Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

OKay...

1) Exception to what?

2) What changes?

The only known absolute truth...is that you exist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

Just because something's not disproven doesn't mean it's absolute. There is no absolute truths we possess, because we do not have access to absolute knowledge. And again, anyone making the assertions above needs to provide proof; there's no way you could prove those. Ergo, they are not absolute truths.

For one, you'd need to find out the truth about everything, and then establish that there is an exception to everything. You cannot do this.

For two, you cannot prove that change is the only constant. Indeed, you would need to clarifiy and define constant as it applies to absolute reality, provide the knowledge of all things, and then make a claim. Again, you cannot do this.

So really, you have no absolute truths.



Again, how would you verify this? Aside from being pseudo-mysticism rhetoric nonsense, this statement means and proves nothing.

Originally posted by Janus Marius


Again, how would you verify this? Aside from being pseudo-mysticism rhetoric nonsense, this statement means and proves nothing.

'Cognito ergo sum'.

Again, how can you prove the absolute truth of your own existance? You can't. Yes, you think. In a manner of speaking, so does a computer. Having internal processes isn't a value that indicates existance in absolute reality.

You don't prove that you exist by thinking; you infer that you exist by thinking. I think, therefore I am. And since the only proof lies in your head, it cannot be put up for significant testing with any real knowledge. So really, you assume that you exist because you think you exist.

And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic.

...oh God, not again...
(*takes a deep breath and delivers the short speech*)

Reality is an absolute: whether it's a Big Newtonian Machine, God's Dream, a Matrix, an Illusion, a program in a superalien's Gameboy, I am aware of something, absolutely.

This of course includes my favorite absolute: "There are no absolutes."

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Again, how can you prove the absolute truth of your own existance? You can't. Yes, you think. In a manner of speaking, so does a computer. Having internal processes isn't a value that indicates existance in absolute reality.

You don't prove that you exist by thinking; you infer that you exist by thinking. I think, therefore I am. And since the only proof lies in your head, it cannot be put up for significant testing with any real knowledge. So really, you assume that you exist because you think you exist.

And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic.


You can only infer that a computer thinks, but that is not absolute knowledge. *You* thinking is absolute knowledge, by the act of just thinking. If you couldnt think, then you wouldnt even be able to infer that you could think.


"And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic. "

Lol.

Methinks, the closest thing, if not the only absolute truths, are mathematical truths . . . . this is why science relies on them so much.

Originally posted by Templares
Methinks, the closest thing, if not the only absolute truths, are mathematical truths . . . . this is why science relies on them so much.

For mathematical truths to be absolute, first you would have to assume that the reality we perceive is absolute. Mathematical concepts are the result of the information we receive through sensory input, if our sensory input isnt true reality then that cascades upward making all of our rational thinking invalid including mathematics.

Originally posted by Mindship
...oh God, not again...
(*takes a deep breath and delivers the short speech*)

Reality is an absolute: whether it's a Big Newtonian Machine, God's Dream, a Matrix, an Illusion, a program in a superalien's Gameboy, I am aware of something, absolutely.

This of course includes my favorite absolute: "There are no absolutes."

I think thats just an extension of what I said about consciousness being absolute, like you said we perceive *something* whether or not this is *true* reality is irrelevent.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
OKay...

1) Exception to what?

2) What changes?




I don't think you get it.




1) There's an exception to everything....basically means not nothing is absolutely 100% without having some sort of loophole or way out. Even if the way out is a retarted miniscule option, I beleive there is always a "loose end" to even the most strict of rules.


2) Throughout history, in our lifetime, through TIME period...the only thing that keeps going forever is change.



These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't think you get it.




1) There's an exception to everything....basically means not nothing is absolutely 100% without having some sort of loophole or way out. Even if the way out is a retarted miniscule option, I beleive there is always a "loose end" to even the most strict of rules.


2) Throughout history, in our lifetime, through TIME period...the only thing that keeps going forever is change.



These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.

Read what Janus said, for what you said to be true you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything. Your argument is self-defeating.

These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.


Do I know this for certain ? No....

I don't think anyone can prove or disprove it. And since Omnipotence is impossible, we have to just justify why we agree or disagree.

All we can do is think of everything that we do know, and apply.





One example: Quantam Physics contradicts much of what we know from Physics itself.

I believe that there is always another truth that we are unaware of, even when we think we've found the absolute.





Now do i TRULY know that "To everything there is an exception"...Nope, because i am not exposed to EVERYTHING....

But to almost every rule that exists I have found something that can contradict it.






I beleive the latter more: Change is the only Constant.....Mindship pretty much beleives this as well, as he claimed in the "Why do we Die?" Thread.

How about this, how about we take away our five main detectors, sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell... without those five things there's really no telling how we'd perceive our reality. The question would then be, would we still be aware of 'something'? Or not?

Mindship:



lol... But reality... is relative to the person observing it. That is, unless you can find a neutral, all seeing all knowing observer... That would constitute a being that could look on reality and define what is absolute, since nothing would be obscured, hidden, or subject to the slightest possibility of failure. And yes, thinking of this stuff sometimes hurts my head too. No worries.

GV:




Again, you aren't the absolute frame of reference for what is "absolute reality", unless reality is all in your head. And when you recognize that you think, there is some basic logic going on inside of your head. The problem with Descartes' philosophy is that it's pure rationalism; that is, it attempts to divine truths about the world... without resorting to observing it. Descartes discards any sensory data and output, claiming that his senses can deceive him. Therefore, he creates purely rational arguments a priori to establish truths about things, like the nature of God, the mind, etc. This may not seem like a totally bad thing, but the problem with pure rationalism is that it attempts to divine reality from a definition. That is, instead of observing something in reality and then attributing a nature to it, it makes a definition and then a logical argument that neccessitates that object. It's really, really slanted logic, to be quite honest.

Anyways, you can "hear" your own thoughts, but those aren't subject to an objective study. That is, you can claim that you exist, and others can claim that you exist, but none of you can actually "prove" it in an absolute frame of reference (i.e. the mind of God, if you really want to give it a name). It's an inference, based on you having a mind.

Urizen:




How is a metaphorical truth an absolute one? Metaphors are symbolism and figures of speech.



But since none of that is absolute knowledge, we cannot determine absolute truths. I really don't see why you find that so hard to believe. Unless you're mucking up the definition of "absolute" (Besides the Vodka brand name) and assuming it's "absolute in reference to the human mind", your not making any sense.

But in reason, one who makes an assertion must prove up. If they can't, there is no argument. I don't see any proving up here.



No, quantam physics shows us that on a certain scale, things behave differently. Microphysics is different from macrophysics. This is a new discovery; it isn't proof that there are always exceptions.

Here's one for you: 2 + 2 = 4. Where's the exception to that?



Erm... yes, of course. So why are you claiming that ANY of the above are absolute truths? More importantly, why are you so intent on proving that change is constant and there are always exceptions? Don't those contradict each other? Is this "validate an old metaphor" week? Metaphors are used like common sense- for most situations. They do not hold up as bonafide truth. Ask any scientist.



End of argument.



So you assume, based on your limited exposure to the world, that this metaphor is absolute and binding? I thought you just admitted you didn't know?



But we haven't seen everything yet, so we don't know if there's something out there that remains constant. Indeed, the idea of "constant" is a human mental construct; what we think of as constant may actually be in flux on a different time scale. For example, you can watch bread mold over a week exposed, but you would be hard pressed to notice the deepening of the ocean. In any case, unless we've observed everything, there's no way we could claim that change is the only constant. And indeed, the word constant is a slippery one to work with. There may actually be no constants at all.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
You can only infer that a computer thinks, but that is not absolute knowledge. *You* thinking is absolute knowledge, by the act of just thinking. If you couldnt think, then you wouldnt even be able to infer that you could think.


"And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic. "

Lol.

Perhaps you think, perhaps you don't. It can't be shown that you think, only that the brain behaves in a certain way following a stimulus and prior to a response. Do you really think, or is there just a process that you physiology goes through that results in a response? Perhaps thinking is not really what occurs, perhaps it is just the bi product of the series of physiological responses that lead to an overt response. Perhaps, due to the fact that we are the automaton we have difficulty stating that we do not in all actuality think. Perhaps we have just been a series of responses set in motion at conception and we merely have continued to respond to various events/stimuli we have come into contact with since that moment. Are we really just bouncing through existence with no real control, all our "thoughts" controlled by the series of response and consequence, and not really thought at all?

Before you rant at me about why you really do think, at least consider the possibility. It is not necessarily my opinion, but it is a possibility. The fact that you even consider this is really just a response to the stimulus I presented as a response to various stimuli that I encountered following a response I made....roflmao


The only absolute is that I don't know, you might, but I don't, and that is absolute. Or perhaps I just think I don't know. But all the same I don't know if I know. Or perhaps I just think I don't know I don't know. But all the same I don't know if I don't know if I don't know. Or perhaps... hysterical

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
How about this, how about we take away our five main detectors, sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell... without those five things there's really no telling how we'd perceive our reality. The question would then be, would we still be aware of 'something'? Or not?

We would still be aware of our minds, our consciousness. So let me take your thought experiment one step further...
...What are we aware of when we are unconscious or in a coma?

Well, I've never been unconscious or in a coma, so I can't respond from personal experience. But even when one comes out of a coma and doesn't remember anything, the only thing we can say for certain is that one doesn't remember anything; we can only infer that, perhaps, there was 'not something' to be aware of.

And certainly, when we awaken, we are aware of that 'something' again, plus we can assume with certainty (or at least, I do) that that 'something' was still around even when we were momentarily unaware of it, as evidenced by my still being aware of 'something' when others are unconscious or in a coma. Or dead.

'Something' is out there; of this much I am absolutely certain.

If there is no absolute truths we will never know. We can only know that is impossible to prove that something is an absolute truth, but we cannot say that "there are no absolute truths" or we will need to prove that. To prove that means to prove a contradiction since we would be proving the sentence "there are no absolute truths" an absolute truth, so we do not know if there are absolute truths or not.

