There are NO Absolutes. There is NO Absolute Truth!
Some people may be surprised to discover tons of self-professed Messiahs of Philosophy on the Internet, especially on YouTube. What is not surprising is that almost none of them have bothered to educate themselves on the 2500-year-old Philosophical concept called the “absolute”. These Priests of Philosophy have no qualms about claiming that there are “absolutes” or “absolute truth”. What kills their claims is that they cannot define the key words that make or break their argument: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’. They are merely parroting what they heard from the grapevine:
“ummm, duh,....are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? See, gotcha....there are absolutes. Also, that there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement. Ha ha, gotcha again, I win!”
These Priests of Philosophy are quick to break out the bottle of champagne in celebration of the argument which they won in their own mind. But, they are quite embarrassed when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to define “absolute” and “truth”. What is funnier is that they cannot even give a single example of a statement which resolves to absolute truth.
And more embarrassing for them is that their silly childish questions are not even arguments....THEY ARE TRICKS! These trick questions have a very simple ANTIDOTE. Click on this link to see their tricks exposed:
This article exposes the Religion of The Absolute. You will understand why the "absolute" is the Hallmark of Religion and the Opium of Fanatics. We will explain why the word “absolute” ultimately resolves as a synonym of the word RELATIVE. Furthermore, you will understand why these Priests of Philosophy don’t want you to read this article and understand the critical analytical issues behind the words “absolute” and “truth”. Your ignorance is their blessing. After all, they have surreptitiously fooled you into having FAITH in absolutes; so they do deserve some credit.
WHAT IS TRUTH?
The word “truth” is a concept which has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is unwittingly used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements.
But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labelled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such.
Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?
A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!
Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Your Priest may have convinced YOU of the truth for God, dark matter, black holes, warped space and energy, but he hasn’t convinced your neighbor. Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the Priest had his way with you while you were in the confession box.
For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself.
Remember: TRUTH = OPINION.
Those who disagree, all they need to do is answer the following questions for the audience:
1) What magical means do they use to resolve their statement as being TRUE? Do they use their sensory system? Do they vote on the issue? Do they ask their Priest, God or a higher authority to decide?
2) Is it TRUE that TRUTH is correct? What standard does one use as a benchmark for testing and evaluating TRUTH to be correct? They obviously cannot use truth!!!
Anybody wanna step in the lion’s den and answer these questions for the audience? Are you scared to answer because you will expose your Religion of Truth, or because you don’t know? Be honest with yourself.
WHAT IS AN ABSOLUTE?
The term “absolute” is a Philosophical concept which has had a standard meaning since its first human conception. This article uses the standard Philosophical meaning of the “absolute”. Let’s have a quick look at the standard Philosophical definition and usage of this word in the past 2500 years by citing some references. Note that this is not an argument from authority, as this article does NOT use these references to justify any argument. These references are simply used to justify the CONTEXT of what this article is about; i.e. the standard Philosophical concept of the “absolute”.
“Absolute in Philosophy: A value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.”
The Free Dictionary:
“Absolute in Philosophy: Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.”
“Absolute in Philosophy: that which is totally unconditioned.”
New World Encyclopedia:
“Absolute in Philosophy: The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense.”
“Absolute in Philosophy: The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative.”
When the term ‘absolute’ qualifies another term (like truth) it decrees that term to be free from any relations, dependencies or restrictions. “Unconditional” and “without relations” means that the qualified term must necessarily be applicable to EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! An absolute has no constraints on time, places, people or any other concepts or objects.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth
“In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as universalizable. Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute.”
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner
From New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Absolute_(philosophy)
“Greek philosophers did not explicitly elaborate on the absolute, but, the idea of an ultimate principle drove their inquiries forward. In addition, while medieval philosophers did not use the term absolute, their thoughts on God were the first explicit elaborations on the absolute. Major philosophers who have dealt with the Absolute include the German Idealists such as Schelling, Kant, and Hegel, and British philosophers such as Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton, Bernard Bosanquet, Francis Bradley, and Thomas Hill Green, and American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce.”
