[Eric]

Lloyd,

I appreciate that you're able to keep the "attack" down to a minimum. Two posts to say the same thing, however, could be improved upon.

So what are you saying? That an absolute has to have dimension or just that a dimensionless point can't exist? I'm not sure what you're intending to add to the conversation.

An ABSOLUTE is very simple. It can NOT have anything whatsoever, OUTSIDE of itself. If something has or may have anything outside of itself, it can only be deemed RELATIVE.

It has to be EXTERNALLY INDEPENDENT, with NO environment, cause, source, destiny, size, location, movement, or change.

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #1.
____________________

Secondly, if one is not wanting to rely on an ASSUMPTION, one must begin their logical argument with the most ALL-ENCOMPASSING pair of relatives there could possibly be. And then proceed to dismiss one of the members of the pair, as IMPOSSIBLE or NON-EXISTENT, which then leaves only one of them all alone. This then, is an argument that does not begin with an assumption, but by DISPELLING the greatest possible assumption. A LOGIC that begins with a PROOF and not an AXIOM.

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #2.
____________________

The most all-encompassing pair of relatives possible, is SOMETHING ABSOLUTE and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #3.
____________________

I'm tired and going to bed. In the meantime, do you have an argument against any of the first 3 points?

After I get some rest, I'll post 2 or 3 more points. You must however, follow the bouncing ball, because I'm not going to go through this again.

Eric