Actually, that only means logic cannot be used to prove absolute truths in case they really exist. Logic just dont give us any information about if absolute truths exists or not.

Hmm...I can I sum up my stance here....Janus, great points BTW !


First off, I said i BELEIVE there are only Two Absolute Truths. I am not claiming that as facts. I have no way of proving OR disproving it, but that's the fun in debating how true or how false this can be.



I should have written that I beleive there is an

"Exception to every rule"

1+1=2 is not a rule, it's a fact.

However, if you look at this through more than a literal point of view, you can come up with a few examples (even if they are stupid ones) to that would present an exception to even THIS solid fact.



There are two people. One is a "normal" adult man, and the other is a female Siamese twin. Now if you add these two people together by thier physical being, then you have 1 person + 1 person = 2 people.

However, if you add them together by thier Psychological being you 1 + 1+ 1 = 3. So even when you add two bodies together, you end up with 3 people.


Now lets say one of the Siamese Twins is in a coma. If you define a person by "a being who is self aware", then you add the siamese twin with the normal adult, and you have 2 people right ?

But...that doesnt make sense? Don't you have 3 people ? A normal separate person, and two people fused together?



I know this example may be WAY OFF....but it still kind of confuses the absolute truth that One + One equals Two. Ofcourse from a purely Mathematical perspective 1+1=2. But from a million other perspectives? There is an exception somewhere, even if its a "bulls*hit" one.







AS for Change.....So far there are no known constants we are aware of, OTHER than change.

And by constant, I mean something that continues forever.

The Cycle of Life and Death is an example of CHANGE...so that won't contradict this.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
AS for Change.....So far there are no known constants we are aware of, OTHER than change.

Does constant=absolute? Change seems to occur constantly, but does it? Or is it constant only from our perspective? Is it change only from our perspective? We must define change to totally examine whether it can be shown to be constant. Are we speaking more along the lines of inconsistency and not change?

This was being written while your last was Urizen, I haven't thought about whether your post effects my comments or not yet

I think things can just be constant or not from a specific point of view. So, we could choose a point of view where nothing will change anymore, therefore change will not be a constant.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think things can just be constant or not from a specific point of view. So, we could choose a point of view where nothing will change anymore, therefore change will not be a constant.

I agree yes

So not absolute

Okay Janus, I have another BS example of how the fact "1+1=2" can be contradicted, therefore creating an exception.......





There is a baseball game. ,The price is based on 1 seat per person.

This means:

1 seat = 1 person
1 person = 1 seat


A Saimese Twin asks for tickets to come to this game. By most definitions, a Saimese Twin consists of TWO people not one. However, they only need one seat. (Because in this case, the saimese twin share the same body, but have 2 heads)

So they buy the tickets. Since they are two people, they have to pay for two seats, when they only need one.

According to the price options: 1 person +1 person = 2 seats, since a single seat is registered as equivalent to a single person.

However, the twins' look of this* matter is that 1 person+1person=1 seat.

But if you go by the price options only, then 1+1 = 2, and in thier point of view the twins are arguing that in THIS case 1+1=2


Remeber* Since 1 seat is equivalent to 1 person according to price options, a person and a seat are of same value.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think things can just be constant or not from a specific point of view. So, we could choose a point of view where nothing will change anymore, therefore change will not be a constant.


this supports my FIRST beleif.

There is an exception to every rule.

SORRY**** had to CORRECT argument



Okay Janus, I have another BS example of how the fact "1+1=2" can be contradicted, therefore creating an exception.......





There is a baseball game. ,The price is based on 1 seat per person.

This means:

1 seat = 1 person
1 person = 1 seat


A Saimese Twin asks for tickets to come to this game. By most definitions, a Saimese Twin consists of TWO people not one. However, they only need one seat. (Because in this case, the saimese twin share the same body, but have 2 heads)

So they buy the tickets. Since they are two people, they have to pay for two seats, when they only need one.

According to the price options: 1 person +1 person = 2 seats, since a single seat is registered as equivalent to a single person.

However, the twins' look of this* matter is that 1 person+1person=1 seat.

But if you go by the price options only, then 1+1 = 2, and in thier point of view the twins are arguing that in THIS case 1+1=1


Remeber* Since 1 seat is equivalent to 1 person according to price options, a person and a seat are of same value.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
this supports my FIRST beleif.

There is an exception to every rule.

And I am not denying it, in fact, that sentence is an interesting way to understand what can be know about absolute truths. I mean, if your rule "There is an exception to every rule" is false, then it means that there must be an rule that has no exception, or in other words, an absolute rule. So absolutes will exist even if we deny that rule. If we say that your rule is true then that rule itself is an absolute. In both cases absolutes are necessary.

But we cannot imply that absolutes must exist by that reason. I mean, to conclude that we need to use logic, so that will only be true by the point of view of logic. We do not know if logic is absolute.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
And I am not denying it, in fact, that sentence is an interesting way to understand what can be know about absolute truths. I mean, if your rule "There is an exception to every rule" is false, then it means that there must be an rule that has no exception, or in other words, an absolute rule. So absolutes will exist even if we deny that rule. If we say that your rule is true then that rule itself is an absolute. In both cases absolutes are necessary.

But we cannot imply that absolutes must exist by that reason. I mean, to conclude that we need to use logic, so that will only be true by the point of view of logic. We do not know if logic is absolute.



No we don't know. Logic basically means observation and reasoning, meaning that we have to figure things out.

Since not all people judge by logic, it seems not everyone beleives that Logic is the absolutely correct perspective.



I still beleive, however, that from everything I know so far, Change has been the only Constant from the beginning of recorded history.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hmm...I can I sum up my stance here....Janus, great points BTW !

I certainly try.



Fair enough. I took the position that you believed the two to be absolute truths, and I went with that. You can believe in them, but I don't.



Are you certain? A mathematical problem is a symbolic argument presented in proper form in accordance with agreed upon rules. Therefore, it is not a fact any more than "My cat has grey fur, this is grey hairs in my drink, therefore my cat got fur in my drink" is a fact. The math is only as good as the values you plug into it, assuming that they reflect reality properly. However, when I indicated the math problem, I was pointing out that there aren't "exceptions to everything". And when it comes to rules, this is again arguing from ignorance; you do not know all of the rules. You cannot apply an absolute generalization without having absolute knowledge. Period.



But it's not a fact; it's a product of rules. Ergo, you should be able to find the exception without resorting to semantics.



Semantics. A Swiamese twin is essentially two people in one body. This does not prove to be the exception to the universal concept of one plus one equals two. Unless you can prove an instance in which one entity and another entity would not equate two numerically. I don't see that happening.



Again, pointless semantics. You are focusing on something entirely different. I gave you a mathematical equation. Every time you present it in that form, it should come out to two. Period. It does. QED. If the entities you are adding are sentient beings, then one sentient being plus another will always be two. And if they are ever merged, then they cease to be separate entities, and the equation is not proper for us in that case. Simple.



No, that's not the case. The rules involved are the rules of basic arithematic. If someone adds one and one and gets something other than two, it's time to put the bottle down.




Which is why the definition for constant somehow gives us this:

Something that is unchanging or invariable

^ That would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Change by its very nature is in motion. Unchanging and invariable by its very nature is not moving or changing. So obviously, change can't be constant.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Are you certain? A mathematical problem is a symbolic argument presented in proper form in accordance with agreed upon rules. Therefore, it is not a fact any more than "My cat has grey fur, this is grey hairs in my drink, therefore my cat got fur in my drink" is a fact. The math is only as good as the values you plug into it, assuming that they reflect reality properly. However, when I indicated the math problem, I was pointing out that there aren't "exceptions to everything". And when it comes to rules, this is again arguing from ignorance; you do not know all of the rules. You cannot apply an absolute generalization without having absolute knowledge. Period..


1+1=2 is not a RULE itself though. So it's based on accepted rules, and these rules are accepted as reprenting reality, and therefore is rendered "fact".

1 + 1...two numerals with a self evident value. Lookin at this from ONLY a mathematical eye, they will always equal 2.

However, I still beleive that if you look at this from more than ONE perspective, that "1" can represent anything you choose it to, depending on what you would count as the value.

That is why i brought up the Siamese Twins example, as stupid as they were.

A Siamese Twin is self evidently two people, but one body.

If there were "no way out rules" that said ONE SEAT per PERSON, even though the twins who share the same body only need one seat, they would end up being sold 2 seats.

I'll continue this with your next comments.





Originally posted by Janus Marius
But it's not a fact; it's a product of rules. Ergo, you should be able to find the exception without resorting to semantics.




If it's a product of rules, and not fact, then you are saying that 1 + 1= 2 is not fact. Therefore it is subject to "intepretation" which only contradicts it as an "absolute"



Again, we have to examine who set the rules that produced this answer, and how valid are these rules. We have to know if these rules are flawless.





Originally posted by Janus Marius
Semantics. A Swiamese twin is essentially two people in one body. This does not prove to be the exception to the universal concept of one plus one equals two. Unless you can prove an instance in which one entity and another entity would not equate two numerically. I don't see that happening.



You and I understand that "fact" very well. But if someone defines a Siamese twin in its ENTIRELY.....as a Single Unit...

Then the single unit that is the Siamese Twin consists of:


1) Two minds
2) One body
3) Possibly two souls ?
4) Two points of view
5) Two faces
6) One KIND of face (in terms of features etc)
7) Two Opinions
8) They may share one organ such as heart, brain, etc. depending on the type of deformality of the situation.
9) ETC.




Although you and I know that they are two people, not one, someone who values the physical more than the mental aspect of a person may count them as one body Or the one shared brain = one person.

You even said yourself that the product of rules that is 1 + 1 = 2, is not fact.

So if "1 + 1=2" is not fact, then how can we say that "Siamese Twins are two people, not one" is fact ?

You said it depends on the reality behind the rules.





