exactly my point, meaning the idea of a duck is ABSOLUTE.
a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing is relative. In order for you to measure something, you measure it relation to something else. Since C is constant the theory of relativity...
Ha! that argument is very old.
Yes, I can prove the Earth is round, simply by taking you up on a mountain, and pointing to the curvature of the horizon. You never said a sphere. you said round.
as far as a sphere, I can prove that too. I can hop on a plane, and fly one lap around the Earth. Presto.
I think you getting your definition from a wikki is the problem here...
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
That is the theory of special relativity per Stanford University. Try arguing with that.
Theory of relativity clearly says that
1 c is constant
2 laws of universe...
reread the post, you jumped the gun
The speed of light IS absolute, and is the same to all observers. This IS the theory of Relativity.
Your position in space-time ( which IS VELOCITY AND POSITION ) is RELATIVE to the SPEED OF LIGHT.
I never suggested people will see the same thing all the...
Einstein's theory uses relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity can be used to prove you wrong though. It IS about absolutes. The theory of relativity says that the Speed of Light, or C, (299,792,458 miles a second) is the SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS. Your position in space time...
No you didn't mix words. I was thinking of a subtle difference in the two ways of putting it. Putting New wine into Old bags, to me, would mean applying my beliefs to an existing religious foundation, until I found something I was hapy with, vs. diriving my own beliefs from an existing religion...
how is the god side of the equation irrelevant when the problem is God knowing God exists? If you take God out of what we are discussing here, you don't have an equation.
That would make a good sig...
Anyway, some atheists respect the rights of others to have faith, or believe in "God" and some don't. We don't all see the religious as fools. I might see those that blindly follow and never question as fools. I won't say that most believers fit into the fool...
how about pouring old wine into new bags? Do you think we are prone to recycling notions and beliefs about "God"?
Wow I just noticed the part about the big bang. Sounds interesting...
glad you beat us to it.
you've been needing one of those.
I don't why you think I should be charting my belief system and propogating my own point of view in a debate forum. A debate forum is meant to encourage discussion, persuasion through reason, illustration and imagination. I don't have...
Anyway, about making up your own deity, god, whatever you call it, I'd also add that I don't think it's possible to absolutely exclude any prior notions of God before you decide. Your own ideas of what constitutes a higher power or supreme being, whatever it is it you, will probably share common...
who said I did?
I'm about 100% sure the album is fake...
the point I'm using it to make is that there is very little difference between the three religions.
the question was posed subjectively, assuming only one position of many, to encourage answers to be more objective.
a question that causes a direct line of reason to surface rather than flop around on the floor. It's an objective question, because it forces you to assume certain things first...
So how would you realate that to a discussion of the role of God in society?
In issues concerning civil rights, and what constitutes a life, you might differ from an atheist, but in matters of "God's Law" you might differ from theists. Is that okay to assume?