[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.