self righteous atheists....

What is the difference between a constant and an absolute? If a "thing" is constant, does it not infer that its consistency is absolute? If change was intermittent, then it would not be an absolute. However, despite the randomness (at least percieved randomness) of change it is not intermittent.

If there is always change how can change not be an absolute? Even if change no longer visibly exists and things remain the same, change had to have taken place for that state to incur. Implying that there is still a very specific presence of "change."

 

I suppose what I mean is that there is no ultimate Truth when it comes to the god question. Sure, there are constants like flux, gravity, other various laws of the universe, but they are components that make up a greater whole. As far as I can tell there is no ultimate reality, but rather billions of individual realities governed by the same laws and seen from individual perspectives. If we cannot agree upon an ultimate reality, is there one? Is there a blueprint of existence?

 

idk about THAT...

i like info..

 

Actually, there IS an ultimate truth about God.

Maybe you can't see it, yet,

but it's there.

And when you DO hear it?

You'll KNOW it's the Truth.

Until then,

it's just a nice Once Upon A Time story.

 

I can't disagree with that. I guess I'll just enjoy my time before I figure it out

 

We do think that.

What's too sad?

We aren't really "enjoying";

we're just experiencing.

 

One man's meat is another man's poison.

 

But, of Course!

It's just that poison is poisonous,

and once it's in you?

You're gonna die.

Even worse than that?

You're gonna know EXACTLY why.

 

but I don't like meat :toetap05: >reaches for poison<

 

Oh, sweetie,

you're too young and gorgeous to die!

You MUST keep keeping on ~

for the sake of your fiends here on HF, if nothing else! :rofl:

 

maybe I will live, if only for you Fyrenza.

are you a Texan??

 

Hell, yeah!

Born, but not raised here.

But i came back,

as soon as i could!

i'm one of these flippin' Citizens of the World type of folks ~

i've lived in other countries, and i got to understand that not everyone thinks like Americans ;

even i don't, and i'm an american.

It's sort of weird being around peeps that,

you can speak their language better than they can,

but you still can't explain anything.

That's funny ~ BOTH ways, ha ha and sort of weird...

Ah, well.

 

Gravity is simply a law of physics. Meaning that we've observed a physical behavior that as far as we know (empirically) is universal. We believe that everything in the universe must comply with them in one way or another. Despite how much we want to think of our "laws of physics" as being concrete (absolute) they are merely based off empirical evidence, which is contemporaneously the best way we know of to determine "reality."

The ultimate reality is simply that there is existence in some form or another. Whether or not we fully comprehend it is completely irrelevant to the existence of these various forms of existence themselves. That's not to say I agree with Descartes', "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think therefore I am), because even thought does not always imply a physical presence....or does it? I feel that Cogito, ergo cogito sum (I think, therefore I think I am) is a better way to put it. Literally everything we mentally fathom is influenced by our physical world and everything we observe in the physical vice-versa. So, does thought conclude that we "are?' Does the fact that we can (utilize our senses to) observe not only ourselves but existence as we know it act as proof that we do indeed exist? Maybe we were allowed to possesses cognitive thought in order to discover the "truths" of the universe, but to be honest that'd be just as vain an assumption as believing that a God made us in his image and we are his favorite creation.

You see, it does not matter if there is or isn't an ultimate truth that allows for everything to "make sense," because existence can continue to exist without making that realization (clearly, as we do now).

Change however is an absolute absolute (absolute squared if you will?), it always has and always will be influential in determining how our universe functions. The laws of physics exist because we allow them to...that's right, we've sanctioned their existence in our minds and are now "aware" of them. Otherwise there would be no descriptive words such as "gravity, energy, thermodynamic, and momentum." Would they physically still affect us? Yes, but without an ability to observe and explain them we'd never know they were there. Change's existence does not fall victim to the human construct. Regardless of whether or not we developed an explanation for "change," we would always have a concept of it (aware) as would anything "thing" in existence as it's unquestionable that everything experiences it.