2 + 2 = 4.
Just because a feeble mind can't comprehend something doesn't mean that it's not there. And as has been mentioned before, saying things like "everything is not absolute" or "there is no ___ ever" are all absolute statements. This is pretty big picture since "there is no absolute truth" pretty much claims that every single thing in existence isn't absolute...
But that is such a finite way to look at things because of our finite mind. Because we can't handle an infinite load, so we condition ourselves to accept the quickest possible answer that makes sense to us. Gum, numbers, they're all human creations. You think the beings in other galaxies have the same number system as us? If you can count gum, why can't you count music?
You can... IE: One E & A, Two E & A... One Lolly, Two Lolly, Three Lolly... One Lotta Lee, Two Lotta Lee.. Etc
See...i told you that you could play word games with valuations and pieces of gum. Listen..I think there's far more than we can understand, too. But I also think a piece of gum is a piece of gum.
1. This is a counting system assigned by us. 2. Person A's E and Person B's E aren't the exact same. Two people could sing the song the exact same way and you can like one indefinitely more than the other. Because we as humans are such subjective beings, with so many defense mechanisms, identity issues and underlying emotions that come into play with things we are told we cannot... count. 3. Is there a logical reason someone from Ethiopia takes a liking to opera music? Maxy, this thread isn't for the steadfast church goer. That piece of gum is all in your head. Just like Jesus parting the Sea. I'm sorry, it requires an unbiased, pure thought process.
I was not serious, as usual. The following statement in and of itself is a well known tautology (albeit a self conflicting one): This statement is false. I modified the above statement to include absolutely, in my previous post. BTW I have absolutely no idea WTF you talking about.
For a person to make the statement that everything is relative and reality is only what we make it to be, I think it's a little (well not a little, A LOT) bit hypocritical for you to then turn and say that people who believe in God are delusional, biased, possessing an impure thought process, and their reality is wrong.
The curse of the human mind is being intelligent enough to be aware of the possibility of realities beyond this realm, but at the same time too dumb to comprehend them. Anyone can break down reality and challenge the validity of 2+2=4, but seeing that the extension of our own perceptions only allow us to see this one reality and consciously reject others says more about what we are as a species than it does to the nature of this or any other universe. What is being done here is the attempt of reconciling objectivity with subjectivity. Why can we count tangible objects but we can't count music? The answer is simple (as far as a human is concerned): our perceptions, as humans, disallow us from seeing a reality in which this is possible. To think that if our chemicals were adjusted differently, like that of a schizophrenic, we would technically be experiencing a different, albeit just as valid, reality in which a whole different array of things would be "possible"! This concept speaks both to the ephemeral nature of our "existing" realities and the ultimate relativity of intangible concepts such as "good", "right", "wrong", "bad" and so on. What is and what isn't is solely dependent on the way the observer is wired, thus this can be viewed as a contradiction to the notion of "absolute truth". However, the curse of the relativistic argument is the fact that the argument itself can mitigate its own validity. The existence and acceptance of relativity/subjectivity in of themselves suggests an absolute truth. And now that I'll be functioning from the logical foundation of THIS realm, let me just say Ronny, we can't simply "forget" the contradiction presented in the title of this thread. Asking us to move on from that is like asking us to reconcile a logical paradox by the snap of a finger. The statement you present, as far as our perceptions are concerned, is invalid. Therefore, where's the argument? Are you forgetting that you're dealing with humans, or something?
