" Do you believe in relative truth? As in, 'his beliefs are just as good as mine'?"

The only criteria we have to judge which theory is a better descriptor of truth is the evidence that the theory is based on. Thus, newtonian physics is not as valid a theory as relativistic physics. (Newtonian physics cannot explain time dilation, among other phenomena) So "his belief is as good as mine" is not a valid statement if both of your beliefs are based on available evidence: generally, one theory explains the evidence better than another. And the more you have to fall back on statements of belief in order to defend said belief (i.e. Aaron's assertation that incoming light was created en route) the worse the theory is at explaining phenomena, and the more guilty you are of massively begging the question. (assuming what you purport to prove: since the universe is 6000 years old, all evidence must support this hypothesis)

Truth is not relative. Our understanding of it is.

• and point of view & you are conjuring that model rather hastily - quiet - October 17, 2002 - 04:54 UTC
• I like it... - fasteddy - October 17, 2002 - 23:00 UTC
  • Didn't you know? - phillipmartin - October 18, 2002 - 00:46 UTC
    • I didn't have the slightest idea - fasteddy - October 18, 2002 - 01:48 UTC
      • Thanatos - stormcrow - October 18, 2002 - 04:09 UTC
        • You never been to heaven, have you? - kc2gwx - October 18, 2002 - 04:32 UTC
          • Read Swedenborg - yaniru - October 18, 2002 - 11:19 UTC
            • Ok. - kc2gwx - October 18, 2002 - 15:52 UTC
              • Read more - yaniru - October 19, 2002 - 04:26 UTC