Originally posted by Janus Marius
Again, pointless semantics. You are focusing on something entirely different. I gave you a mathematical equation. Every time you present it in that form, it should come out to two. Period. It does. QED. If the entities you are adding are sentient beings, then one sentient being plus another will always be two. And if they are ever merged, then they cease to be separate entities, and the equation is not proper for us in that case. SimpleB]




Yes..keyword...in THAT FORM. If we lived in a PURELY mathematical world, one free of philosophy, imagination, art, religion, logic, etc.

Then there would only be ONE way to look at it, a mathematical way.

"1 + 1 = 2" is not simply a mathematical equation, UNLESS set up as only "1 + 1 = 2" in thier numeral equation form.


If I said it as "one plus one equals two", that can apply to more things than just the equation.



Again the BS example, I could say that one person plus one person equals two bodies...end of story, and someone can say "wrong...somtimes one person plus one person equals one body, since siamese twins exist"


OR if I am religious, I can say "one soul plus one soul equals two souls"
But what if souls don't exist? To a person who doesn't beleive in the concept of a Soul, : "one soul plus one soul equals NOTHING"

OR

Someone can say "one woman plus one man equals one relationship"..someone else can easily say "nope...sometimes one man woman equals NO relationship....they are just messing around"


It all depends what object the VALUE of one represents, and if this object is a single unit OR something more complicated.



Pointless Semantics ? Nah, i thnk its another way of looking at the SAME THING.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Mindship:
lol... But reality... is relative to the person observing it. That is, unless you can find a neutral, all seeing all knowing observer... That would constitute a being that could look on reality and define what is absolute, since nothing would be obscured, hidden, or subject to the slightest possibility of failure. And yes, thinking of this stuff sometimes hurts my head too. No worries.

But doesn't "reality is relative" then become an absolute?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Which is why the definition for constant somehow gives us this:

Something that is unchanging or invariable

^ That would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Change by its very nature is in motion. Unchanging and invariable by its very nature is not moving or changing. So obviously, change can't be constant.


I get what you are saying, and reading what you said with the words you had put it in, it makes perfect sense.

However,

There is no Law that says a Constant cannot move forward with time.

A constant cannot travel through TIME ? What would you call tradition then ? Bad habits ? Addictions ?

I call these "wannabe constants"

These are examples of "constants" something that is unchanging but that is being carried forward through time.

However, notice how I left out the "invariable"....bad habits, tradition, and addictions are always variable in atleast the slightest degrees.


This would convince me that a "constant" does not exist.

However, something that is continuous is constant. Evolution, if you beleive in it, religion, growth, learning etc.


But since none of these are absolute, nor unchanging, then they are not constants.
All of these things are subject to either some sort of change, or some sort of dying out.



The ONLY thing, so far, that is guaranteed to continue on forever is CHANGE.

I know its an oxymoron, but that does not make it invalid. Oxymorons exist in reality as well.

Originally posted by Regret
Does constant=absolute? Change seems to occur constantly, but does it? Or is it constant only from our perspective? Is it change only from our perspective? We must define change to totally examine whether it can be shown to be constant. Are we speaking more along the lines of inconsistency and not change?

This was being written while your last was Urizen, I haven't thought about whether your post effects my comments or not yet


This is actually a great question, i should have answered before.

I beleive constant to only exist in terms of a continous truth that follows us through time from the past, at this present, and to the future.

Since nothing in life is absolute and immortal at the same time, then nothing is truly "constant" in terms of something being absolute.


Everything changes as time progresses, so the ONLY known constant is change itself.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1+1=2 is not a RULE itself though. So it's based on accepted rules, and these rules are accepted as reprenting reality, and therefore is rendered "fact".

1 + 1...two numerals with a self evident value. Lookin at this from ONLY a mathematical eye, they will always equal 2.

However, I still beleive that if you look at this from more than ONE perspective, that "1" can represent anything you choose it to, depending on what you would count as the value.

That is why i brought up the Siamese Twins example, as stupid as they were.

A Siamese Twin is self evidently two people, but one body.

If there were "no way out rules" that said ONE SEAT per PERSON, even though the twins who share the same body only need one seat, they would end up being sold 2 seats.

I'll continue this with your next comments.









If it's a product of rules, and not fact, then you are saying that 1 + 1= 2 is not fact. Therefore it is subject to "intepretation" which only contradicts it as an "absolute"



Again, we have to examine who set the rules that produced this answer, and how valid are these rules. We have to know if these rules are flawless.









You and I understand that "fact" very well. But if someone defines a Siamese twin in its ENTIRELY.....as a Single Unit...

Then the single unit that is the Siamese Twin consists of:


1) Two minds
2) One body
3) Possibly two souls ?
4) Two points of view
5) Two faces
6) One KIND of face (in terms of features etc)
7) Two Opinions
8) They may share one organ such as heart, brain, etc. depending on the type of deformality of the situation.
9) ETC.




Although you and I know that they are two people, not one, someone who values the physical more than the mental aspect of a person may count them as one body Or the one shared brain = one person.

You even said yourself that the product of rules that is 1 + 1 = 2, is not fact.

So if "1 + 1=2" is not fact, then how can we say that "Siamese Twins are two people, not one" is fact ?

You said it depends on the reality behind the rules.










Yes..keyword...in THAT FORM. If we lived in a PURELY mathematical world, one free of philosophy, imagination, art, religion, logic, etc.

Then there would only be ONE way to look at it, a mathematical way.

"1 + 1 = 2" is not simply a mathematical equation, UNLESS set up as only "1 + 1 = 2" in thier numeral equation form.


If I said it as "one plus one equals two", that can apply to more things than just the equation.



Again the BS example, I could say that one person plus one person equals two bodies...end of story, and someone can say "wrong...somtimes one person plus one person equals one body, since siamese twins exist"


OR if I am religious, I can say "one soul plus one soul equals two souls"
But what if souls don't exist? To a person who doesn't beleive in the concept of a Soul, : "one soul plus one soul equals NOTHING"

OR

Someone can say "one woman plus one man equals one relationship"..someone else can easily say "nope...sometimes one man woman equals NO relationship....they are just messing around"


It all depends what object the VALUE of one represents, and if this object is a single unit OR something more complicated.



Pointless Semantics ? Nah, i thnk its another way of looking at the SAME THING.

^ Firstly, to address this. This post is the longest and most drawn out lack of an agrument I've ever seen. The above is pure filibuster. You did not address the point nor did you get past the very simple fact that:

addition, fundamental operation of arithmetic, denoted by +. In counting, a+b represents the number of items in the union of two collections having no common members (disjoint sets), having respectively a and b members. In geometry a+b might, for example, represent the area of the union of two disjoint regions of areas a and b, respectively. In arithmetic addition follows the associative law, the commutative law, and, in combination with multiplication, the distributive law.

Addition itself is in accordance with laws. Laws are rules. Period. When you said there are exceptions to every rule, you failed to address that the act of adding one and one to make two is a rule-bound event. You cannot change the rules and get a different value, because then it would not be the rule of addition. Clear? The rule states very clearly that the product of two single entities will be two entities (grouped). There are NO exceptions to this. Your semantic filibuster is not a proper answer to my point.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I get what you are saying, and reading what you said with the words you had put it in, it makes perfect sense.

^ That should have been the end of your reply.



^ This is where you went wrong.


WTF?

Something that is unchanging or invariable.

By this above definition (One that best points to the absoluteness of what it is to be constant), something cannot change. It must remain the same. Now, by the most absolute definition, this means the object cannot even move forward in time; it is completely stationary. Completely unmoved. Really, it is nothing you can imagine properly, because it exists outside of the realm of causation, being unaffected by everything. An absolute constant would be by definition, a god or an object outside of space-time entirely.

In the weaker version of the definition (One not allowing for radical things like the above), something that is constant is unchanging even though it exists in space-time. In this case, time would move, but that would be the only real change, and it would not affect the nature of the object itself because the object is by definition constant.



Tradition? WTF are you talking about?



I call this wannabe rhetoric.



Traditions, bad habits, and addictions do not exist outside of the human mind (that is, they are only given a nature because human beings use them, ascribe values to them, and they come from the human mind. The rest of nature does not have these things as we do). Because of this, you cannot prove any rule of invariableness using human social constructs. That would be like saying "The more things change, the more they stay the same" and citing dictatorships as the ultimate answer, totally overlooking the fact that this earth looks entirely different from what it did millions of years ago, proving that outside of humanity, apparently that catchphrase means jackshit.



You focus on the wrong subject matter entirely. I ask you for proof of these things in nature, not just in human nature. And really, the idea that bad habits and tradition are constants is a completely subjective opinion, not based on cold hard fact but one's own take on history and human events. Hardly proof.



Oi.


Is it? Is continuity an absolute value of being constant? I ask you this: how can something be the same if it's working in cycles of change? It can't. Period.



Uh huh.



This is again, arguing out of ignorance. For all you know, the universe could be hit with some sort of cosmic event that renders all change to a halt, freezing the very atoms of everything in place forever. This would be the very definition of antichange. And since you don't have the knowledge to rule that out (Even the stretch that it is), you can't make an absolute judgement that change is continuous.



They do, huh? Funny. Name some.

The probem with "there is an exception to every rule" is that it's a paradox. And i'm ready to argue with whomever disagrees.

Excuse me while I pose this question that perhaps one of you will have an answer to:


Since we are talking about 'absolute truth' wouldnt it be necessary to define 'truth'? What is 'truth'? Isnt it all a matter of perspective? Subjective?

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Excuse me while I pose this question that perhaps one of you will have an answer to:
Since we are talking about 'absolute truth' wouldnt it be necessary to define 'truth'? What is 'truth'? Isnt it all a matter of perspective? Subjective?

H'mm.
First, I would define "Truth," in this context, as (and there are countless other adjectives which could be applied) the Ultimate/Absolute/Infinite Condition which subsumes but transcends all other conditions. Whether it is "God," change, impenetratible quantum foam, fractal universes in an unending regression; whatever, it is the Be-All and End-All, such that to pursue the question, "What is Truth?" is meaningless, as the Exception merely becomes part of that Ultimate Condition (God, I hope that was clear).

