No, my friend, you are making a simple logic blunder. One can achieve the same result with different means. For example, you can get to a destination by driving there with a car, walking there, riding a bike, etc. Thus, the ways of getting at a common destination may differ. In other words, to get to the same absolute truth, there are different paths, just like different means of transport to the same destination.
You are making a simple concept perversely complex. I used to be just like you, so I can see through you.
In order to get to the capital of a city..we have to go in through the city..
Regardless of the direction/mode of travel/distance we are subjected too..we still have to go in through the city...in order to get to the capital.
Understand?
The incongruity of your religion, lies in the assertion that there are other ways to get to the capital..without going through the "city."
Yet another example of the contradictions in relativistic arguments.
Moving on..another challenge to everyone here...
Come up with an explination as to how one can get to a cities capital..without actually going through the city.
__________________ If knowledge is power..how come we have so many idiots in charge?!!
You might be mistaken about the operation of the '+'
You may be mistaken about the number of '**' either side of the equation. That is a vaguery of your perception.
You may be mistaken in thinking the two together actually connect to such a concept as the number 4. For that matter, you might be incorrect to think there is such a thing as the number 4 in the first place.
And you may be mistaken simply in believing such additive logic actually exists.
These are all presumptions you have made. Hence they are not absolute.
Again, whob, prove 2 + 2 IS four without making an assumption- something you have failed to do.
Repeat that exercise with your city question if you like- prove to me first that such a thing is necessary.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Dec 6th, 2005 at 11:40 PM
The fact, observation, or premise from which a reasoning process is begun.
The fundamental principle or underlying concept of a system or theory; a basis. "
This is a dictionary defintion. Again, that is not absolute. There are hundreds of ways in which it might vary from being an absolute. The person who wrote it might be wrong. We might all be reading it wrong. The words used may all be incorrect. The logic behind the entire structure of linguistics that allows dictionaries to exist might be wrong.
These are all perceptions. Perceptions can be flawed. Hence they are not absolute.
hence trying to use a dictionary in an argument to prove absolutes exist is pointless.
You will never do it, whob. You cannot logically prove the existance of absolutes. Anything you say might simply be doubted. Anything at all.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Dec 6th, 2005 at 11:47 PM
KMC Community Forums
Dec 5th, 2005 10:29 PM
