[Xrow]

TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE.    
THEREFORE TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE.
THEREFORE THIS IS ABSOLUTE.
BUT I OFFERED 17, THUS MAKING A NEW TRUTH.
THUS YOUR TRUTH IS NOW WRONG.
AND MIND IS RIGHT.

THUS YOU SUCK.

So suck on THAT Allie >;O

TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE.   <--- I see no evidence for this, therefore your proof is denied

Suck on THAT Xrow >;O

Example or you lose.

[Allie]

You stated "truth is not relative" as a fact in your proof.
Your proof is therefore invalid without evidence to backup the evidence in your proof.

[Xrow]

Scenario:
ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE.

Allie: "Truth is relative."
Xrow: "Is that relatively true?"
Allie: "Yes."
Xrow: "Then truth must be absolute. Is it absolutely true?"
Allie: "Yes."
Xrow: "Then truth must be absolute."



First of all, the claim is self-defacing.
Secondly, mathematics, logic and science prove that truth is absolute.

It is absolutely true that Obama is the president of the United States on January 17, 2011 for all people in all places at all times.
It is absolutely true that 2+2=4 for all people in all places at all times.



Give me an example of a relative truth.

[Allie]

I love you.

[grant746]

I love you.

.....

[Xrow]

I love you.

It is absolutely true for all people in all places at all times that Allie loves Xrow on January 17, 2011.

You lose fool!

[Rossbach]

It is absolutely true for all people in all places at all times that Allie loves Xrow on January 17, 2011.

You lose fool!

I love you.

Ps. For some it is January 18.

[Xrow]

I love you.

Allie gives up.

[Allie]

It is absolutely true for all people in all places at all times that Allie loves Xrow on January 17, 2011.

You lose fool!

I give.
Iunno how to explain why "I love you" isn't absolute but relative.
Therefore since I can't explain, I give for now.
When I realize how to word it, I'll be back.
>;[

[Xrow]

I give.
Iunno how to explain why "I love you" isn't absolute but relative.
Therefore since I can't explain, I give for now.
When I realize how to word it, I'll be back.
>;[

Don't hurt yourself ;|

[Rossbach]

I give.
Iunno how to explain why "I love you" isn't absolute but relative.
Therefore since I can't explain, I give for now.
When I realize how to word it, I'll be back.
>;[

[Bubu]

i actually think the truth is absolute just for an individual, its not if u speak about 2 or more people, because as we all are different, we think different, and we have different ideas about all theorical and real concepts in the world. So truth will became something relative to each person.

some1 can just say im the president, and believe he is the president and will be the truth for him .-.
about numbers, they are not real so dunno if u can say tahts truth... but well reality is relative too...

and also if u say that allie thinks that truth is relative and you think its absolute then the truth will be relative..

i wish we could do this in spanish.. my english sucks Dx sorry if my grammar failed .-.

[Optimism]

i actually think the truth is absolute just for an individual, its not if u speak about 2 or more people, because as we all are different, we think different, and we have different ideas about all theorical and real concepts in the world. So truth will became something relative to each person.

some1 can just say im the president, and believe he is the president and will be the truth for him .-.
about numbers, they are not real so dunno if u can say tahts truth... but well reality is relative too...

and also if u say that allie thinks that truth is relative and you think its absolute then the truth will be relative..

i wish we could do this in spanish.. my english sucks Dx sorry if my grammar failed .-.

Very, very impressive BuBu...

*pats on back*

Seriously; I'm ****ing impressed with you. Saved me 5 minutes of my time...

I LOVE YOU.

A negative can never be proven. Prove pigs fly. Prove I can't fly. Prove martians don't exist. Prove eagles don't spit magma. These statements, nor any statement for that matter can ever be proven 100 percent with regard to philosophy. However, compounding evidence and stacking the odds for a specific question enables validity.

For instance, does the Herpes Zoster Virus cause chicken pox? The answer: most likely. One can never be certain.