“Plato identified the good, which he characterized as permanently existing by itself in the incorporeal world, as the ultimate principle. The good, for Plato, was the absolute. Its goodness was, he argued, established by itself without recourse to any other thing whatsoever.”
“Aristotle placed a study of god (theology) as the first philosophy for the reason that it deals with the “unmoved mover” of all phenomenal. For Aristotle, the ultimate principle [absolute] had to be that which is unconditional and independent, which has no prior condition whatsoever.”
“Absolute means by definition a negation of relativity.”
“When the term absolute is applied to existence, the absolute can be understood as a being whose essence is existence. If the existence of a being is dependent on others, it cannot be absolute. Hence, God was characterized as a unique being whose essence is existence. Anselm of Canterbury used this argument for his Ontological argument for the existence of God.”
So in this context, when the term ‘absolute’ is applied to existence it means ETERNAL. For one to say that “my car exists is absolutely true”....one would have to argue that their car existed eternally. This leads to contradictions. We will see later that “absolute truth” is the Hallmark of Religion because it is necessarily an ETERNAL TRUTH by definition.
“The term absolute denotes whatever is free from any condition or restriction, and independent from any other element or factor. As with other concepts such as infinite, perfection, eternity, and others, absolute can be articulated only by negating finite concepts.”
“German philosophers after Kant such as Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, known as the German idealists, returned to speculative metaphysics and developed various theories based upon their understanding of the absolute. The concept of absoluteness was then adopted into a neo-Hegelian British idealism, where it received an almost mystical exposition at the hands of F.H. Bradley. Bradley (followed by others including Timothy L.S. Sprigge) conceived the absolute as a single all-encompassing experience, along the lines of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta. Likewise, Josiah Roycein the United States conceived the absolute as a unitary Knower whose experience constitutes what we know as the ‘external’ world.”
“As with Spinoza, Hegel attempted to explain the creation of the world without the notion of creation. Hegel developed a pantheistic concept of the absolute and its relationship with the phenomenal world.”
“As in German idealism, the question of absolute/relative is also intertwined with questions of transcendence and immanence.”
For example, Matt Slick of CARM.org blindly asserts that “Logical Absolutes” (a term invented by him) are concepts which transcend space and time.
PHILOSOPHERS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR ABSOLUTES FOR THE PAST 2500 YEARS!!!
Nietzsche states that in light of perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible, so there can be no absolute truth to be known. He writes...
“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” – Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human
“I shall reiterate a hundred times that ‘immediate certainty’, like ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘thing in itself,’ contains a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16).
Even Ludwig Wittgenstein came to the realization later in his life that there are no absolute truths. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche destroyed the notion that humans can ever determine a proposition as being certain in reality or absolute.
In his agonized search to find an absolute, Bertrand Russell crossed paths with legendary Philosophers like Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert, Kurt Gödel, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. But Russell’s most ambitious goal (to establish absolute logical foundations of mathematics) eluded him for the rest of his life. Russell persisted in this fruitless mission (to show that math is absolute) until it threatened to claim both his career and his personal happiness. Russell was so ignorant as to what exactly this God-like term, the “absolute”, entailed....that his relentless pursuit for the absolute finally drove him to the brink of insanity. Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann had the same experience as Russell, but it drove them to commit suicide.
NOTE: The reader is encouraged to watch the “Dangerous Knowledge” video series on YouTube in order understand the intellectual failures that Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann experienced during their pursuit of the “absolute”. It drove them to insanity and suicide....and yet we have Priests on the Internet this very second who preach that they KNOW of "absolute truth". If the Priests of today have "absolute truth", then Russell, Godel, Cantor, Turing and Boltzmann must have been babbling idiots, right??
WHAT IS “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”?
