There's no absolute truth? Are you absolutely sure?

[jasoncran]

so it is do degree with god. if he created the universe, he choose the order in which it would work. i mean why the laws that govern physics and other things.? why but they are what they are.

if we considered the law on contradiction to be situational then isnt that statement abosulute as well

ie theres no truth. is that relative as well?

 

[logical bob]

ie theres no truth. is that relative as well?

Yes it is, as I tried to explain in the OP and in my answer to Free.

 

[LaMont Cranston]

logical bob, I am a new member of this forum, and I am interested in this subject. It seems to me that you start with a certain assumption, that everything in life can be explained logically. Just how do you know that this is true? On other forums, I have engaged in conversations with many atheists and skeptics who would like to believe that they are rational and logical. From what I've seen, their thinking is much more wishful than it is logical.

In my experience, there are many things that do not conform to the parameters of logic, including love.
Or, as somebody who advertises himself as logical, you must be familiar with probability, correct? I've got to ask you, just how logical and/or probable is it that an unknown teacher from a remote part of the Roman Empire who was nailed to a cross would have the impact on human history that Jesus has had for 2000 years?

At the time there were other religious movements and would-be messiahs that had larger followings. Still, as improbable as it seems, Christianity made it and those other movements faded away. I've had some skeptic types say things like "Christianity caught some lucky breaks,' or "Constantine or some others made the whole thing happen." Sorry, I'm not buying it. From what I can tell, the reason that the words and deeds of Jesus have had the impact they've had is that the message is that powerful.

I have a life-life interest in the sciences, and I do the best that I can to keep up with the latest developements in science. (In my youth, I was something of a math and chemistry whiz.) One of the things I'm constantly reminded of is how little science can actually explain and how little agreement there is, even among the most brilliant minds on the planet, about such things as the Big Bang, gravity, time, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, string theory, abiogenesis and a host of other things.

I have a friend who is a physics professor, a man with impeccable credentials. We are in a writer's group together and have breakfast two times a month. Recently he said something about how scientists can carry on with all of the theories about how things came to be the way they are, but, on the level that we live our lives, Newtonian physics is valid something like 99.99999.... per cent of the time. OK, so there may be no absolute truth, but those percentages are pretty good for me!

What's also true is that in our lives we get to make decisions that are absolute. Many of us find that it is much better to act with love instead of hate, to be kind instead of angry, to be forgiving instead of vengeful. Not only that, these are things that we can prove for ourselves through real life experience in the laboratory that is our lives. Once we have proven these things to ourselves, they actually do be absolutes.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[jasoncran]

bob, you negated the whole argument if the very argument all truth is relevant, is revelant itself

that thinking has lead to some horendus justification of evil. ie situation ethics

well its ok to kill here as that saves a lot lives as that one is an inconvience person to keep alive or such like.

 

[logical bob]

logical bob, I am a new member of this forum, and I am interested in this subject.

Hi, good to talk to you.

It seems to me that you start with a certain assumption, that everything in life can be explained logically.

Not at all, what makes you say that?

In my experience, there are many things that do not conform to the parameters of logic, including love.

In mine too. If you go back to page 2 of this thread and look for my post that includes an image of Barbara Kruger's "You are not yourself" you'll see me arguing that logical truths are not absolute.

Or, as somebody who advertises himself as logical, you must be familiar with probability, correct?

Perhaps you're making assumptions based on my username rather than on what I'm saying. I do understand some probability though, yes.

I've got to ask you, just how logical and/or probable is it that an unknown teacher from a remote part of the Roman Empire who was nailed to a cross would have the impact on human history that Jesus has had for 2000 years?

At the time there were other religious movements and would-be messiahs that had larger followings. Still, as improbable as it seems, Christianity made it and those other movements faded away. I've had some skeptic types say things like "Christianity caught some lucky breaks,' or "Constantine or some others made the whole thing happen." Sorry, I'm not buying it. From what I can tell, the reason that the words and deeds of Jesus have had the impact they've had is that the message is that powerful.

In my view Christianity's rise to dominance was very improbable and did indeed depend on some lucky breaks, especially the conversion of Constantine. If that hadn't happened then I don't see what would have prevented Christianity falling by the wayside like all the other messianic movements and mystery cults of the period. What's not to buy?