As far as human interaction/perception of this Truth is concerned, that does not change the nature of the Truth; the only variable is how each person perceives/interprets this Ultimate Condition. But this Condition Itself is not dependent, in its Ultimatehood, upon us. To assume otherwise, IMO, strikes me as the height of human hubris/arrogance.

Further, if every person perceives/interprets this Truth differently, then That, in itself, becomes an absolute when considering humans and the Truth.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
lol... But reality... is relative to the person observing it. That is, unless you can find a neutral, all seeing all knowing observer... That would constitute a being that could look on reality and define what is absolute, since nothing would be obscured, hidden, or subject to the slightest possibility of failure. And yes, thinking of this stuff sometimes hurts my head too. No worries.

GV:

Janus, I am arguing by YOUR own logic here.

Did you NOT say that Reality is all relative to the person observing it?

did you not also say that 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact, but a PRODUCT based on RULES?

And did you not also say that Rules depend on the Reality behind them ?


If I am mistaken on your points, then I severely apologize and would kindly ask you to clarify your stance on what Reality is and what Rules actually are in relation to "facts".

If 1+1=2 , is not a fact, but only a product of rules (like you've stated yourself) then how can we be so sure about the reality behind these rules, if reality is only relative to our observation of such things? You know that observation is variable to all eyes.


You are also forgetting that numbers do not exist by themselves. Every value (1, 0, 2, N, X, Y, 3, 4.5) is always representative of an object. All I am saying is when you replace and object with a numeral, you ahve to be "absolutely"-that damn word again- Certain that the objects the numerals represent are in fact equal to each other in all ways.

You are basically saying that Math is an Absolute Truth, and you are suggesting that Math is independent of real-life examples. You said there is no "Absolute Truth", since one would need to acqure absolute knowledge to know absolute truth. You seem to be contradicting yourself there. You are also suggesting, according to my intepretation of what you are saying, that Math can exist without having to represent anything else but ITSELF. Please correct me if I am misunderstood here, thank you.



If there is no "absolute truth" like you said there is none that can be said to be so far, then Math and its rules cannot be absolute truth either according to your logic. If this is the case, and there is no absolute then Exceptions exist most likely.












As for our interesting "CHANGE is the only constant" debate:



So far we have come to the conclusion, or atleast I think I have, that a true "constant" does not exist.

According to your definition a constant is "unchangable and invariable"...so let us forget my other examples, like tradition, etc. because they are not true constants.

Also you are saying that just because something is continuous, does NOT mean it is not constant. Okay let's argue through that logic:

Can you think of any Constant that has existed from as far back in the Past, up to TODAY, that will remain constant until the "end" of time?




I beleive Change to be the only "constant"...."Ahhh Lord Urizen...u just dont get it do you ????"


Yes, i do let me explain:

For Change to be different from ITSELf, there would have to be a LACK of change. Change would have to cease to be. Therefore "Change" is changed into another concept- non change.


Would that turn Change into it's "opposite" which is a "constant" ? In some logical perspectives, YES.


But look at it this way: A constant according to your definition displayed is "unchangable", is TRUE to itself, it will remain as IS, it will not change what it actually is.

Change can ONLY BE UNCHANGING and TRUE TO ITSELF if it REMAINS as it IS: Change. IF Change becomes a non-change, then it is changingitself , meaning that this would render it a non-constant.

So...Change is only a non-constant if it becomes non-change.

Therefore, through other logic, one can say "The only true constant is change".








Janus, thank you for giving such a challenge of a debate. No one has ever forced me to think and question THIS MUCH. Thank you for that !

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Janus, I am arguing by YOUR own logic here.

Did you NOT say that Reality is all relative to the person observing it?

did you not also say that 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact, but a PRODUCT based on RULES?

And did you not also say that Rules depend on the Reality behind them ?


If I am mistaken on your points, then I severely apologize and would kindly ask you to clarify your stance on what Reality is and what Rules actually are in relation to "facts".

If 1+1=2 , is not a fact, but only a product of rules (like you've stated yourself) then how can we be so sure about the reality behind these rules, if reality is only relative to our observation of such things? You know that observation is variable to all eyes.


You are also forgetting that numbers do not exist by themselves. Every value (1, 0, 2, N, X, Y, 3, 4.5) is always representative of an object. All I am saying is when you replace and object with a numeral, you ahve to be "absolutely"-that damn word again- Certain that the objects the numerals represent are in fact equal to each other in all ways.

You are basically saying that Math is an Absolute Truth, and you are suggesting that Math is independent of real-life examples. You said there is no "Absolute Truth", since one would need to acqure absolute knowledge to know absolute truth. You seem to be contradicting yourself there. You are also suggesting, according to my intepretation of what you are saying, that Math can exist without having to represent anything else but ITSELF. Please correct me if I am misunderstood here, thank you.



If there is no "absolute truth" like you said there is none that can be said to be so far, then Math and its rules cannot be absolute truth either according to your logic. If this is the case, and there is no absolute then Exceptions exist most likely.












As for our interesting "CHANGE is the only constant" debate:



So far we have come to the conclusion, or atleast I think I have, that a true "constant" does not exist.

According to your definition a constant is "unchangable and invariable"...so let us forget my other examples, like tradition, etc. because they are not true constants.

Also you are saying that just because something is continuous, does NOT mean it is not constant. Okay let's argue through that logic:

Can you think of any Constant that has existed from as far back in the Past, up to TODAY, that will remain constant until the "end" of time?




I beleive Change to be the only "constant"...."Ahhh Lord Urizen...u just dont get it do you ????"


Yes, i do let me explain:

For Change to be different from ITSELf, there would have to be a LACK of change. Change would have to cease to be. Therefore "Change" is changed into another concept- non change.


Would that turn Change into it's "opposite" which is a "constant" ? In some logical perspectives, YES.


But look at it this way: A constant according to your definition displayed is "unchangable", is TRUE to itself, it will remain as IS, it will not change what it actually is.

Change can ONLY BE UNCHANGING and TRUE TO ITSELF if it REMAINS as it IS: Change. IF Change becomes a non-change, then it is changingitself , meaning that this would render it a non-constant.

So...Change is only a non-constant if it becomes non-change.

Therefore, through other logic, one can say "The only true constant is change".








Janus, thank you for giving such a challenge of a debate. No one has ever forced me to think and question THIS MUCH. Thank you for that !

You type a LOT. Or maybe it just looks big because it's really spaced a lot. Anyways, I do intend to address this, hopefully later tonight. And you're welcome for any challenge I can provide. My mother always said I was a pain in the ass. Now we know why.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

That there is an exception to the fact that the only constant is change???

And that something has not been disproven does not make it a fact.
Otherwise I'll hereby claim some reindeer can fly and challenge you to prove me wrong!

haha YES! The flying reindeer theory! I missed that one, it's been a while. WOOT!

Originally posted by The Omega
That there is an exception to the fact that the only constant is change???

And that something has not been disproven does not make it a fact.
Otherwise I'll hereby claim some reindeer can fly and challenge you to prove me wrong!

Hence why i sed " I THINK" Omega.

Me and Janus already have been having this debate. Read what we've been arguing, to try and avoid re asking me the same question. I know reading all of it will be a real pain in the ass, but trust me...its worth it.

And ALSO

First belief i RE-worded

"There is an exception to every rule"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?
If there is an exception to everything, how can there be such thing as an absolute truth?
Your statement contradicts itself. If there is an exception to everything there is an exception to the statement "there is an exception for everything" meaning there has to be cases in which there are no exceptions. Meaning your logic is flawed.

EDIT: Just saw the last post, but my argument still stands. "There is an exception to every rule" is a rule.

Anyone for a round of, "This sentence is false"?

jerry

What intrigues me most about these Relativism vs Absolutism debates is: What is the objection to having absolutes? What is the appeal of "Everything is relative?" Why does it have to be one way or the other? Isn't that kind of an oversimplification?

I can't help but get the impression that "anti-absolutism" reflects a stance believed to be enlightened, because it implies an openness of mind which has often been lacking in the last, and which has often led to negative consequences.

Originally posted by Eis
If there is an exception to everything, how can there be such thing as an absolute truth?
Your statement contradicts itself. If there is an exception to everything there is an exception to the statement "there is an exception for everything" meaning there has to be cases in which there are no exceptions. Meaning your logic is flawed.

EDIT: Just saw the last post, but my argument still stands. "There is an exception to every rule" is a rule.

These are just what I beleive, I have no way to prove it, just like you have no way to disprove it. This is all about what I and you guys beleive to be the case.

If you look at both statements, they BOTH contradict themselves. Again, like i sed to Janus they are more metaphoric truths than literal ones.

Since the words are contradicting, you can't take it in a literal sense.

Read the debate between me and Janus, and my stance will make a lot more sense. I don't feel like re writing it all.

And a big Nope.

" there is an exception to every rule" is not a rule itself. There is no official rule stating this, it is just a beleif. So for an exception to be present here, the exception would have to be against the beleif, and there are always exceptions to every beleif.



And lets just say for arguments sake it was a rule, and there is an exception to even this one, then this being a rule has an exception, and even if it is contradicting itself, it is paradoxically proving itself true as well.

If there is an absolute truth, it would have to be that soon we all be dead.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
If there is an absolute truth, it would have to be that soon we all be dead.

That's assuming we actually exist. LOL ask Janus.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's assuming we actually exist. LOL ask Janus.

You can't be sure you exist....although I find it weird that Janus used to tell me I should quit with that kind of thought before.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
These are just what I beleive, I have no way to prove it, just like you have no way to disprove it. Actually that is not quite true...Eis jsut did disprove your statement, simple logic.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
'Cognito ergo sum'. Who's incognito?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually that is not quite true...Eis jsut did disprove your statement, simple logic.

Nope. He disproved nothing. Read the debate between me and Janus, RE read what I wrote to Eis, and then tell me I've been disproved.