As we have seen, the “absolute” in Philosophy has been conceived by humans to refer that that which is independent, permanent and not subject to any kind of observer, restriction, condition, qualification or relation. It is the antonym of the Philosophical term, the “relative”, which necessitates observers, dependencies, restrictions, references and relations.
So when we put the qualifier of “absolute” in front of the word “truth”,....as in “absolute truth”.... we are actually qualifying the concept of “truth” by necessitating that it is valid in every possible circumstance. This follows directly from the definition of the “absolute”.
Q: So what does “absolute truth” mean?
A: This is an easy question to answer. Just combine these two words and grammatically apply the Philosophical qualification of the “absolute”.
An absolute truth, is a “truth” stemming from a proposition which is VALIDATED by an observer to be TRUE in every possible circumstance. i.e. this proposition is validated to be necessarily TRUE irrespective of any kind of dependency, restriction, qualification or relation which can be conceived by anyone. For...if anyone can conceive of any circumstance in which the proposition is not true, then just what the hell makes it absolute??
So these are the analytical definitions which make all the Absolute Truthers out there run away! It is these issues which make or break a Priest’s insatiable claim that “there are absolutes”. If those Priests, who erroneously call themselves “Philosophers”, had a basic introduction to Philosophy 101, they would understand the Philosophical and analytical ramifications behind the formidable words: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’.
Ignorance is never an excuse. To refuse to acknowledge the Philosophical History behind the “absolute”, and to refuse to concede that they did NOT do their homework on the issue.....well....that is just childish....this is intellectual dishonesty. This is called FRAUD! Nobody should ever mistake these Priests for Philosophers. A real Philosopher can DEFINE the key terms in their argument, and provide a non-contradictory explanation to JUSTIFY their argument.
Ask yourself this: Can YOU justify your argument without contradictions when it comes to asserting absolute truth?
If not, then you are nothing but a Priest. Only Priests make unfounded assertions and have no rational argument to justify them.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TRUTH” AND “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”?
Contrary to what is claimed by the ignorant, all truth is not absolute. There are two different categories conceived by humans:
Truth: This is your regular plain-Jane vanilla “truth”. It is a STATIC truth which must be validated at a cross-section in time; at “this” instant (i.e. now). Suppose you showcase your "already-validated" truth proposition to an audience who doesn’t believe your alleged “truth”. Then your only option is to re-validate your proposition as "true" in front of a live audience and convince them right there and then!
Absolute Truth: An ETERNAL truth which is alleged to be “true forever and ever, Amen!” Absolute truth necessarily needs to be validated for every possible circumstance because it has no restrictions. If at this point you refuse to understand why absolute truth is the Hallmark of Religion, then you obviously have your own Religion to protect....sorry!
WHY ARE ABSOLUTES AND ABSOLUTE TRUTHS IMPOSSIBLE?
Because both the concepts of “absolute” and “truth” are self-refuting BY DEFINITION. They faithfully assert and promise what they cannot deliver. They are contradictory. A contradiction always shows what is impossible. The "absolute" self-refutes itself in 3 crucial categories as explained below:
Since the “absolute” is a concept that is decreed to be free from restriction or condition, it follows that it must NOT have any relations. Otherwise it will be relative to something and not absolute. So any attempt at a definition refutes it!
A: Because a concept is a RELATION.
Concept: A relation between two or more objects.
It takes a human observer to establish relations. Relations don’t get magically self-conceived from the void. God doesn’t wave his magic wand and establish conceptual relations in outer space.
You see, the proponent of the word “absolute” is saying to the audience that this word is supposed to conceptualize “that which has no relations”. That is, an “absolute” implies a stand-alone concept which is free from any relation/dependency or restriction. On the other hand, that which has relations is said to be “relative”.
But....and here is the big BUT that most people do not understand: all words that any living entity can conceive; whether a human, an alien or even God Himself....are necessarily relations.