At an early stage, however, Christianity absorbed a great deal of Greek, and especially Neoplatonic, thinking through men such as Paul, Origen and Augustine. After the collapse of the Roman Empire Christianity was one of the means by which classical learning survived the Dark Ages and was carried forward. (Another was Islam, which preserved works of Aristotle lost in the west. When they were rediscovered, Thomas Aquinas rose to the challenge of incorporating Aristitotelian ideas into Christianity. It's probably no coincidence that, before this, Islamic civilisation was considerably more advanced.) I think this is what made Christianity so powerful. If the cult that became dominant had been a different one, for example the cult of John the Baptist which survives to the present (it's called Mandeanism), these classical ideas would probably still have survived, they would just have been set in a slightly different theological context.

I agree that the message of Christianity was powerful, but I should hardly have to tell you that powerful doesn't equate to true. Islam, Marxism, gnosticism and lots of other messages are powerful too.

One of the things I'm constantly reminded of is how little science can actually explain and how little agreement there is, even among the most brilliant minds on the planet, about such things as the Big Bang, gravity, time, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, string theory, abiogenesis and a host of other things.

I agree. Science is a work in progress, not a finished product. But there's now near total agreement on things that were once controversial, so in 200 years perhaps all scientists will agree on the controversies of today and be in dispute about something we haven't thought of yet.

I have a friend who is a physics professor, a man with impeccable credentials. We are in a writer's group together and have breakfast two times a month. Recently he said something about how scientists can carry on with all of the theories about how things came to be the way they are, but, on the level that we live our lives, Newtonian physics is valid something like 99.99999.... per cent of the time. OK, so there may be no absolute truth, but those percentages are pretty good for me!

I agree with your friend, and if you agree that there's no absolute truth then we're pretty much all in agreement.

As an aside, Newton is good enough to land on the moon, but Newton couldn't explain the orbit of Mercury and GPS can't be made to work using Newtonian physics. From the day in 1919 when Eddington observed light being bent by gravity it was clear that Newton's theory is a useful tool, not the truth.

What's also true is that in our lives we get to make decisions that are absolute. Many of us find that it is much better to act with love instead of hate, to be kind instead of angry, to be forgiving instead of vengeful. Not only that, these are things that we can prove for ourselves through real life experience in the laboratory that is our lives. Once we have proven these things to ourselves, they actually do be absolutes.

I completely agree with this. We make our moral absolutes for ourselves... in a relative kind of way, of course.

 

[LaMont Cranston]

logical bob, OK, if I misinterpreted you regarding how logical it is to think that everything can be explained logically, I apologize. It's just that I've run into quite a few atheists, many of whom are very nice people, and I've had a chance to examine pretty much every piece of atheist rhetoric that's out there. I find that although many atheists have put together well constructed arguments to support their worldview, I can punch holes in all of those arguments. At this point, I can't tell if you are an atheist, agnostic or whatever, but you do advertise youself as "not a Christian." and, generally speaking, I think that people are entitled to believe whatever it is they do or do not believe. I am more interested in how they support their set of arguments.

I get it that you used Barbara Kruger's "You Are Not Yourself" as an example. I had never heard of this woman, and it appears that she is a fairly well known artist. However, it seems to me that that particular piece begs the question "If you are not yourself, then just who are you?" I would be interested to hear what Ms. Kruger or you have to say regarding the answer to this question.

From my understanding of history, Christianity was pretty well established by the time of Constantine's conversion. It's easy to speculate on all those things in history that might be different if an event never happened (i.e. Suppose the Japanese had never attacked Pearl Harbor? Suppose Hitler had put his full attention on defeating the English instead of sending his troops off to conquer the Soviet Union?) While we can speculate on all of these things, the point is that what happened happened. Christianity became the most powerful set of beliefs on the planet, and despite its critics, detractors and those who have commited truly horrible deeds in the name of Jesus, the teaching of Jesus are still at play, after 2000 years, on a global scale.

Ideas come with a certain power or energy. Let's consider Jefferson's words "All men are created equal."
I get it that he didn't fall out of bed one morning and come up with the idea. It has its roots going back to Greek philosophers, Jesus, Rousseau, Locke and others. Those words are very powerful, and they have swept the world. Virtually every government, no matter how corrupt or oppressive, gives at least some lip service to those words and other democratic principles.

On the other hand, Marxism and the governing systems that came into being based on Marxist ideas have pretty much come and gone. In places like the former Soviet Union, China and Latin America, it has been found that some form of captialism works better than communism. Yes, there are powerful ideas at play in the world, and some ideas are much more powerful than others.

