What is the absolute truth about human nature?

[AiA]

Barthomelow, your going in a circular argument, your not arguing but making excuses. Stop saying "what if" and say "what is", if you can't argue something don't make excuses. you could say "what if in the future man will grow wings spontaniously and fly." Logically, scientifically, this is IMPOSSIBLE, saying "I will never be perfect" is an absolutely true statement, cause man can never be perfect, no matter what science does, man is not perfect. This I can say with 100% confidence of an undoubted proof, if you can argue it, go right ahead, but do it without the "what if's", cause that doesn't prove anything cause I could say "what if your circular argument is wrong." (which it is.) Then you'll say "what if one day they prove your saying 'what if your circular argument is wrong' is wrong." We have no rational hear, no understanding, without understanding you will be unwilling to learn anything beyond your circular argument. And you could say the same for me, but at least I'm saying what is, not the what if's, cause to say what if is saying the universe is limitless. But this is a contradiction cause the universe is very much limited. So your what if's don't aply for everything, so there is a standard. And even if your what if statements work, at the end, there has to be something that there is no what if too, or else everything will be anarchy, it will be limitless. I could say killing is good, I can't prove it now, but what if some one in the future will prove it to be good. I could kill my entire family and say "what if what I did was good, and one day people will know why." Do you see the idiocy behind this. You can't say that, there is a standard, and if your going to dispute it, dispute it, don't say "one day some one else will on my behalf, while I point and laugh." be reasonable, and you'll grow to learn such a person will not come.

 

[Bartholomew]

Those are flaws you can imagine in our current system of addition, and they are discoverable; you might not even be able to imagine an undiscoverable flaw. (Edit: This was a reply to Healey)

Reply to AiA: There is a possible practical mechanism for undiscoverable flaws. Any particle in quantum theory has a certain probability of being in a certain location. For example, it is incredibly unlikely--yet _still possible_--that all the particles in your body could suddenly find themselves three feet to your right. Now think about it in your brain. Circuits in your brain come to a certain conclusion through, at the lowest level, manipulation of particles. What if every time you thought about 2+2, all the particles in your brain relocate themselves in such a way so as to make you think 4 and so as to make you think 4 is the logical answer, when it actually is not? Call it "static in the lines." It's a physical phenomenon that means, with admittedly very small probability, that you could be wrong about anything at all, simply because of an error in computation caused by quantum uncertainty.

 

[AiA]

bartholomew, everything is imaginable, their is no limit to imagination, this is undeniable cause there are an infinite amount of colors, I can imagine a dragon being an infinite amounts of color as well with an infinite amount of wing sizes and an infinite tail sizes for each wing size and for each color, and for each infinite amount of horns and claws, etc. Now tell me this is disputable, forget math, but tell me a single possibility that can prove that imagination isn't limitless, don't say we can't imagine it, cause I'm saying other wise and proving it, if you can back up your asumptions, go right ahead, but don't just blurt out ocmments.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, there is a proof in math that I read on another forum that there are more real numbers than can be expressed with symbols. What we can conceive of is limited to what can be expressed using the symbols of our minds. But that was really a reply to Healey, not to you. The second paragraph was a reply to you.

 

[AiA]

It is impossible to argue with subjectivist, they don't argue back, they ignore the argument, they don't use logic, they run in circles, they use falls ideals etc. And can't prove anything, they keep on running in circles, like rats in a maze, trying to find a way to argue, and the saddest part is, these rats actually think their close to the answer, some are even so lost they think they are at the end. That Bartholomew, that is you, your a rat, a lost, illogical, random, dumb rat. I'm sorry for the insults but until some one provides real evidence for subjectivism being acurate, I should assume that everyone accepts I'm right, but you won't, cause your nothing but rats, dumb, random rats, and cause of your stupidity, I refuse to post anything at this sight ever again, all I'll get are stupid random attempts of logic. So forget you all, and forget this sight.