Whether truth is relative or absolute is a matter of subjective opinions. I understand many truths are absolute, while others are relative. Given my educational level, you and I would disagree on matters as absolute or relative; however, remember, I have compounding, reproducible, stand-alone-evidence that gives validity to what I "believe" and claim to be absolute. Moreover, tangible results that enable benefit or harm could be demonstrated at numerous levels on a plethora of topics, substantiating the aforesaid statement.

The answer: truth is both or only one option depending on the individual. However, those that give advancement to society see many truths as absolute, and not relative (scientists). For instance, vaccinations, cancer treatment, surgical procedures that enable life-sustaining/saving methodologies to be repetitively implemented with success, etc., are considered absolute truths by those who perform the task to safe a life and by those saved.

If you can't get past the philosophy of the relativity of certain matters, then you will under-live your true potential and for this, I pitty you and wish you a great education that enables a revelation.

As for the Big Bang theory, refer to the red text. Christianity is none of this and therefore, is not a valid belief. If you still disagree, I demand a full paper from you within 2 weeks explaining the big-bang (in paraphrase of course, of how it occurred and why scientists state they've detected remnants and how these remnants correlate to the Big Bang itself). Keep in mind, the writing of this paper must include references from reputable academic sources (peer-reviewed, which are validated through an objective means). Only then will you truly come to appreciate the red text listed previously. If you don't understand something written, then consult another source for clarity. Off you go.

http://godisimaginary.com/

We've discussed this already .

Don't straw man out newb .

[Meta]

Very, very impressive BuBu...

*pats on back*

Seriously; I'm ****ing impressed with you. Saved me 5 minutes of my time...

I LOVE YOU.

We've discussed this already .

Noob

[Xrow]

Very, very impressive BuBu...

*pats on back*

Seriously; I'm ****ing impressed with you. Saved me 5 minutes of my time...

I LOVE YOU.

We've discussed this already .

Don't straw man out newb .

To think I considered you intelligent o.O
Oh well, your hopeless; on to the next one.

[Xrow]

For instance, does the Herpes Zoster Virus cause chicken pox? The answer: most likely. One can never be certain.
You are an imbecile.
If the Herpes Zoster Virus does cause chicken pox, then it is absolutely true that the Herpes Zoster Virus causes chicken pox.
If the Herpes Zoster Virus does not cause chicken pox, then it is absolutely true Herpes Zoster Virus does not cause chicken pox.
Either way, it is absolutely true. This is called the Law of Excluded Middle.

Whether truth is relative or absolute is a matter of subjective opinions. /Face****ingpalm. It is absolutely true that space is black. It doesn't matter worth s**t if in your opinion its green with polkadots and a leperchaun. IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPACE IS BLACK. Opinion does not dictate truth in any way. Hard to believe your in college sometimes, Opti >_>. I understand many truths are absolute, while others are relative. Literally None are relative. If you find one, tell me (none of that "Oh prove the ocean isn't on fire when your not looking" shit).

The answer: truth is both or only one option depending on the individual. Seriously, are you going to a college for the mentally retarded or something?
If truth is relative, the statement "truth is relative" would be an absolute truth, and would thus be a self-defacing logical contradiction. If truth is absolute, the statement "truth is absolute" is an absolute truth, and is therefore tangible and reproducible evidence that truth is absolute.

As for the Big Bang theory, blah blah blah.
As for the Big Bang?
1. Explosions can only create disorder.
2. No explosion has ever created anything of order, much less a perfectly ordered universe.
3. Not even all the various components of a cell mixed together in water can combine to create a cell - random minerals in water could never create a cell.
4. The dense mass of particles that exploded to create the first "Big Bang" had to have come from somewhere; they sure as hell didn't create themselves.
5. Natural selection through natural law did not exist until after the "Big Bang" occurred. Why? There was NOTHING before the "Big Bang."

The Law of Causality states that every finite thing had to have a cause. The Cosmological argument states that the universe is finite and came into being out of nothing. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of energy, which means it must be finite. Natural selection through natural law could not have existed until after the "Big Bang" occurred, because there was NOTHING before it. NOTHING comes from NOTHING. And because there was no natural law before the "Big Bang," there must have been something outside of nature (SUPERNATURAL) to create it.