Lets look at this for a second:

"1) There is an Exception to everything."

Okay, lets assume it isn't true, well then we can stop talking about it, since it wouldn't be true, and therefore not an absolute truth.

Now assume it is actually true that would mean that there is an exception to everything, so there is an exception to "1) There is an Exception to everything.", if there is an exception to "1) There is an Exception to everything." then it isn't an absolute truth.

It's a paradox. SO what you said there is certainly not an absolute truth, even more it is a paradox.

Same for "There is an exception to every rule", because "There is an exception to every rule" is in fact a rule by itself. So the same applies. Get it? Good. Can we move on?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
There is no absolute truths we possess, because we do not have access to absolute knowledge.



I think this should have, in theory killed the conversation in this thread.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness


I think this should have, in theory killed the conversation in this thread.

Well, people could still fantasize about what might be an absolute truth...after all, isn't that what philosophy is about?

Originally posted by Mindship
That was my thinking.

Are all fundamentalists absolutists, by definition? Because I don't think all absolutists are fundamentalists. Fundamentalism breeds a specific kind of absolutism (religionistic, moralistic), but absolutism, in its broadest, philosophical sense, is more than that.

However, IMO, as an overreaction to the closed-mindedness of the past, Absolute Relativism is as dangerous (and self-contradicting), for it sees all behaviors/ways of living as having equal value.

Fundamentalists may not be absolute about everything in their lives... It's more like a subset of their values have become SO absolute they may NOT be questioned or debated.
I don't think anyone IS a total absolutist (is that a word)?
ANd isn't Absolute Relativism a contradiction of terms? Beliveing EVERYTHING is relative (the speed of light isn't) and that everything MUST be questioned and debated just clouds a debate, I think.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who's incognito?

Dunno.

Originally posted by The Omega
Fundamentalists may not be absolute about everything in their lives... It's more like a subset of their values have become SO absolute they may NOT be questioned or debated.
I don't think anyone IS a total absolutist (is that a word)?
ANd isn't Absolute Relativism a contradiction of terms? Beliveing EVERYTHING is relative (the speed of light isn't) and that everything MUST be questioned and debated just clouds a debate, I think.

I think its good that everything be questioned, this tends to eliminate...or atleast reduce...ignorance, which I believe is the cause of all evil.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
I think its good that everything be questioned, this tends to eliminate...or atleast reduce...ignorance, which I believe is the cause of all evil.

Is that an absolute? j/k

Originally posted by lil bitchiness


I think this should have, in theory killed the conversation in this thread.

Not when defending your beleifs on the matter though.

Originally posted by Regret
Is that an absolute? j/k

Heh, I was just exploring the practical purposes of absolute relativism.

Absolute truth does exist; however, it is beyond our comprehension. So, to us it is like the inside of a black hole, we will never understand it.

. This is an absoulte truth.

Originally posted by Count Kent
. This is an absoulte truth.

No, please see the thread on that topic.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f75/t379939.html

Originally posted by Mindship
I believe so, lad.


Also sounds absolute.

Seems to me, any kind of definite statement, however carefully thought-out or worded, becomes an absolute. This would further appear to settle the issue as to whether or not absolutes exist.

And as I've implied in a prior post, IMO, we should not let the abusive, religionistic/moralistic thinking of the past, regarding absolutes, make us fearful to acknowledge that absolutes do very much apparently exist.

I dont believe the statement 'absolutes dont exist' could be an absolute, because we cant prove it. Our position on absolutes is ----> 'I dont know'.

And please let it be clear:

I have reworded the statement to:

"There is an exception to every rule"

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
I dont believe the statement 'absolutes dont exist' could be an absolute, because we cant prove it. Our position on absolutes is ----> 'I dont know'.

It's an absolute in meaning, if not in "physical" reality. Otherwise I would tend to agree.

I say "tend to agree" because, even if we don't know the absolute nature of reality, IMO inevitably there must be one, some infinite condition which subsumes but transcends all other conditions. Whether it is God, quantum foam, an unending regression/progression of fractal universes, at some point we can find ourselves saying, "But what if such-and-such exists?" wherein the answer will always be, "Then that is the nature of this infinite condition.

Originally posted by Count Kent
. This is an absoulte truth.

1 + 1 = 2 is true just in certain numeric systems, but it is not true in a binary system for example.

The reason for the absolute paradox (there is no absolute is absolute) is because we are communicating the information to each other. The paradox is only in our communication system, it is not an absolute.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's an absolute in meaning, if not in "physical" reality. Otherwise I would tend to agree.

I say "tend to agree" because, even if we don't know the absolute nature of reality, IMO inevitably there must be one, some infinite condition which subsumes but transcends all other conditions. Whether it is God, quantum foam, an unending regression/progression of fractal universes, at some point we can find ourselves saying, "But what if such-and-such exists?" wherein the answer will always be, "Then that is the nature of this infinite condition.

So your saying a rational process in of itself is an absolute truth? Im still trying to wrap my head around that one. Perhaps you could explain it more?

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
So your saying a rational process in of itself is an absolute truth? Im still trying to wrap my head around that one. Perhaps you could explain it more?

I'm saying that, in addition to whatever Overall Absolute exists (based on my prior reasoning), there are "local absolutes," reflective of the level of reality under scrutiny.

For example, given how our physical universe is arranged, the speed of light is (or at least, appears to be) a physical absolute in our particular type of universe.

In the mental-symbolic sphere, where Meaning is the "substance of reality," if we establish beforehand, for example, what "=" means, than "A=A" becomes an absolute.

That is another thing guys:


Many of you feel that something is only true if it is physicall existant. As if mental existances are false and of lesser value to a physical existance.

Things that are REAL in the mental world can be, and ARE, just as real as the physical things before us.

I' ve always thought of "Something cannot bring itself into existence" as an absolute truth hmm

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Things that are REAL in the mental world can be, and ARE, just as real as the physical things before us.
yes


Matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, could be the physical correlate of that (I say "could" because no one has ever actually proved/observed that; it just "makes sense".

On the lighter side, I've often had this discussion with people...
"Where did the universe come from?"
"God created the universe."
"Where did God come from?"
"God created Himself."
"How can God create Himself?"
"That's what makes God God."

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm saying that, in addition to whatever Overall Absolute exists (based on my prior reasoning), there are "local absolutes," reflective of the level of reality under scrutiny.


In the mental-symbolic sphere, where Meaning is the "substance of reality," if we establish beforehand, for example, what "=" means, than "A=A" becomes an absolute.

But didnt you agree that truth isnt subjective? What you are describing is a rational process within the human mind that doesnt exist beyond our own experience.

Also this:



Is based on a logical inference of the nature of things, which normally I would agree with except that the topic is about *absolute* truth. So you cant make a logical inference and call it absolute truth because you are limited by your own 'imperfect' mind. What do you really know about 'true' reality? You cant make any assumptions, because we are limited to only what our sensory input feeds into our minds.

Or maybe Im just confused.

That pen sitting on my desk is blue... that's an absolute truth at least in my eyes, but then again I'm not a Philosopher.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
But didnt you agree that truth isnt subjective? What you are describing is a rational process within the human mind that doesnt exist beyond our own experience.
When considering absolutes, context has to be considered (or to put it another way, we ought to define, beforehand, what we mean by "truth". For example, if we agree that "=" means "the same as" or "identical to," then obviously "A=A" is a logical truth/absolute. It is subjective/Not absolute in that we can change what "=" means, but it Is absolute within the context we mutually defined.

This small, local, logical absolute is not the same as "The Absolute"/"Ultimate Truth"/whatever term one might fancy to describe the Big Picture.

Is based on a logical inference of the nature of things, which normally I would agree with except that the topic is about *absolute* truth. So you cant make a logical inference and call it absolute truth because you are limited by your own 'imperfect' mind. What do you really know about 'true' reality? You cant make any assumptions, because we are limited to only what our sensory input feeds into our minds.
Or maybe Im just confused.

No, you make a valid point, and my fault if I misinterpreted the thread topic.
My reasoning about Absolute Reality is exactly as you said: reasoning. To keep it simple, this is why I did not comment about "the nature" of Absolute Reality, only that, at some point, in some form, there must be one. How could there not be, regardless of whatever form/process it may take? What else could there be? Ultimate Subjectivity? Wouldn't That, then, be our Absolute? Nothing? Then wouldn't That be our Absolute? Something completely beyond any thoughts, words or symbols, something unimaginably unimaginable? Then wouldn't That be our Absolute?

What other conclusion could be drawn: that there Is No Absolute? Then wouldn't That be our Absolute?

But again, your point is valid. At best, logic (or any other mode of knowing--empirical, meditative) provides only a shadow by which we may guess at whatever Truth is casting it.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6260/obi5kx.jpg

It's absolutely possible and possibly absolute.

NE way, JANUS before you asked me what Oxymorons exist in real life and I never got back to you on that subject:

Here's a few:


1) The Fact that you can be Ugly but Sexy at the same time: Let me explain using two people as examples: You can lack beauty, but still have sex appeal, just like you can lack sex appeal but still have physical beauty.

Ex: Nick Lachey...In my opinion he is a gorgeous guy and fits every popular standard in terms of "hottie" that I can think of. However, i do not find him sexy at all. He's too clean lookn, he only has his pretty looks.....he's easy on the eyes, but not to quick on the crotch...if u know what i mean. He is physically beautiful, but he lacks sex appeal....i mean, he has, but very little.

Johnny Knoxville....not that great lookn a guy, his face looks busted a lot, he's kinda skinny, and he grosses me out a lot on his show. However, he's sexy as hell. He has that bad-boy, dirty guy charisma. His look alone is not too appealing, but the TOTAL package is sexy as hell.

I'll expand if I confused you on that point.