There is no word that is “stand-alone” without a reference to something else. For if there was such an alleged word, it would have NO meaning. Neither we nor God would even be able to understand what such an alleged word is trying to imply or signify. So even if God tries to invent such a word and call it “absolute”...this word would be meaningless, not only to us, but to God Himself. It is no different than God inventing the word “klamokaptica” as a stand-alone word; i.e. without relating it to something else for the purposes of giving it meaning and contextual resolution. It would be very foolish of God to claim that He understands what it means. Not even God can fool anyone with such claims.
All concepts are necessarily RELATIVE to at least 2 “somethings/nouns”, whether they are objects or other concepts. Without first establishing a relation (i.e. a restrictive point of reference), we cannot even conceive of a concept or even hope to impose a meaning to it.
As a concept, the word “absolute” is necessarily dependent on an observer-established RELATION between two or more objects. Only what is RELATIVE can be subject to RELATIONS. And anything “observer-established” is always “relative” (as opposed to absolute). What is declared as “absolute” should have NO dependencies to established relations. But the concept of “absolute” does have these imposed restrictions! Therefore the “absolute” is a self-refuting (contradictory) concept. It cannot even be conceptualized. It is only dogmatically decreed to be what it is CLAIMED to be. The “absolute” is an impossible concept because it necessarily has conditions/dependencies/relations, ....even though its proponents CLAIM that it doesn’t. This is clearly dishonest because it fools so many people who aren’t able to subject it to a rigorous analysis.
Obviously, the word “absolute” cannot be defined in no ambiguous terms, much less be used consistently in any context. It is impossible to objectively define any word which is free from relations to something else.
Q: What is the reason why any attempted definition of “absolute” is really NOT a definition?
A: For many reasons; some of which are:
1) As explained above, the concept of “absolute” and its context are necessarily dependent of relations.
2) In its attempted definition, the “absolute” is NEGATIVELY predicated. What is negative is always in RELATION to its opposite. So we already have established a relation to something whether we like it or not. Furthermore, it is impossible for negative predicated sentences to describe or define anything. As such, they are meaningless. Only definitions which are predicated in the positive sense can convey a specific meaning. For example: To say your car is not red, you aren’t describing what color your car is. Justice and the number 7 are not red either. Any word you can imagine can be said to be not red and the sentence is SYNTACTICALLY correct. But it is not CONTEXTUALLY correct because it has not attributed anything specific to the subject; i.e. it has no meaning! Other attempted definitions for “absolute” contain negated synonyms. Synonyms, whether negated or not, are NOT definitions. Synonyms are labels which are repetitive; i.e. rhetorical. They convey no meaning.
3) The “absolute” is one of those peculiar contradictory concepts which imply eternity. Why? Because what is said to be absolute is not restricted to any particular time frame. So to claim that a proposition is absolute is to claim that said proposition can be validated to be the case for all of eternity....forever in the past and forever in the future. This is impossible.
So when a dictionary, like Oxford for example, claims that an absolute is “a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things”....then it is contradicting itself. Sure, a person may “regard” or “believe” it to be without relation to other things, but belief doesn’t make it so. In fact, it is impossible because ALL concepts are relations!
Obviously, the proponents of the “absolute” have not given this God-like word any thought, much less any basic analysis. No wonder they parrot this word without even understanding its underlying contradictions.
Q: If it is impossible to conceive of the “absolute” or even define it, then how can anyone possibly validate and resolve something as being absolute? I mean, they don’t even know or understand what an “absolute” is.....so how can they possibly validate an absolute?
A: They can’t! Absolutes are impossible. Now you understand why Priests and Pop-Philosophers run and hide when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to DEFINE “absolute” in no ambiguous terms. Only a dishonest person will refuse to define and justify their argument, or even refuse to concede they were ignorant on the issue.