6. DNA is the most complex language ever written, and none of these "natural laws" can write.

If you delete any part of this post, you are submitting to my reasoning.
I ask you to directly refute any of these assertions. This means none of that "Evolution is based on science, not some sky fairy" bullshit you prick atheists like to pull to make yourselves seem somewhat intelligent.

Go ahead.

[Optimism]

Person A makes a claim differing from person B and C. All claim absolute truth. Are these claims absolute or relative?

Answer: Absolute per individual; relative when viewed holistically (A comparing their beliefs to B or C or both B and C together).

And, if you still can't grasp this concept, then define absolute truth and I think this will help.

[Xrow]

Person A makes a claim differing from person B and C. All claim absolute truth. Are these claims absolute or relative?

Answer: Absolute per individual; relative when viewed holistically (A comparing their beliefs to B or C or both B and C together).

And, if you still can't grasp this concept, then define absolute truth and I think this will help.

/Eyeroll.
I have already explained this to you. Each of them are either true or not true >_>
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/excluded-middle-law.php
Educate yourself.

Not all individual claims are absolute truth >_> You sound like a retard hippie. I CLAIM THAT OPTIMISM(Tyler) IS MENTALLY RETARDED WITH THE IQ OF A TREE. I CLAIM THAT HE EATS HIS OWN POOP BECAUSE HE THINKS IT LOOKS FUNNY. ON TOP OF THIS, HE HAS NEVER SHOWERED.
By your logic, that is an absolute truth because I said it as an individual.

"And, if you still can't grasp the concept..." Lol, Atheist prick.
I grasped the concept a long time ago; it is pathetically inadequate in every instance.

[Optimism]

/Eyeroll.
I have already explained this to you. They are either true or not true >_>
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/excluded-middle-law.php
Educate yourself.

Not al claims are absolute truth >_> You sound like a hippie. I CLAIM THAT OPTIMISM(Tyler) IS MENTALLY RETARDED WITH THE IQ OF A TREE. I CLAIM THAT HE EATS HIS OWN POOP BECAUSE HE THINKS IT LOOKS FUNNY. ON TOP OF THIS, HE HAS NEVER SHOWERED. By your logic, that is an absolute truth because I said it as an individual.

Oh, perfect. According to myself, trees can't have an IQ. According to others (yourself), trees can have an IQ. If one believes in something fully, this is considered an absolute truth by this individual.

Example (that you'll understand -- the irony/hypocrisy within your statement regarding Tree IQ that results in the lack of understanding with regard to this topic).

I claim that King's perspective on religion is wrong given lack of evidence. King claim's his persepctive on religion is correct given a profoundness of evidence.

There is no difference between my analogy regarding religion and your statement regarding a Tree's IQ. There will always be someone who claims an absolutist perspective. Always. Given this, truth MUST be relative AND absolute. You can propose all the logic/evidence you like -- this doesn't mean an individual will alter their truth belief.

Both are absolutist statements. They are conflicting. Truth is relative between individuality; absolute per individual (a holistic and objective perspective enables the understanding of this statement). This statement may be viewed as both absolute or relative in accordance with another's belief.

"And, if you still can't grasp the concept..." Lol, Atheist prick.
I grasped the concept a long time ago, its just pathetically inadequate in every instance.

I suggest you discontinue the ad-hominid retorts, as it will obtain a ban for yourself if this name-calling continues.

[Xrow]

...Just because a person considers something to be true doesn't make it absolute truth.
I can believe that trees have conversations when no ones looking, but that doesn't make it true. That just makes me a lunatic.

You obviously have not yet gained the required understanding for such a conversation.
When you do, tell me.

We're done.