2)A Dog's Leash...both a symbol of control AND freedom: My Labridor Jeter LOVES his leash....when i grab it, he knows it means he's going out for a nice long walk, away from home. To him it is most likely a symbol of escape, of routine freedom, he knows he will be outside. TO ME it is a symbol of control...a way to keep my dog where I need him. How ironic, that to me it is nothing more than a control tool, but to him it symbolizes the freedom of going out for a walk (not to mention when we get to a certain area, i let him off the leash, and he knows that)



3) All Irony in General - Irony occurs in real life very frequently, there is no way to deny this. Are not Ironic situations a more complicated version of an oxymoron ?

the only absolute truth is that there are NO absolute truths. but even THAT can be denied.

hence there are none.

Here is an absolute truth: I am conscious of my existance.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the only absolute truth is that there are NO absolute truths


The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
But then, That is an absolute.
Okay. There is only one absolute.

No. Now there are two:
1. There are no absolutes.
2. There is only one absolute (ie, "There are no absolutes".
Okay. There are only two absolutes.

No. Now there are three:
1. There are no absolutes.
2. There is only one absolute ("There are no absolutes".
3. There are only two absolutes ("There are no absolutes" / "There is only one absolute".
Okay. There are only three absolutes.

No. Now there are four...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the only absolute truth is that there are NO absolute truths. but even THAT can be denied.

Nope, not even that is an absolute truth.

Janus one more real life oxymoron:


A Gay Conservative........

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the only absolute truth is that there are NO absolute truths.

Its false by defenition.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A Gay Conservative........
Not true...you've heard of the long cabin republicans right?

The thing is people dont' realise that there are two type sof issue to have a stance on. I'm as far left as you can go on social issues, but when it comes to real government policy I'm actually quite moderate if not conservative. Its not an oxymoron...well...sometimes.

(Most people (at least Americans) jsut forget about real government policy because they are too dull to divide it...heceforth libera-conservative falls in the hands of social issues which apparently everyone is qualified to judge ) Just remember the difference/narrownes of the words your using.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its false by defenition.

Not true...you've heard of the long cabin republicans right?

The thing is people dont' realise that there are two type sof issue to have a stance on. I'm as far left as you can go on social issues, but when it comes to real government policy I'm actually quite moderate if not conservative. Its not an oxymoron...well...sometimes.

(Most people (at least Americans) jsut forget about real government policy because they are too dull to divide it...heceforth libera-conservative falls in the hands of social issues which apparently everyone is qualified to judge ) Just remember the difference/narrownes of the words your using.



Fine.....

A Gay Christian


LOL j/k that was probably a bad example. But my previous examples I feel hold water.

erm...I still dont think so. The only irony lies in the fact that both gay conservatieve and gay christians are self-disenfranchising....which i find amusing .

Originally posted by Alliance
erm...I still dont think so. The only irony lies in the fact that both gay conservatieve and gay christians are self-disenfranchising....which i find amusing .

Dude I already dropped that argument when I said the gay conservative thing was a bad example.

I was talking about my other oxymoron examples that are either in this page, or the last one.

Ne ways, while on that quick subject...i find it hypocritical that gay people would become conservative and therefore strengthen a policy that basically goes against THEM.

oh, sorry. brainfart.

Yeah, I agree.

I believe there is a truth, but we don't quite know it.

Maybe things can be absolute in their meanings, or sensations they bring, but for the language of logic the existence of absolutes could be a problem.

Things could be absolutely true to yourself, but not aon a societal level. Peopel are different and percieve things differently. THerfore, finding a global absoulute (when dealing with menaing) is highly improbalbe if not for all practical purposes impossible.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

You asked what we think, and I disagree. There is one thing that remains the same.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Hebrews 13:8

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You asked what we think, and I disagree. There is one thing that remains the same.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Hebrews 13:8



But we can't know that for sure, can we?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You asked what we think, and I disagree. There is one thing that remains the same.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Hebrews 13:8




No he's not. HE is definately ever changing bro.


1) Jesus was first a symbol of Change to Jews and Romans, and his eventual followers.

2) Then he became an excuse for war, discrimination, and hatred.

3) He went back to being a symbol of Peace, an icon of tolerance by more open minded and more humanistic Christians.

4) He then became a comic book character, they displayed him fighting the other pantheons...except in this comic he is not a loving being, he is a vicious fighter, its rediculous

5) He is portrayed instead of being Arab looking like he most likely was, as a white man with gorgeous blue eyes in the movie "Passion of the Christ"

6) Finally, a sex symbol. NO JOKE.....in several calenders, even newly printed Bibles he is illustrated as sexy and physically, unrealistically appealing, even by Hollywood standards.


The popular entity that is Jesus Christ has undergone MANY changes my freind. Open your eyes and see. BEing a symbol of change, then hatred, then love, then tolerance, then super hero, then crusader, then Buddhist like peace maker, then sex symbol....its fkn rediculous how much change Jesus has undergone !

Jood job.

Though I would add he still si an excuse for discrimintaion and hatred.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
5) He is portrayed instead of being Arab looking like he most likely was, as a white man with gorgeous blue eyes in the movie "Passion of the Christ"

Thought I'd comment in support of this one.

Isaiah 53:2
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Christ was supposed to be physically ugly, or at the least homely.

Urizen's point still stands that the vision of Jesus has changed.

some ppls vision of Jesus may have changed, but Jesus has not.

Originally posted by Alliance
Jood job.

Though I would add he still si an excuse for discrimintaion and hatred.

Agreed! All through the test of time any monotheistic religion wheather being Muslim, Jewdism, and by far and for most the Catholic relgion. There has been discrimination, Hatred and even Wars over whos religion is the "true" religion. Too me it seems kind of silly to start a war over beliefs when even in your own beliefs it says not to kill a fellow human being. Seems like a contradiction...

some people interpret the 10 commandments (and other religous laws) to only apply to people of the smae faith.

Also, these statements are often contradicted. Jesus says, commenting on nonbelievers, that it would be better if they were stoned....but thats just a christian reference.

NOTHING is the only known absolute truth.

Originally posted by TheSpinner
NOTHING is the only known absolute truth.

WRONG

Nothing may not even exist , so how would it even qualify as a truth?

No one knows what Absolute Truth does exist. But no one knows that it does not exist either.

I labeled two of my BELEIFS, oxymoron beleifs that may hold true. In my opinion they are the only truths that have yet to fail as flawed.

So far no one, not even Janus, have convinced my beleifs here are incorrected. I welcome you do try

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
WRONG

Nothing may not even exist , so how would it even qualify as a truth?

No one knows what Absolute Truth does exist. But no one knows that it does not exist either.

I labeled two of my BELEIFS, oxymoron beleifs that may hold true. In my opinion they are the only truths that have yet to fail as flawed.

So far no one, not even Janus, have convinced my beleifs here are incorrected. I welcome you do try
Wrong. I know for a FACT that the soda can sitting on my desk is made from aluminum. I know for a FACT that it contains a total of 8 ounces of diet Sprite or at least close as possible. Those are absolute truths. I know for a FACT that my eyes are Hazel and that I have pale skin. I know for a FACT that I have naturally curly hair that is colored light brown. As said before these are all absolute truths. You can argue the philosophical bit all you want but to me that's an exercise in futility. Trying to complicate something that doesn't need to be complicated.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Wrong. I know for a FACT that the soda can sitting on my desk is made from aluminum. I know for a FACT that it contains a total of 8 ounces of diet Sprite or at least close as possible. Those are absolute truths. I know for a FACT that my eyes are Hazel and that I have pale skin. I know for a FACT that I have naturally curly hair that is colored light brown. As said before these are all absolute truths. You can argue the philosophical bit all you want but to me that's an exercise in futility. Trying to complicate something that doesn't need to be complicated.




1) The soda in your can is pure aluminum? You're telling me that if i put it under a microscope I won't find traces of water, carbon, nitrogen, steel, gold? You're telling me that can is so purely aluminum, that i wont be able to find a molecule of any other substance? How can you be so sure? CUZ the soda company tells you so ??????

2) At least as close as possible to 8 ounces is not an absolute truth, you are making an estimate, that contradicts an absolute.

3) Your eyes are hazel? for real? Color is only our perception of such, it is only the way our eyes respond to light. There is an insect that can see 300 more colors than we can. Our eyes cannot comprehend every single color imaginable. Are you SURE your eyes are really hazel? You sure if we saw ur eyes through that insect's eyes, we wouldnt be able to find another color there?

4) Do you really have naturally curly hair? You sure its not wavy, nappy, kinky, frizzy,...what is curly anyway? Again with color brown, refer to question 3



Check out the argument me and Janus had over 1 + 1 = 2...being an absolute truth....then come back to me.

You "realists" and "literalists" have such closed minds about things, geez

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) The soda in your can is pure aluminum? You're telling me that if i put it under a microscope I won't find traces of water, carbon, nitrogen, steel, gold? You're telling me that can is so purely aluminum, that i wont be able to find a molecule of any other substance? How can you be so sure? CUZ the soda company tells you so ??????

2) At least as close as possible to 8 ounces is not an absolute truth, you are making an estimate, that contradicts an absolute.

3) Your eyes are hazel? for real? Color is only our perception of such, it is only the way our eyes respond to light. There is an insect that can see 300 more colors than we can. Our eyes cannot comprehend every single color imaginable. Are you SURE your eyes are really hazel? You sure if we saw ur eyes through that insect's eyes, we wouldnt be able to find another color there?

4) Do you really have naturally curly hair? You sure its not wavy, nappy, kinky, frizzy,...what is curly anyway? Again with color brown, refer to question 3



Check out the argument me and Janus had over 1 + 1 = 2...being an absolute truth....then come back to me.

You "realists" and "literalists" have such closed minds about things, geez

You missed my point the point that it doesn't really matter. Saying that can is made of aluminium is fine with me. Sure you could spend hours arguing over the exact nature of the can and ect ect. But like I said. It's a futile exercise. It seems that by nature we humans are driven to ask pointless questions to receive incomplete answers.

Yes I'm sure that in different spectrum my eyes would look different. But I don't see in the ultraviolet spectrum so saying that my eyes are hazel is good enough for me. No reason to argue for hours over such a minor detail. My eyes are hazel and that's that.

