>>>>>How about this... a man shoots and kills some one you love (assuming you have a loving spouse, relative or someone close). You take him to court. But he says "I really don't believe that I killed him/her...". Is he right/innocent?
>>>>>
>>>>>According to you (if you believe in relative reality) this is a legitimate defense for murder.
>>>>
>>>>If it were up to him to decide his guilt then you'd be right. But its actually up to a jury, as their opinions (representing their subjective realities) are the determination of the court.
>>>>
>>>>If the jury believes him, then his defense was good enough. If the jury didn't believe him, he didn't have a good enough defense.
>>>
>>>We're now talking about something entirely different. Just because the jury found him not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It just means he got away with murder, literally. It doesn't change the fact/reality that he shot and murdered your, or someone else's, loved one.
>>>
>>>So if a murderer avoids capture, he didn't commit the murder?
>>
>>Not in the eyes of the justice system.
>>
>>My point is that all truths require some point of view.
>
>I would also say that absolute TRUTH never changes. If it changes, it's was never the truth.

But the question we're dealing with here is: can humans know absolute truth?

I think not. Do you agree?


>>That's all well and good, I just think that such a perspective is hypoethetical. Actually, any perspective outside of your own is hypothetical.
>
>Don't know if I agree with that.

How could you know I'm not just a figament of your imagination in a dream?

You really can't. But its more practical to assume that I am real with my own consciousness than to assume otherwise.

That makes my thoughts hypothetical to you. But your own thoughts are not hypothetical to you. "I think therefore I am" and all of that.