[Optimism]

...Just because a person considers something to be true doesn't make it absolute truth.
I can believe that trees have conversations [with god] when no ones looking, but that doesn't make it true. That just makes me a lunatic.

http://www.controverscial.com/I%20Talk%20to%20the%20Trees.htm

Replace trees with Christians

I hope we've reached a standard to base conversations on from now on -- an objective perspective. Yes you are correct in the fact that a belief isn't necessarily true WHEN viewed by yourself. But viewed from another's perspective is an entirely different story (they believe it to be true). Truth, therefore, is relative between individuals and absolute per individual. Why must I keep repeating this/constructing new situations to facilitate your understanding? Grasp it already.

You obviously have not yet gained the required understanding for such a conversation.
When you do, tell me.

We're done.

[Xrow]

No YOU grasp it Opti ;\
I understand what your saying. Truths can vary between individuals who believe something to be absolute. But what I'm saying is that in no way alters absolute truth.

[Optimism]

No YOU grasp it Opti ;\
I understand what your saying. Truths can vary between individuals who believe something to be absolute. But what I'm saying is that in no way alters absolute truth.

Certain "truths" can't be determined. Therefore, one's truth regarding some matters is just as valid regarding another's. Relative truth.

Religion (or atheistic agnosticism). My truth when compared to your own is relative. I can't prove with 100 percent certainty and neither can you [non-absolutism].

While we are at it, lets flip that quote around in your signature.

Would you rather have a happy truth (atheism) or a sad lie (religion)? This depends on your perspective entirely (be objective now) . If christian, flip it around once again . You're ridden with subjectivity.

[Bubu]

... the only way to get an absolute truth about something is that u created it, and you will just have the absolute truth of its function nothing else... so if theres an absolute truth about nature, any human can get it, just because we are humans, we think subjetively, and we r not taht smart to discover all the things that nature could hide.

finally im with opti... as i said each one has his own absolute truths but as a group the truth is relative >.<

[Optimism]

... the only way to get an absolute truth about something is that u created it, and you will just have the absolute truth of its function nothing else... so if theres an absolute truth about nature, any human can get it, just because we are humans, we think subjetively, and we r not taht smart to discover all the things that nature could hide.

finally im with opti... as i said each one has his own absolute truths but as a group the truth is relative >.<

<3. Genius in progress.

[Xrow]

Certain "truths" can't be determined. Therefore, one's truth regarding some matters is just as valid regarding another's. Relative truth.
It doesn't matter. Either they are absolutely true or absolutely untrue, regardless of whether or not humans have determined them. They cannot be both.

Religion (or atheistic agnosticism). My truth when compared to your own is relative. I can't prove with 100 percent certainty and neither can you [non-absolutism].
This is whats called a "So what?" argument. So what? Either Christianity is absolutely true or another option is - Same goes for Evolution. Both cannot be true and therefore only one is.

While we are at it, lets flip that quote around in your signature.

Would you rather have a happy truth (atheism) or a sad lie (religion)? This depends on your perspective entirely (be objective now) . If christian, flip it around once again . You're ridden with subjectivity.
>_>, I made that quote up like a year ago. It doesn't mean anything. Originally, it was "Life is fully of happy lies and sad truths."

[Optimism]

Dood...no...

lol.

It isn't that black and white -- sorry to burst your bubble.

[Xrow]

It literally is "black and white" o.O..

LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/excluded-middle-law.php

Every proposition is either true or not true.

This law can be applied to literally everything, whether determined or not.

[Bubu]

just a question?
the point of speaking of something where there are two opposite sides is not to give arguments why the other one is wrong?

just wanna know why u base all ur arguments in some "philosophers" that u dont even know... who gave them the power to have the "absolute truth"... why if that web says that u think its real...
u should stop posting links and give me a good example of why truth is absolute so i will be with u, and we both kell opti

[Xrow]

just a question?
the point of speaking of something where there are two opposite sides is not to give arguments why the other one is wrong?

just wanna know why u base all ur arguments in some "philosophers" that u dont even know... who gave them the power to have the "absolute truth"... why if that web says that u think its real...
u should stop posting links and give me a good example of why truth is absolute so i will be with u, and we both kell opti

o:
Gladly.