And please stop acting like a dumbass and accusing people of being something when you don't even know them. I see you do it all the time with that stupid rolleyes smilie.

DP sorry.

Hmm let me rephrase this. In a certain level you could say things were Absolutes. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
You missed my point the point that it doesn't really matter. Saying that can is made of aluminium is fine with me. Sure you could spend hours arguing over the exact nature of the can and ect ect. But like I said. It's a futile exercise. It seems that by nature we humans are driven to ask pointless questions to receive incomplete answers.

Yes I'm sure that in different spectrum my eyes would look different. But I don't see in the ultraviolet spectrum so saying that my eyes are hazel is good enough for me. No reason to argue for hours over such a minor detail. My eyes are hazel and that's that.

And please stop acting like a dumbass and accusing people of being something when you don't even know them. I see you do it all the time with that stupid rolleyes smilie.



Then why bother debating?

The whole point to this thread I opened was to challenge our opinions, to think deeper than you are suggesting we do.

If you don't like it, don't comment then.

My "realists" quote was sarcasm, gosh Lighten up !

You don't like rolled eyes? Fine how about this

RELAX...debate or leave, but don't come here looking to critisize people for thier opinions alright?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

Sorry Lord Urizen But there is a HUGE logical hole in you statement:

A) 1)There is an exception to EVERYTHING.

B) "Change being constant" is an element of EVERYTHING.

C) According to A) and B) there must an exception to "Time is constant". or there is not an exception to EVERYTHING

Therefore you just witnessed your WHOLE statement SELF DESTRUCT: POOF!


NOTHING is The only known ABSOLUTE.

Originally posted by TheSpinner
Sorry Lord Urizen But there is a HUGE logical hole in you statement:

A) 1)There is an exception to EVERYTHING.

B) "Change being constant" is an element of EVERYTHING.

C) According to A) and B) there must an exception to "Time is constant". or there is not an exception to EVERYTHING

Therefore you just witnessed your WHOLE statement SELF DESTRUCT: POOF!


NOTHING is The only known ABSOLUTE.


1) I changed the first one to "There is an exception to every rule"

I duno how to edit my first post, it doesn't let me.

2)Read the above, "Change is the only constant" is not a rule, just a beleif or a truth.

3) AGAIN refer to statement 1 please

Therefore nothing....ur argument goes poof. Nice try though

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) I changed the first one to "There is an exception to every rule"
Therefore nothing....ur argument goes poof. Nice try though


1) "There is an exception to every rule"


2) "There is an exception to every rule" is a GOLDEN rule
3) then there must be an exception to "There is an exception to every rule". ==> some rule does not have an exception.

4) Still SELF DESTRUCTION.... just with a different BANG!

5) Therefore NOTHING is still the only known ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

6) ( Cuban Cigars! I don't know if I find them so damn good because they are ABSOLUTELY TRULY GOOD or just because they were BANNED in the US).... Oh Well!... they are a pleasure either way ....................Get You One!

Originally posted by TheSpinner
1) "There is an exception to every rule"


2) "There is an exception to every rule" is a GOLDEN rule
3) then there must be an exception to "There is an exception to every rule". ==> some rule does not have an exception.

4) Still SELF DESTRUCTION.... just with a different BANG!

5) Therefore NOTHING is still the only known ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

6) ( Cuban Cigars! I don't know if I find them so damn good because they are ABSOLUTELY TRULY GOOD or just because they were BANNED in the US).... Oh Well!... they are a pleasure either way ....................Get You One!


Like I said before, my "Absolute Truths" are oxymorons.

And I already had the argument with Janus about how real life Oxymorons do exist....look back a few pages, please.

My "Absolute Truths" are also metaphorical ones, rather than literal ones. I already explained this before.

AND...NOTHING cannot be an Absolute Truth, not gramatically the way you said it. NOTHING does not exist.....You are saying that an Absolute Truth does not exist, and to say that:


An Absolute Truth does not exist is, technically, your Absolute Truth. self contradicing no?

And how would you know? I only stated by "Truths" as beleifs, but you are stating yours as a total Fact. How do you know its true???

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Like I said before, my "Absolute Truths" are oxymorons.

And I already had the argument with Janus about how real life Oxymorons do exist....look back a few pages, please.

My "Absolute Truths" are also metaphorical ones, rather than literal ones. I already explained this before.

AND...NOTHING cannot be an Absolute Truth, not gramatically the way you said it. NOTHING does not exist.....You are saying that an Absolute Truth does not exist, and to say that:


An Absolute Truth does not exist is, technically, your Absolute Truth. self contradicing no?

And how would you know? I only stated by "Truths" as beleifs, but you are stating yours as a total Fact. How do you know its true???


I think you are getting close to understanding what I was trying to say by: "NOTHING IS THE ONLY KNOWN ABSOLUTE TRUTH".

Explanation: For us to know and prove that something is an absolute truth we will always need other absolute truths to verify it and test it against. and Therefore I still say that NOTHING is the ONLY absolute truth. meaning that either there is no absolute truth or if there is one, it can not be the only one. If you understood me that way. then congratulations and you definitely deserve a cuban.

But if you understood me differently then I will be smoking my cubans alone

Personally, I believe there is absolute truth. And that there is more of it than what we now know.

Remeber that just because we don't have a perfect understanding of something doesn't mean that there isn't a perfect description of it.

Perhaps a better way of saying what people on this thread have been saying is that it is impossible to have an absolute understanding of truth. Shaky's elephant poem comes to mind.

The absolute truth is that Jesus, if he existed at all, is dead and if he comes back, we will kill him again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The absolute truth is that Jesus, if he existed at all, is dead and if he comes back, we will kill him again.

That would be a relative truth though..because according to all the Jesus Freaks out their he would just rise again.

I doubt people could kill him a second time anyway though, because according to all the Bible thumpers out their..when he comes back this time he's going to be really pissed, and ready to layeth the smacketh down on non bible thumpers candy asses!!!

Originally posted by TheSpinner
Sorry Lord Urizen But there is a HUGE logical hole in you statement:

A) 1)There is an exception to EVERYTHING.

B) "Change being constant" is an element of EVERYTHING.

C) According to A) and B) there must an exception to "Time is constant". or there is not an exception to EVERYTHING

Therefore you just witnessed your WHOLE statement SELF DESTRUCT: POOF!


NOTHING is The only known ABSOLUTE.

Possibly the stupidest post we've ever gotten from you..

So I guess this means that your own statement has an exception to it, and is an untruthful one, that your statement of change being constant is not a constant one,(even though you've just made it one by asserting that it is), and that "nothing" wouldn't be an absolute, because you've just posted SOMETHING stating that it was an absolute..

Completely moronic statements. But what else could one expect from an inferior intellect such as yours. Do you even believe what you say? Or do you just make sh*t up as you go along...

How does that old saying go..oh yes..I remember now, a true fool can only fool some people some of the times, but a true fool can fool himself all of the times.

You're never right about anything Spinner..not even some of the times, but one thing is for certain, you definitely prove yourself to be a crazy delusional fool all of the times.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

An actual Infinite cannot change.

You cannot change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Again, how can you prove the absolute truth of your own existance? You can't. Yes, you think. In a manner of speaking, so does a computer. Having internal processes isn't a value that indicates existance in absolute reality.

You don't prove that you exist by thinking; you infer that you exist by thinking. I think, therefore I am. And since the only proof lies in your head, it cannot be put up for significant testing with any real knowledge. So really, you assume that you exist because you think you exist.

And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic.

Listen to the David Hume wannabe ... Its true by the process of verification one is capable of proving that all existence is meaningless and consequently false.

The process of verification is used to discern truth :

Anything that cannot be prov en analytically (By logic e.g. 1 + 1 = 2), or synthetically (e.g. by empirical evidence, i.e. the squirrel is round the corner, so go look), is unverifiable therefore false. The problem is that it is impossible to verify anything that has happened in the past. Consequently anything that has happened in the past is false.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
Listen to the David Hume wannabe ... Its true by the process of verification one is capable of proving that all existence is meaningless and consequently false.

The process of verification is used to discern truth :

Anything that cannot be prov en analytically (By logic e.g. 1 + 1 = 2), or synthetically (e.g. by empirical evidence, i.e. the squirrel is round the corner, so go look), is unverifiable therefore false. The problem is that it is impossible to verify anything that has happened in the past. Consequently anything that has happened in the past is false.



Process of verification.. Did you just pull that one out of your anus?

Then wouldn't that mean that the process of verification is an absolute truth? How can you verify something, if the the process used to verify it isn't assumed to be 100 percent true?

Or how about this one. If something is proved to be false through the 'verification process', doesn't that now create the absolute truth of knowing the falsity of that something?..

Blah..blah...see how stupid AND nonsensical you get when going on a "nothing is absolute" tangent. Why the hell do you think the whole concept of RELATIVISM has been stricken down as illogical and foolish each time its presented by the fool throughout the centuries?

I'm no fan of extremism, however, only a completely maniacal and delusional fool would believe that no absolutes exist.

And that statement along with the rest of my statements above are not extreme in the slightest, however, they are truthful ones.

Truth reveals itself on different ways, sometimes it reveals itself by presenting things people deem "good", sometimes it reveals itself by presenting things that people deem "bad", regardless of which way it chooses to present itself, it is always absolute in its nature, despite the relative understandings of those who it chooses to reveal itself too.

Originally posted by Gay Guy


Process of verification.. Did you just pull that one out of your anus?

Then wouldn't that mean that the process of verification is an absolute truth? How can you verify something, if the the process used to verify it isn't assumed to be 100 percent true?

Or how about this one. If something is proved to be false through the 'verification process', doesn't that now create the absolute truth of knowing the falsity of that something?..

Blah..blah...see how stupid AND nonsensical you get when going on a "nothing is absolute" tangent. Why the hell do you think the whole concept of RELATIVISM has been stricken down as illogical and foolish each time its presented by the fool throughout the centuries?

I'm no fan of extremism, however, only a completely maniacal and delusional fool would believe that no absolutes exist.

