Quote:

Don't get confused by using the same words over and over again.



I think I've used that sentence about 8 times now. I need to stop.

Quote:

Absolutism might be the opposite of relativism linguistically, that still doesn't prove it actually exists, it's just that we made up what it's opposition would be called.



Its the opposite of it logically. The linguistics are just symbols and patterns assigned to reality so that our brains can grasp it.

In some ways, black is the opposite of white. Just because we assign words to these colors, doesn't mean that black and white don't exist. It just means that we, in our limited capacity, need such constructs to understand the world.

Quote:

Relativism can't be absolute, it would have had to be called absolutism instead in that case, and it's not.



Yes, that's what I've been saying. But you don't take it to its logical conclusion. If relativism isn't true, then its false. But if its true, then its also false, because then that's an absolute. I hate having to repeat myself like this, but I don't see how you're not making the connection.

Quote:

Why would something be absolutely true?



Something may be absolutely true if all the opposing alternatives are false. In morals, this may be that homosexuality is wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, no matter what, then that's an unchanging absolute. Of course, I'm not going to get into determining sources of absolutes like this, because then that will get into a debate over the validity of the bible and all that. Which is an ok debate to have, but right now, I have to establish that relativism is logically wrong so that we're playing in the right ball park. Then we can decide if the bible is the source of moral absolutes and stuff like that.

Quote:

Is it possible to even determine what's truth and what's not beyond any reasonable doubt? I'd say truth itself is 100% relative, stating something is true is relative, it all depends on the gathered knowledge and know-how.



Perhaps, but I think that's beyond where I'd like the focus to be. But, the way I see it, its our understanding of Truth that's relative, not truth itself.

Quote:

I simply know relativism exists, it's everywhere. The amount of knowledge (in general and individually), (linked) events/action/reaction, chance, choices, emotions, language, intelligence, perspectives. There's no absolute in any of those, it's really all relative.



Hm. This could be a debate in itself because much of these are rock solid absolutes. A lot of nature is absolute. A green light is green, whether or not the viewer observes it as green. I can't exist and not exist at the same time. Etc.

Quote:

The fact that all is relative is not absolute, and this is not contradicting at all, even if it may seem so.



Ok, this is kind of where you need to be at this point. But you still need to make your case. Otherwise all you've done is state an opinion here. If its absolutely true that truth is relative, then why isn't that contradicting? If it isn't absolutely true that truth is relative, then why isn't relativism false?

I could switch up your statement here without changing its meaning. "The fact that relativism is absolute is not absolute."

Quote:

No, mathematics, laws and logic are all based upon compromises, we have agreed upon those rules, those agreements are relative. Just because we've decided 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's actually true.



Hm.

Hmmmmm.

What we've agreed on are the symbols and language to apply to mathematics. However, the principles of mathematics are transcendant. You can say there are three cubes, tres cubes, (1+2) cubes, III cubes, or whatever you want. While the symbols and language of each of those examples is different, they're all true (assuming there really are three cubes). The truth of the existence of thoes three cubes can be described by language, but is no dependent on language.

Quote:

Exactly the same goes for logic. A bit more complicated though, because it's based upon learned rules mixed with 'reason', both can determine once's "logic" (you may not always agree with those 'learned rules', in that case 'reason' tells you to think different, IF you are using your brains and don't think like the big masses ).




Logic would have to exist or we would never have discovered mathematics. Again, its how we apply logic (on a person-to-person basis) that's relative. Not logic itself.

If logic wasn't absolute, then there should be any number of ways to solve a sudoku puzzle, actually sudoku puzzles wouldn't even be possible. So on and so forth.

Quote:

I see, however prove to me absolute things exist. You will find out it's impossible. The only thing that may be absolute, is it's non-existance hahahaha,




Then that would be an absolute and you would just have proved that absolutes exist.

I'm not out to 'prove the existence' of absolutes. What I'm trying to do is show that relativism isn't logically consistent, which makes it little more than 'junk philosophy.' Although, the reason I think its so prevailent is that its the 'logical' step one might make if they're a secular evolutionist (just being an atheist would probably suffice, but I don't know of any that aren't evolutionists), because then there's no source for absolutes.

However, I can prove that absolutes must exist (even if we don't know what they are) by proving that relativism is false. Therefore, I'm trying to prove relativism is false.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/14/06 19:58.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."