When we combine the words ABSOLUTE + TRUTH, it is clearly evident that:
a) We are combining two words which are both concepts, and hence, relations. So what we end up with is a concept which is necessarily NOT free from relation. Whenever we use “absolute truth” in a proposition, we are tacitly ascribing relativity to that proposition.
b) We are qualifying the relation TRUTH with the contradictory qualifier ABSOLUTE. We are attempting to impose an impossible attribute or qualifier to “truth”. But the word “truth” is necessarily relational because it invokes an observer who is required to VALIDATE a proposition before he can declare it as “true”. So, what does the qualifier “absolute” demand from an observer’s validation of “truth”? See (c).
c) It is impossible for anyone to validate a proposition in such a way as to show that it is universally valid and WITHOUT relations i.e. valid for EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! It is impossible for a person to validate a proposition to be free from restrictions related to time, to place or to any person (observer). Just how do you propose we can do this? Just how do you propose we can justify a proposition as being “absolute truth”? Do we just have FAITH that it is so? Do we believe a Pop-Philosopher on YouTube who unwittingly claims it to be so? Do we ask our Priest to bless it and make it so? Do we ask God to intervene and force it to be so? I didn’t see your answer to any of these questions!
These are the tough analytical issues that the proponent of “absolute truth” has to understand and explain to the audience. The audience demands objectivity! The audience demands a rational explanation of WHY an alleged statement of “absolute truth”, actually is “as-advertised”. If the proponent cannot demonstrate this to the audience.....if he cannot justify how he VALIDATED such an alleged “absolute” statement to be true in every possible circumstance....then the proponent of “absolute truth” is a snake-oil salesman....a liar, a con-artist. And he should be exposed accordingly!
The proponent of “absolute truth” cannot expect to fool everyone with his bankrupt concept of truth. He certainly cannot fool any intelligent person with his sleight-of-hand tricks. Oh, but he tries....he easily fools those intellectually lazy folks who never bother to critically analyse claims these days. Most people are very comfortable to be spoon-fed everything without questioning it. They have no problem swallowing any claim on faith, including claims of “absolute truth”....as long as it comes from an alleged authority. How sweet is that?
So, what do we objectively have before us after this critical analysis of “absolute truth”?
1. We have rationally demonstrated that the word ABSOLUTE actually resolves to none other than the word RELATIVE when subjected to critical analysis.
2. We have rationally demonstrated that the word TRUTH actually resolves to none other than the word OPINION when subjected to critical analysis.
ABSOLUTE TRUTH objectively resolves to none other than RELATIVE OPINION.
ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!
'Absolute', 'truth', ‘universe’, ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘concept’, etc. are just words in language. We must define them objectively (without synonyms or negative predication) to ensure they are unambiguous and non-contradictory. “Absolute” in Philosophy means independent, permanent, observer-less and not subject to qualification or relation. “Relative” means subject to RELATION(S), dependent on circumstances, context or an observer’s point-of-view. The “absolute” is FAITHFULLY DECREED by Religionists and Pop-Philosophers to be free from relations, circumstances or points of view. The “absolute” is a self-refuting concept because it is dependent on relations, even though it is unwittingly decreed to be relation-free by its proponents.
We already hear the Priests and Pop-Philosophers retorting: “YOU ARE IMPOSING AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD ON THE WORD ABSOLUTE! You are creating an impossible case to prop your argument.”
No! Such accusations are strawmen. These dishonest individuals do not wish to concede defeat. They can’t afford to because it’s embarrassing. The word “absolute” had this standard contradictory meaning imposed on it during its conception, over 2500 years ago. Again, the Priest who acts like a Philosopher needs to educate himself before using strawman arguments to obfuscate his ignorance from the audience. A Philosopher is expected to be an honest, educated, intelligent and rational individual who can grab the bull by the horns and justify his argument for the audience. So-called “Philosophers” who FAITHFULLY DECREE absolutes are not intellectuals. They either need to educate themselves on the definition of “absolute”, or stop lying to the audience....there is no other option!
