Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

now if u think about it 2+2=4 because well it cant be because i said so for now on 2+2= apple pie the apply apple goody goodness =[)

2+2= 2 bent lines that look like a snake well i dont no!

now if u think about it 2+2 can be 4 because it = window lolz jokes thats 1+1=s

everyoen hates me u all hate me because i no that 2+2 does not = 4 and i found that out first ='(

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Math is generally referred to as an "Objective Truth" in science.
Objective meaning.."absolute" in its existence or beginning.
By faith alone..numbers used to determine the results of simple equations are assumed to be 100 percent constant. "Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

There are some, however, who believe that everything in life is made up of "Relative Truths." Relative meaning..everything is subject to change, and truth is dependant upon an individual's circumstances/views.

Those of you who believe in "Relative Truths." Please provide for me an explanation..as to how the mathmetical equation.

2 + 2 = 4

Is a relative truth.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

Impossible to prove a negative. See Omega's Flying Reindeer explination.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Impossible to prove a negative. See Omega's Flying Reindeer explination.

Where do I find Omega's Flying Reindeer explination?

All over the original Evolution thread.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27866&highlight=evolution

Originally posted by The Rev
It's really all how u look at it. like in real life what is your defination of one? one what 1 unit? and than what is a unit? You cant make 2 pencils and 2 books equal 4 books or 4 pencils but they do equal 4 units. so really 2+2=4 units but what those units are is up to u. [/B]

Bad logic.

Doesn't matter if you change the units. The end result or "truth" will always remain the same. As you stated we will always end up with 4 total units..and those 4 units will always be made up of 2 pencils and 2 books.

Ex.

b & d = constant units
a & c = changing units

(b)(a) + (b)(c) = b(a +c)

d = b(a + c)

Even if you change the value of a or c...

d = b(a + c).

So in lamans terms...regardless of how many times you change the value of "a" and "c".."d" still remains the same.

Noooooooooo....This is still going on???????????

OK...depending on the depth of reality the sum will be different.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Impossible to prove a negative. See Omega's Flying Reindeer explination.

Erhem...

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Those of you who believe in "Relative Truths." Please provide for me an explanation..as to how the mathmetical equation.

2 + 2 = 4

Is a relative truth.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

the title is a bit oxymoronic..but if you read the bottom of the initial post again..I believe that will clears things up... 😄

Originally posted by debbiejo
Noooooooooo....This is still going on???????????

OK...depending on the depth of reality the sum will be different.

Also, if you assume something is true, like math, then it is true. Math is no different then time (clocks). Another system invented by people to do a function that is assumed to be true.

BTY Deb, nice to see you here again. 😄

well... 2+2 dont =4 because when you put two and two together they make 22 not 4 so it cant be four thats impossible. the only way to get 4 is to add 0 and 4.

It's only perception then.....otherwise what makes since for comprehension in a relative way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, if you assume something is true, like math, then it is true. Math is no different then time (clocks). Another system invented by people to do a function that is assumed to be true.

Well first off..you are making another contradictory argument towards the idea of relativism, by taking an "absolute" stance to a particular argument.

In addition to that..I'd like to know where you were at the beginning of time, and how you know that Math/Time etc were developed by human beings?

Answer these questions whichever way you like..but with every absolute stance you take on an argument..you only further prove the existence of "absolutes"..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well first off..you are making another contradictory argument towards the idea of relativism, by taking an "absolute" stance to a particular argument.

In addition to that..I'd like to know where you were at the beginning of time, and how you know that Math/Time etc were developed by human beings?

Answer these questions whichever way you like..but with every absolute stance you take on an argument..you only further prove the existence of "absolutes"..

You first...

You have to answer my question from earlier, and then I'll entertain a question from you.

If not, Oh Well!...

You can't answer a question like this.....It's perception....just like the view of god and such things.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have to answer my question from earlier, and then I'll entertain a question from you.

Good try..but it's a silly question, just meant to assist the "credibility" of your arguments, and degrade the credibility of mine.

FYI The question was already answered by Wonderer in a round a bout way. So do you agree with Wonderer Shaky? Are Buddhists Relativists?

Does the Buddhist argument of...

"Everyone has there own path."

Sound similar to the Relativist argument of..

"Everyone has there own truth."

Switch the words "truth" and "path" around in each expression Shaky..and then apply your common sense to what you read/interpret. I hope I have given you some "enlightenment" my friend.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good try..but it's a silly question, just meant to assist the "credibility" of your arguments, and degrade the credibility of mine.

FYI The question was already answered by Wonderer in a round a bout way. So do you agree with Wonderer Shaky? Are Buddhists Relativists?

Does the Buddhist argument of...

"Everyone has there own path."

Sound similar to the Relativist argument of..

"Everyone has there own truth."

Switch the words "truth" and "path" around in each expression Shaky..and then apply your common sense to what you read/interpret. I hope I have given you some "enlightenment" my friend.

If my question was silly, you can imagine what I think about your questions. If you don’t know the answer, that’s ok. I know you have never studied Buddhism, so it is no surprise that you are wrong about Buddhism. If you are wrong about one thing, you might be wrong about something else. I think you don’t know any absolute truth, if you did you would just show it to us. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If my question was silly, you can imagine what I think about your questions. If you don’t know the answer, that’s ok.

So I'm assuming that your answer is "yes." Buddhists are indeed Relativists. Don't be ashamed of being proven wrong. Except your defeat like a man..and move on.

I know you have never studied Buddhism, so it is no surprise that you are wrong about Buddhism. If you are wrong about one thing, you might be wrong about something else. I think you don’t know any absolute truth, if you did you would just show it to us. 😄

Regardless of my knowledge of Buddhism..It is apparent that one of us..does at least have an understanding of basic arithmetic..😆 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So I'm assuming that your answer is "yes." Buddhists are indeed Relativists. Don't be ashamed of being proven wrong. Except your defeat like a man..and move on.

Regardless of my knowledge of Buddhism..It is apparent that one of us..does at least have an understanding of basic arithmetic..😆 😆

How old are you?