In regard to Newton, I'd have to say that his ideas about the physical universe are the truth on a certain level, and that level is valid most of the time. The concepts that come from Einstein, quantam mechanics, philosophy and other areas of humanity's desire to better understand how we and everything else came to be the way it presently exists are also part of the truth. Does that make them relative? OK, then, they are relative, but if something works, say, 99.99999 per cent of the time, I like those odds.

I look forward to continuing our conversation.

 

[LaMont Cranston]

logical bob, One more thing...

I'm not going to deny that luck is a factor in what has transpired in human history. From what I can tell, some people and ideas have much more of a propensity for being in the right place at the right time than others. What I've also found to be true is that those people who do their homework, prepare themselves for whatever possibilities they can foresee and have positive attitudes tend to be a lot more lucky...or have many more fortuitous things happen to them...than those people who act with hate, anger and violence.

Jesus talked about "casting bread upon the waters." In my experience, if you cast love, you have a much better chance of getting love back in return. If you cast hate, there's an excellent chance that you will have more hate in your life. There's nothing lucky about that; it's just common sense.

 

[logical bob]

I'm certainly happy to continue our conversation, though we don't seem to be in much disagreement here. We agree that luck plays a role in history and that there's limited value in playing "what if." We agree that scientific theories are extremely useful things even if they don't qualify as absolute truths.

On the history point, I think that prior to AD 312 Christians made up about 15% of the Emprire's population, predominantly among the urban poor. Within 80 years Christianity had become the state religion. I don't think you can deny that the conversion of Constantine was an extremely pivotal moment. Had he attributed his vision on the eve of battle to a different god the world today would be a very different place.

 

[LaMont Cranston]

logical bob, It does appear that we agree on quite a few things. When it comes to playing the "what if" game regarding history, everything is speculation about what might have happened. One of my points is that what happened happened, what exists exists. In human history there is always a status quo, and somebody...Jesus, Gutenberg, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, Jefferson, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, etc...comes along with an idea or an invention and changes the way that virtually everybody perceives the state of existence.

I'm told that it's pretty well documented that a British soldier had a clear shot at George Washington in the Revolutionary War. For some reason, and I don't remember why, that soldier didn't shoot GW. Or, if the South had won the Civil War, would slavery still exist on American soil?

Those ideas and concepts that prevail seem to do so for a reason, and it appears to me that they prevail because, ultimately, they have some kind of more universal appeal that those ideas that do not. In the short term, it may seem that those ideas that are based on hate and negativity are destined to win out over such things as love, kindness and compassion. However, it has been demonstrated to me time and time again that gentleness is a sign of strength, not weakness, and love is much stronger than hate.

 

[Danus]

What is truth?

by Matt Slick

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/r ... what-truth

"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.

The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.

But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:8).

In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.

In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.
Again, what is truth?

If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know it is true that you are reading this.

Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes, there is. For example, "Something cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it didn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth.

The preceding example is a truth found in logic, but there are truths that are not logical by nature. It is true that I love my wife. This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, true. Therefore, we can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic.

Is this what relativism does? Does relativism confirm to reality and logic? To be honest, it does to some degree. Relatively speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all. To this we must concede relative "truths" that are different for different people. But, these are relativistic by nature. Examples of relativistic truths are: 1) people drive on the right side of the street in America and the left in England; 2) I prefer to watch science fiction over musicals; 3) snow is better than rain, etc. These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences, etc., and rightfully so.

If we ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God.
"I am the truth"

For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, rose from the dead, and said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him.

The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. Either you believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true?

Truth conforms to reality. Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/r ... what-truth

 

[logical bob]

Hi Danus, and thanks for posting that article.

I followed the link and looked at some of Matt Slick's other articles on relativism. Sadly, at the top of his article "What is relativism?" he defines it as "the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid." That certainly isn't the relativism I'm talking about. That would make the view that the moon is made of green cheese as valid as the view that it's made of rock. Clearly that's nonsense. The view that being hit by a bus hurts is more valid than its opposite. Slick's relativist would be killed as soon as he left the house.

I'm afraid it's a big strawman. Slick is criticising a made-up philosophy held by no-one. If I could correct his definition, relativism is the philosophical position that the truth of a proposition depends on its context.