The Law of Excluded middle. This is one of the three most foundational laws of logic (the other two are the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity). The Law of Excluded Middle states that a proposition is either true or untrue; there is no other choice.
Examples of this:
Either 2+2=4, or it does not.
Either the world is 600,000 years old, or it is not.
Either trees grow, or they do not.

[ZeroUH]

Either 2+2=4, or it does not.

Prove it.
Oh...and before you come with a wall of text, the proof needs about 5 lines or less on notepad... It's too simple.
And better you prove the right answer or more people who already studied discrete mathematics will laugh hard of your answer...

[Xrow]

Prove it.

Theres nothing to prove.

[ZeroUH]

Theres nothing to prove.

There is, but you don't know how to explain.
Discrete Mathematics, learn about it...

[Xrow]

Prove it.
Oh...and before you come with a wall of text, the proof needs about 5 lines or less on notepad... It's too simple.
And better you prove the right answer or more people who already studied discrete mathematics will laugh hard of your answer...

/Facepalm.
Use logic, kid.
Edit: 2 lines; I win.

If 2 + 2 = 4, then 2 + 2 = 4!
If 2 + 2 ≠ 4, then 2 + 2 = SOMETHING ELSE.

>_>

[ZeroUH]

/Facepalm.
Use logic, kid.

If 2 + 2 = 4, then 2 + 2 = 4!
If 2 + 2 ≠ 4, then 2 + 2 = SOMETHING ELSE.

>_>

Hi-school logic, kid?
I'm laughing HARD how you fail. 
Again...Discrete Mathematics, you will learn about it when join an university. Before that...quiet.

[Xrow]

Hi-school logic, kid?
I'm laughing HARD how you fail.  
Again...Discrete Mathematics, you will learn about it when join an university. Before that...quiet.

LOL
You proved what with that comment?
First of all, learn some proper English ya prick.
Second, If all your going to do is make a fool of yourself and prove that you don't know s**t, then maybe you should consider not taking part in my threads.

YOU be quiet.

[ZeroUH]

LOL
You proved what with that comment?
First of all, learn some proper English ya prick.
Second, If all your going to do is make a fool of yourself and prove you don't know s**t, then maybe you should consider not taking part in my threads.

YOU be quiet.

UMAD kid? Come on!
You're just mad because your arguments doesn't have any base. You are just a hi-school kid who THINKS that know something. And just to be on-topic, the truth hurts (like now, huh?).
Oh! My 8 comrades who lives with me on my republic can't stop laugh of your comment.  
One of them has a good base of philosophy due to his graduation... he asked the samething as Bubu:

u should stop posting links and give me a good example of why truth is absolute

Now, will you give an explanation to my friend here or will avoid as you always do saying "I'M THE BEST! I KNOW EVERYTHING! YOU SHUT UP!"
Ah!... Don't post website links. We can find those sites by searching on google like you. Now...the explanation, please.


Obs: check your PM for the proof of 2+2=4.

[Allie]

64=65.
Go check it on google.
TAKE THAT SOCIETY AND LOGIC

Either 64 equals 64, or it does not.
In this case it does not ;o.

[Leonidas]

64=65.
Go check it on google.
TAKE THAT SOCIETY AND LOGIC

Either 64 equals 64, or it does not.
In this case it does not ;o.

Allie just wooped all of your asses. 

Here's the link you were missing Allie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTxQDjGQh-0

[ZeroUH]

64=65.
Go check it on google.
TAKE THAT SOCIETY AND LOGIC

Either 64 equals 64, or it does not.
In this case it does not ;o.

OMFG! I had that damn exercise on my test >.<
I HATE IT! I HAD TO DRAW ALL THOSE SQUARES!  And my teacher gave me only half of the question..."Drawings are not 100% correct proofs...I could cut all your points here but I'll be nice with you..." ***** teacher..........................
There is another way, which is more simple to explain that but I forgot.

