tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post8409602411027838902..comments2009-03-12T21:29:50.070-04:00flobinoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-36893086306489026832009-03-12T21:29:00.000-04:002009-03-12T21:29:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking about this a bit longer and I think that I could say that my previous comment is referencing and applies to any "relative truth" that is in any way opposed to an "absolute truth." By "absolute truth" I am referring to the concept that the entirety of existence is non-contradictory, that is, nothing in existence can be true while something

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-80788413472356361632009-03-11T12:24:00.000-04:002009-03-11T12:24:00.000-04:00

Considering the many definitions of truth and relative, making any definition would likely require an encyclopedia length article and none would likely be acceptable to everyone (especially proponents of relative truth, specifically because of their acceptance of such). Perhaps you could provide me a definition for relative truth about which my article does not apply.

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-21402243612639741312009-02-21T13:18:00.000-05:002009-02-21T13:18:00.000-05:00

Can you define what it is you are arguing against, relative truth, and provide a couple of examples? It sounds like you've developed a straw man position to argue against.<BR/><BR/>Thanks in advance for your help!

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.com