Slick gives a huge amount of space to Zeno's paradox - I'm not sure why. The infinite sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is assigned the value of 1 because as the number of terms increases it approaches 1 as a limit. It's part of the first lesson in any high school course on calculus. I don't know why Slick finds it so profound.

But Slick does offer what he thinks is an absolute truth, so let's have a look at that: "Something cannot bring itself into existence."

It looks promising because you don’t usually see things bringing themselves into existence. But have you see the rather excellent film The Terminator? In a future war, an assassin is sent back in time to kill the rebel leader’s mother before he’s even born. The leader is able to send back a lone fighter to protect his mother, the predictable thing happens and this man becomes the leader’s father. So by sending him back, the leader brings himself into existence.

OK, it’s fiction, but it’s an internally consistent context in which Slick’s statement doesn’t hold. Yes, some people sit through such films saying “well that’s impossible†but we generally think they’re missing the point. The impossibility thing is relevant in some contexts, but not this one.

Also, physicists don’t rule out time travel as a theoretical possibility, so you never know…

And speaking of weird science – virtual particles. These are pairs of a particle and the corresponding anti-particle that pop into existence for a brief moment and then annihilate each other. It happens throughout space all the time. In a bizarre way, the energy which powers the creation of these particles is the energy given off by their later destruction. I’d hesitate to say that these particles bring themselves into existence, but at a quantum level what we think of as obvious simply fails to apply. I suspect that here Slick’s statement is too vague to be scientifically assessed. At the particle level, what does it mean to “bring itself into existence?â€

In the context of mythology, the Phoenix and Ouroboros, the serpent that eats its own tail, are concepts that explore the idea of self-creation. Again, you don’t approach mythology saying “that’s logically impossible.†You need to see the symbolism.

The existentialist philosophers were fond of saying that man creates himself. Again, you may disagree with them, but if you simply dismiss that concept as absolutely false you haven’t understood what was said.

All in all, Slick’s statement is a good example of a relative truth that makes perfect sense taken in context but doesn’t apply to other contexts.

Slick ends by saying that if we seek truth that “transcends culture and individual inclinations†then we seek God. I think he’s nearly right – I’d say that we seek God because we long for transcendent truth. Of course, the fact that people tend to want something doesn’t mean that it exists.

 

[Danus]

Hi Danus, and thanks for posting that article.

I followed the link and looked at some of Matt Slick's other articles on relativism. Sadly, at the top of his article "What is relativism?" he defines it as "the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid." That certainly isn't the relativism I'm talking about. That would make the view that the moon is made of green cheese as valid as the view that it's made of rock. Clearly that's nonsense. The view that being hit by a bus hurts is more valid than its opposite. Slick's relativist would be killed as soon as he left the house.

I'm afraid it's a big strawman. Slick is criticising a made-up philosophy held by no-one. If I could correct his definition, relativism is the philosophical position that the truth of a proposition depends on its context.

Slick gives a huge amount of space to Zeno's paradox - I'm not sure why. The infinite sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is assigned the value of 1 because as the number of terms increases it approaches 1 as a limit. It's part of the first lesson in any high school course on calculus. I don't know why Slick finds it so profound.

But Slick does offer what he thinks is an absolute truth, so let's have a look at that: "Something cannot bring itself into existence."

It looks promising because you don’t usually see things bringing themselves into existence. But have you see the rather excellent film The Terminator? In a future war, an assassin is sent back in time to kill the rebel leader’s mother before he’s even born. The leader is able to send back a lone fighter to protect his mother, the predictable thing happens and this man becomes the leader’s father. So by sending him back, the leader brings himself into existence.

OK, it’s fiction, but it’s an internally consistent context in which Slick’s statement doesn’t hold. Yes, some people sit through such films saying “well that’s impossible†but we generally think they’re missing the point. The impossibility thing is relevant in some contexts, but not this one.

Also, physicists don’t rule out time travel as a theoretical possibility, so you never know…

And speaking of weird science – virtual particles. These are pairs of a particle and the corresponding anti-particle that pop into existence for a brief moment and then annihilate each other. It happens throughout space all the time. In a bizarre way, the energy which powers the creation of these particles is the energy given off by their later destruction. I’d hesitate to say that these particles bring themselves into existence, but at a quantum level what we think of as obvious simply fails to apply. I suspect that here Slick’s statement is too vague to be scientifically assessed. At the particle level, what does it mean to “bring itself into existence?â€

In the context of mythology, the Phoenix and Ouroboros, the serpent that eats its own tail, are concepts that explore the idea of self-creation. Again, you don’t approach mythology saying “that’s logically impossible.†You need to see the symbolism.

