the lord" The doctor is amused by the religious man's comment and says,"Did you not see me inject him with anti-venom, this is a wonder of science not god". We cannot prove either argument, and the pair could spend many an hour bickering over whose act it was who saved the ill man. However neither will ever give in, their beliefs are so strong that they only see a version of the universe that fits in with their law.Let us apply this principle to a sleeping man. When awake he believes himself to exist (everyman does) but when asleep, is he in existence? Someone could walk past this man; they could stare at him and be sure that he exists. Noticing pulse, breath, twitches and eye movements in someone the average person would probably regard the sleeping man as in existence. However, is this really a person? Not fully alive does the snoozing corpse still possess all the traits to define a bundle of matter as a human being? All these are questions with no answer. To know the answer you would have to know the entire universe, to do that you would have to be infinite and thus not exist but in abstract concept form. So we are not left with the discernable truth which philosophers love, but instead with the relative truth. We have no base line with which we can say the man exists or does not exist. To the passer by he exists, but the sleeping and so has no view of his own, he is not self-conscious and as such is in oblivion and so cannot exist. The answer is this: Ask yourself the same question and you will have the answer (at least in your cosmos). A different observer will see the same imperfect image that is the universe and then interpret it giving him a different answer to the same questionThe only counter argument which I can see to the relative truth idea is the religious one held by many. Jews believe the Torah to be perfect and describe the nature of the universe in it's entirety. Jews claim that although the Torah contains only a limit...