And that statement along with the rest of my statements above are not extreme in the slightest, however, they are truthful ones.

Truth reveals itself on different ways, sometimes it reveals itself by presenting things people deem "good", sometimes it reveals itself by presenting things that people deem "bad", regardless of which way it chooses to present itself, it is always absolute in its nature, despite the relative understandings of those who it chooses to reveal itself too.

I beileve it was 'pulled out of the anus' of Vienna Circle. You should look it up. But i agree the process is a bit stupid, but its was used by some of the greatest philosophers of the 19th centuary. I also strongly recomend a tranquliser of some kind .... maybe some Ketamin. You shouldn't get so wound up about a cyber space debate. It makes you look a bit strange ..... Gay Guy.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
I also strongly recomend a tranquliser of some kind .... maybe some Ketamin. You shouldn't get so wound up about a cyber space debate. It makes you look a bit strange ..... Gay Guy.




I'm currently taking estrogen pills to help with the hip replacement I just had, but NOT for gender re-assignment. I just started taking it a couple of weeks ago, so I'm still trying to get used to it. It makes me have mood swings from time to time, so if I come of as an arse, just know that its just the pills.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Possibly the stupidest post we've ever gotten from you..

So I guess this means that your own statement has an exception to it, and is an untruthful one, that your statement of change being constant is not a constant one,(even though you've just made it one by asserting that it is), and that "nothing" wouldn't be an absolute, because you've just posted SOMETHING stating that it was an absolute..

Completely moronic statements. But what else could one expect from an inferior intellect such as yours. Do you even believe what you say? Or do you just make sh*t up as you go along...

How does that old saying go..oh yes..I remember now, a true fool can only fool some people some of the times, but a true fool can fool himself all of the times.

You're never right about anything Spinner..not even some of the times, but one thing is for certain, you definitely prove yourself to be a crazy delusional fool all of the times.



Yes I am relatively stupid according to your absolute stupidity!

I am not the one who stated that there is an exception to everything, I am the one who proved it be wrong. Lord Lurizen is the one who stated that there is an exception to everything.

The difference between and I my very intelligent friend is that I read stuff digest it and try to understand the best I can before I fart.


My Statement is "NOTHING IS THE ONLY KNOWN ABSOLUTE TRUTH" which means for stupid people like me that we can know nothing as the only absolute truth. because in order to verify any absolute truth you need another absolute truth not a relative one.

Example:
1) let us assume that "me being stupid" is an absolute truth.
2) you based that on "you being intelligent" which is a relative truth.
3) you cannot prove and absolute truth by using a relative truth.
4) therefore you are indeed stupid. because you think you understand everything I say.
So let me break it down for you so it is a little easier on your little mind:

If you know of an absolute truth then it must not be the only absolute truth you know. see you stupid shit, I am a Mathematician and an Electrical Engineer. And as a bonus for you. English is my third spoken language and my weakest. Can you Imagine now how easily I could smoke you if we were to debate in the any of the other two?

I am in the USA because your government hired me and that is because you did not qualify for the Job. Now Go figure why your government is paying me for doing nothing most of the day. I post to all kinds of forums because I finish my projects way ahead of anybody' s expectations and I have a lot of time to kill. I just do the forums thing for fun not because I may learn something from you or prove something to you. I just hate when people make assumption. that is what I picked the name "TheSpinner" to let you know beforehand that I am here to just spin things around or out of control. You never got that one, did you?. and while I am at it, you never answered my question: "are you a gay guy or guy guy?" I bet you did not get that one either. Check the classic definition of the word "Gay" I just thought you knew that one, because most of the guy guy(s) I know are also gay guys(cheerful, happy).

If am indeed stupid and was hired out of my own country by your own government, then that makes your government very stupid, and if you have chosen that government to represent you and make stupid decisions for you. what does that make you? very intelligent indeed?!?!

"Salaam!" you piece of crap!

Gay Guy and TheSpinner, express your opinions without being sarcastic, demeaning, belittling or putting down other members. Attack the argument, not the person for their differing opinion!

Originally posted by TheSpinner
Yes I am relatively stupid according to your absolute stupidity!

I am not the one who stated that there is an exception to everything, I am the one who proved it be wrong. Lord Lurizen is the one who stated that there is an exception to everything.

The difference between and I my very intelligent friend is that I read stuff digest it and try to understand the best I can before I fart.


My Statement is "NOTHING IS THE ONLY KNOWN ABSOLUTE TRUTH" which means for stupid people like me that we can know nothing as the only absolute truth. because in order to verify any absolute truth you need another absolute truth not a relative one.

Example:
1) let us assume that "me being stupid" is an absolute truth.
2) you based that on "you being intelligent" which is a relative truth.
3) you cannot prove and absolute truth by using a relative truth.
4) therefore you are indeed stupid. because you think you understand everything I say.
So let me break it down for you so it is a little easier on your little mind:

If you know of an absolute truth then it must not be the only absolute truth you know. see you stupid shit, I am a Mathematician and an Electrical Engineer. And as a bonus for you. English is my third spoken language and my weakest. Can you Imagine now how easily I could smoke you if we were to debate in the any of the other two?

I am in the USA because your government hired me and that is because you did not qualify for the Job. Now Go figure why your government is paying me for doing nothing most of the day. I post to all kinds of forums because I finish my projects way ahead of anybody' s expectations and I have a lot of time to kill. I just do the forums thing for fun not because I may learn something from you or prove something to you. I just hate when people make assumption. that is what I picked the name "TheSpinner" to let you know beforehand that I am here to just spin things around or out of control. You never got that one, did you?. and while I am at it, you never answered my question: "are you a gay guy or guy guy?" I bet you did not get that one either. Check the classic definition of the word "Gay" I just thought you knew that one, because most of the guy guy(s) I know are also gay guys(cheerful, happy).

If am indeed stupid and was hired out of my own country by your own government, then that makes your government very stupid, and if you have chosen that government to represent you and make stupid decisions for you. what does that make you? very intelligent indeed?!?!

"Salaam!" you piece of crap!


yawn





You sound like a little kid who just got beaten up on the playground, and who is now making sh*t up to his boys to prove that he's a man.

Here's the condensed version of Spinner's post, for those of you who don't have the time to sift through all the crap.

*My a$$ is bleeding because my arguments just got verbally raped in a few short paragraphs. Let me post as much nonsensical bullsh*t as I can to save face and make people think that I have the upper hand. No one will know, after all I am "The Spinner", and "spinning" people's arguments with my bullsh*t rhetoric is what I do best...*

Perhaps you are right about one thing though Spinner. The absolute stupidity that I possess, is indeed relatively infinitesimal when compared to the enormous amount of stupidity that you exude from your very being each time you post.

Best of luck in finding the absolute truth about your eternal damnation.winkiss


Sincerely,

Gay Guy

stupid

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
An actual Infinite cannot change.

You cannot change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

Me and Janus has that discussion before as to WHY YOU CAN have an exception for even 1 + 1 = 2.

Check out the earlier pages, you'll see. Then tell me wat u thnk

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:


1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.



What do you guys think ?

Science is an absolute truth, fact is absolute truth...

Originally posted by rickyduck
Science is an absolute truth, fact is absolute truth...

I need to restate my first post. I am goign to ask the Moderators If i can do so.

I reworded it to:

1) There is an exception to every rule

2) The only Constant is change.


And these are intended as metaphorical and social truths, not literal truths. Also they are only what I beleive to be Absolute Truths, i duno for certain if they are. However, in response to your argument:

Science is not an absolute truth. Science is a STUDY that aims to discovers truths.

Fact is only what we claim it to be, by means of "proof" that we cannot find contradiction against. Even Janus himself said that rules and facts are only as true as the rules they are based on, and the rules are only as valid as the reality behind them. Long story.......

Nice point though

Speaking of absolute truths, there was a dude that proved a while back that you can't prove every true statement. It's completely impossible.

I wish I could site his name, and possibly a link. But I read it a while back in a book about physics and found it interesting and wanted to share.

True, especially if you're talking about the scientific method. It's never "proven" anything. All that the scientific method can do is disprove hypotheses. Take gravity for example. We assume that when something is dropped it will fall. We make this assumption because it's alway held true until now. If we ever found an instance where the object didn't fall, we would have to modify our hypothesis.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Speaking of absolute truths, there was a dude that proved a while back that you can't prove every true statement.



Uhhh..wouldn't he just be contradicting himself by saying that?

Well, it's not like he said you can't prove any true statements, just not every true statement.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't think you get it.
2) Throughout history, in our lifetime, through TIME period...the only thing that keeps going forever is change.



I disagree with that assertion. Jesus keeps going forever and He doesn't change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."

Hebrews 13:9

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Speaking of absolute truths, there was a dude that proved a while back that you can't prove every true statement. It's completely impossible.

I wish I could site his name, and possibly a link. But I read it a while back in a book about physics and found it interesting and wanted to share.



Perhaps you are correct. Some truths are unable to be proven. They just merely exist, and need nothing to justify their existence.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I disagree with that assertion. Jesus keeps going forever and He doesn't change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."

Hebrews 13:9

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat 7:15

Then how do we distiguish the real from the false?

Originally posted by Alliance
Then how do we distiguish the real from the false?

Through the power of the Holy Spirit. It give's you supernatural discernment. In the end times, this is the only type of discernment that will allow people, even the most intelligent ones, to be able to discern the differences between those who call themselves good and those who call themselves evil.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I disagree with that assertion. Jesus keeps going forever and He doesn't change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."

Hebrews 13:9


No. The IDEA of Jesus Christ is ever changing.

1) The Bible has changed over translations and has been manipulated over time by men. Many Gospels and Books were left out and altered to fit the time more convientently or for other purposes, WAtch History Channel and look up history of the Catholic Church and Bible Process.

2) Jesus Christ is dead. He was once human, then supposedly a renewed resurrected human, back to a spirit, and now either a spiritual force that people pray 2/or a figment of our imaginations.