[hawk5005]

The 64 = 65 paradox arises from the fact that the edges of the four pieces, which lie along the diagonal of the formed rectangle, do not coincide exactly in direction. This diagonal is not a straight segment line but a small lozenge (diamond-shaped figure), whose acute angle is
arctan 2/3 - arctan 3/8 = arctan 1/46
which is less than 1 degree 15' . Only a very precise drawing can enable us to distinguish such a small angle. Using analytic geometry or trigonometry, we can easily prove that the area of the "hidden" lozenge is equal to that of a small square of the chessboard.


@Xrow if you like websites so much, read this http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/absolute-truth.htm it's interesting



Now,you two kids play nice and stop cussing each other.

[Optimism]

King failed :/.

I haven't cussed yet, I believe (kid) .

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

Specifically, a Disjunctive Syllogism.

[supar]

Now, I have to say, why exactly are you arguing over a subject such as this? Such as, this made me go look out for stuff and there was one that got me thinking it said

Mathematics. Science. Here are facts. Beyond there however, it's all relative, subjective ....

World War II was a bad thing. Millions of people died, more suffered.

But if Germany had not invaded Poland, if war had not broken out, my Father and Mother would never have met. I would not exist. For me that would be a bad thing.

Hence, for me WWII was a good thing. I'm not lying when I say that. For me it is true. However for others it is clearly not true.

Good and bad are relative. Their perception and therefore 'truth' are subjective.

Now it may be saying it is relative but is it not absolute truth that it is good for him? HIM, specifically, but it is relative truth to others because good and bad are relative? Dont be angry if i got this all wrong, I'm only a kid trying at a subject you seem all too irritable with. <3 supar LOL
Edit; Dont get angry and flame or whatever. Just saying cause im completely confused with this topic, and im looking for some clearity.

[Optimism]

Yes we've finally managed to separate absolutism per individual and relativity between the individual.

yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

*claps*

Good post, btw sir.

[Bubu]

woo

[supar]

Good post sir? If you meant me, im still just a kid. But thx for the respect?

[Bubu]

**Off topic**
how old r u supar? O_O

[supar]

Off topic; Just turned 14 in november. :]

[Surgeypurgey]

hello people

[Xrow]

UMAD kid? Come on!
You're just mad because your arguments doesn't have any base. Do you listen at all? Seriously I already explained it, do a little reading. Your just mad because you know you failed but your too much of a d*ck to admit it. And you haven't even made an opposing argument, therefore this whole damn statement fails. LOL. You are just a hi-school K, your annoying, its 'high school' not 'hi-school.' kid who THINKS that know something. And just to be on-topic, the truth hurts (like now, huh?). No, because I'm right o.O Your just too dumb to figure it out for yourself. Pathetic.
Oh! My 8 comrades who lives with me on my republic can't stop laugh of your comment.   And by "comrades," you mean "boyfriends?"
One of them has a good base of philosophy due to his graduation... he asked the samething as Bubu:Now, will you give an explanation to my friend here or will avoid as you always do saying "I'M THE BEST! I KNOW EVERYTHING! YOU SHUT UP!" First of all, I don't give a flying f**k what your boyfriend said - if hes of the same mental status as you, hes retarded. Secondly, I have never once said that I'm the best or that I know everything. I probably told you to shut up, but thats because your paralyzingly dim-witted.
Ah!... Don't post website links. We can find those sites by searching on google like you. Now...the explanation, please. -.-' I've explained it multiple times; have one of your boyfriends read it for you, because you obviously can't for yourself.


Obs: check your PM for the proof of 2+2=4.
/FacedeskchairhammerTV. Holy crap, can you read? I don't need proof that 2+2=4, I never said it didn't.

Just had to say this, if I didn't get pissed during huge debates against Opti, who is ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT, why would I get pissed at someone with the mental maturity of a 3 year old? LOLOL

[Lyric_]

I read everything everyone posted.

[Bubu]

then whats ur opinion about this topic, lyric O=

[ZeroUH]

Xrow
1st. See? When you don't have argumments, you start flame.  And just to avoid more flames comming from ya, this thread is locked.
2nd. You're warned.