The existentialist philosophers were fond of saying that man creates himself. Again, you may disagree with them, but if you simply dismiss that concept as absolutely false you haven’t understood what was said.

All in all, Slick’s statement is a good example of a relative truth that makes perfect sense taken in context but doesn’t apply to other contexts.

Slick ends by saying that if we seek truth that “transcends culture and individual inclinations†then we seek God. I think he’s nearly right – I’d say that we seek God because we long for transcendent truth. Of course, the fact that people tend to want something doesn’t mean that it exists.

Your making his point completely.

Matt is saying that Relativism cannot be clearly defined by any standard. However, He, like myself, Differentiate God as truth alone, and that that truth stands on it's own regardless of what You, or I, or Matt even thinks about it.

Yours, and other atheist view of morality, begins and ends with you, or what you agree with. It's different for Christians, Jews, Muslims and even virtually all other religions for the most part, who see truth as existing outside of themselves. a place where truth is bigger than ones self or even mankind.

This whole discussion as an argument pretty much stops there for the atheist. If we where on a quest to find "truth", we'd have had to let you off journey early, while the rest of us move on to define what path leads to the truth we know exist beyond ourselves.

 

[logical bob]

Not necesarily, the atheist would obviously choose science to find absolute truth, and while you and I maight have to let him off, he would simply hop on boat travelling a parallel path.

No, Danus is correct. Nobody who understands science would claim it deals in absolute truth. As for your earlier claim that the conservation of energy has something to do with the survival of the soul, sorry but no. Science speaks exclusively about what can be quantified and measured. Unless you think you can measure the soul, science has nothing to say on the subject.

If you're off searching for absolute truth you will indeed have to let me off early, which is no hardship as I'm confident you're on a wild goose chase.

Danus, sadly you didn't respond to any of the points I made in my response to Slick's essay. You merely asserted again that you know you're right.

Matt is saying that Relativism cannot be clearly defined by any standard.

Sorry? If he doesn't think relativism can be defined why does he give a one sentence definition of it at the beginning of his article "What is relativism?"

 

[jasoncran]

is the toe or anything absolute in your pov, bob. even your name is that also relative?

 

[Danus]

Danus, sadly you didn't respond to any of the points I made in my response to Slick's essay. You merely asserted again that you know you're right.

Sadly indeed, but I have my reasons for not doing so.

I was once an atheist Bob. I once looked at organized religions, God and Christianity as nothing more than a means to control the masses; a kettle of confusion to which I wanted no part of. Truth I felt, could be better found distancing myself from all of it.

If we have all these religions and all these people claiming truth, who is right? I felt that if absolute truth could not be known since so many different truths seem to be floating around then why hold to anyone of them?

The answer to that is evidence. But where to get such evidence?

So, do I claim to hold absolute truth? No, not really, but I know it exist. I know it's source to be God reveled through the holly bible and exemplified through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Can I prove it to you? NO.....that's the sad part. All I can do is point to it.

If I said I had ice cream that was the best I've ever tasted; I could describe it, tell you where to get it, but you could not fully be in agreement with me until you tasted it yourself.

I'll admit that a spoon full of ice cream is not the same as a spoon full of Jesus , but maybe it's similar in that I came to know Christ by being willing to try and taking a spoon full at a time and comparing that to other beliefs, or understandings. That's a process where one finds things they can know and things to wrestle with.

God's Truth has similarities that cross other religions, and can even be found in the secular world, but accepting truth and it's source requires an effort and willingness that means letting the source of that truth truly guide your efforts.

That's often where the journey stops for an atheist; in that unwillingness to at least reach out hold God's hand. Seems a simple thing to do, and although I know it can be difficult, I also know that doing so will not harm you; and that doing so will begin a far grater journey than you can possibly take on your own to seek absolute truth.

I am encouraging you to try it.

Matt is saying that Relativism cannot be clearly defined by any standard.

Sorry? If he doesn't think relativism can be defined why does he give a one sentence definition of it at the beginning of his article "What is relativism?"

Look at how you're twisting my words here.....I said "clearly defined by any standard. " Each word used means something, and gains further definition when placed together with other words in what we call "Context of meaning"....you know this