Any critical thinker can reason and explain why the "absolute" is an irrational and impossible concept. It has enjoyed a faithful, ambiguous and contradictory “rhetorical definition” for the past 2500 years. And this is because most people have not been exposed to the rigorous analysis presented in this article. And even if they are, some will simply ignore it because it destroys their Religion! It's time to bury this faithful nonsensical term. Ignorance is not an excuse. Sophistry and lies will not be tolerated in academia.
ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS THE HALLMARK OF RELIGION
All you have to do is just Google “absolute truth” to begin to get an idea of the cesspool that you are dealing with here. It is not a pretty sight. There is tons of alleged ABSOLUTE TRUTH out there and everybody and their brother seems to have it.....from Religionists like Pat Robertson, Matt Slick.....to atheists like Matt Dillahunty.....to Mathematicians like Stephen Hawking, Godel, Cantor, Turing.....to Philosophers like Bertrand Russell, F.H. Bradley, Ayn Rand.....to self-proclaimed Philosophers like Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio,....etc. But all you have to do is ask any of these Priests to define “absolute truth” or even give a single example of one, and they will run away from the argument with their tails between their legs.
What do all these people and their contradictory doctrines have in common? They are all divorced from reality! Irrespective of whether they call themselves Philosopher, Free-Thinker, theist, atheist or agnostic....there is no difference. They have FAITH in contradictory absolutes, but have no argument to justify their incessant fetish in the “absolute”. What they do have though, is a Religion built around the “absolute”, just like Christianity does.
Ever since Religionists usurped the title of “Philosopher” at the dawn of Christian Apologetics, many people came on board and in-tune with this “Philosophy” (for lack of a better word). Today we have a situation where Atheistic and Theistic Philosophers alike only disagree on the concept of “God”, but are in complete agreement on most other issues....including “absolute truth” and creation. Absolute truth is an impossible concept which was initially conceived by Religionists. They refer to their Bibles and scriptures as the Absolute Truth which was handed to them by God. And rightfully so, because an “absolute truth” is necessarily an ETERNAL TRUTH (has no limitations and is not subject to time) which is true forever and ever, amen! God is alleged to be eternal, and so is His “truth”.
Atheists, on the other hand, BELIEVE that they have access to an absolute truth, but without a God. Atheists will unwittingly claim that “2+2=4” is an Absolute Truth! Meanwhile, they are OBLIVIOUS to the fact that Bertrand Russell (Philosopher & Mathematician Extraordinaire) spent his whole life trying to prove that Mathematics is absolute. So did Godel, Cantor, Turing, Boltzmann and others to no avail. Most of them went insane, were institutionalized and committed suicide.
Both theists and atheists alike are oblivious to the fact that any alleged absolute is self-refuting and impossible. Even their High Priests, like Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, etc. haven’t been able to justify anything as absolute.
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
The word “absolute” is conceptually no different than the word “marriedbachelor”. They are both contradictions.
We have rationally explained why: ABSOLUTE TRUTH = RELATIVE OPINION!
It is very clear that the Internet Personas who profess the doctrine of the “absolute” are ignorant on the Philosophical issue and its ramifications. They are not critical thinkers. They don’t understand the topic nor the arguments that have been revolving around this term for thousands of years. Since the Greeks conceived of it over 2500 years ago, Philosophers have been struggling to this day to demonstrate or "prove" a single absolute. This is profound.
If not a single Philosopher in the past 2500 years has been able to demonstrate or justify a SINGLE absolute, .....then what makes these clowns on the Internet today think that they are blessed with the gift of the “absolute”?
I don't mind to educate people on the basics of Philosophy 101, but at least they should have the intellectual honesty to admit that they are clueless on the issues of the “absolute”. Instead, they are stubborn and blindly march forward as if nothing so they don’t tarnish their reputation and Internet Persona. This is why they run away when a member of the audience stands up and asks the tough question: “Can you please define your God-like terms: absolute & truth?”
Any intelligent person, who claims there are absolutes, should have no problem justifying their claim with a non-contradictory definition of their term, followed by an example of an absolute.