There is no truth

Many people believe and claim that it isn't, and therefore the whole web is nothing more than a simple perspective, a farce, and there is no fundamental reason to know what it's about, which is a very sensible thought as long as the truth doesn't actually exist. 

Quienes afirman que no existe se sujetan de ejemplos puntuales donde no saben distinguir entre perspectiva y realidad y que mezclan para ‘demostrar’ que la verdad es relativa. 

If everything is relative and there is no truth, it means that if I then mention only one truth, that sentence will not be usable, and I would have to add everything is relative - with exceptions. 

Therefore, not everything would be relative, but in specific cases where there are perspectives. 

Let's look at some examples.

The claim that life exists on other planets is not true, but the relativist believes it is also true. 

Through this example we know the following, the statement that there is no life on other planets is based on the fact that they have not found that, based on data from having searched and not found. 

Which allows the researcher to know the answer to that question based on the fact that there is no data to confirm that it is.

The relativist says that the universe is very large, and he is sure that it is. 

Based on the above statement that predisposition that creates That yes, it is based on his belief that because the universe is very large, it has to be true, even if it is not evident. 

The relativist, in turn, is based on the idea that life can form itself if ideal conditions are met. Is this really true? Because if it is, his willingness to believe that life exists where it hasn't been found is possible. But if the above wasn't possible, neither will it be on other planets. This is a branch effect, which is why you need to be in full context with the entire network.

Decir que negarse a la idea de que sea cierto, no es la forma adecuada de expresarse, lo ideal es decir esperaría que fuera cierto por tanto quisiera que realmente lo sea, antes que asumir que lo es porque en su mente es probable por ser muy grande el universo, el presente (datos disponibles) tiene más peso que el futuro (conjeturas – teorías) que aún no ha llegado a ser verdad, pero muchas veces esto se ve aplicado en el mundo al revés, lo sabrás en la red de todo.

In this example you can know what is true and what is a belief, they are the data that determine what is true in something, and the beliefs that determine the conjectures of what they would like to be true, Therefore, something is true until proven otherwise. 

And the relativist thinks of this phrase to argue that everything is changing, but ignores that the phrase says until proven otherwise, Therefore, what is true will continue to be so as long as it is not proven false. Examples like this exist in industrial quantities and are constant in everyday life, but the relativist believes that there will come a point where it will no longer be true. Which is perfect, but pretending that it won't be true just because this is true in other different subjects is putting everything on the same level. 

What can always be relative are almost all issues of social involvement, in which people agree to determine good and evil, this will always be relative and changing, but it has nothing to do with what is not social, such as the knowledge of reality, that is, for example, why it rains, what something is made of, We know the truth about those issues based on current data.

If new information comes along that contradicts them, it doesn't mean that the truth is relative, but rather that information will always lead us to the truth, until we reach a point where new information only reinforces that truth more and more, then we will have found a law. 

In life, there are many constants that allow everything to function properly. Relativists do not mention them because it goes against their way of thinking, believing that truth is relative and ignoring the data.

An example of this is science, where it is said to be changing, but in examples where you don't know new information is simply ignored by science, because it remains conditioned to a level of philosophical response, such as naturalism, where information that does not fit that belief is discarded. 

Relative truth or visual deception? 

Let's imagine we're sitting on a bench and there's a huge rock in front of us. Your partner tells you it's a rock, and you tell them it's not. Your other partner says, "You're both right." 

Those who say yes know that they are, but those who don't know why they aren't. 

Both agree that it looks exactly like a rock but is not in composition. 

To know the truth, the person takes a knife, if it is inserted into the rock, it was not a rock, if it is not inserted, it was the imitation of the rock. 

It turns out that it was indeed a plastic rock, one of those manufactured to make them identical, where the eye can be fooled but not with the data, which is why after testing we can know the truth and that both were wrong, only one. 

Because a rock is not only about appearance, but also about composition, they would have been right only when they said it looks like a rock, but yes, it is not a rock.

What is true for me and not for you may not be applicable to that example, but it is applicable to examples of social content, which are on another level compared to science. 

Relative truth or consensus? 

Another example might be that something is true for you and not for me based on scientific data. This is where the relativist gets confused and creates confusion by claiming that grass is not grass for others. 

With this he mentions those who see other colors, but who are ultimately the exception, to prove that we all see the same color there is language, where someone can say it is green as an expression and name for the color they see, and millions more say it is green, in confirmation that that is the name of the color they are looking at, but there will be exceptions where people cannot see the correct colors because it is a defect, but the reality of the colors for that person will be according to how they see them, only for that person, not applicable to millions. 

When he says 1 + 1 = 3 he wants to teach us a lesson that everything is relative, that we can use the numbers we prefer, the truth is that 1 + 1 = 2 because that symbol 2 is the representation of two sounds, two elements, etc., using the symbol 3 is only distorting the numbers making them not universal, because for those who use 2, 3 + 2 = will be 5 but for the relativist 3 + 2 = 4 because three represents (2) it is a complete distortion.

Returning to the subject of grass, the relativist continues to assert that it is both yes and no, so let's see what grass is, although some people know it at first glance, so let's dig a little deeper. 

The grass is:

Organic, with cells inside

Green

Of light foliage

Suave

Tiny

Fresco

Expansive upholstery

Molecular composition, let's say (00-1-2-CESPED)

(…)

Now we know what grass is. 

If the relativist says it is not and at the same time, what is the basis for saying it is not? 

If something is green, that doesn't make it grass, it has to meet all of its characteristics completely, if it does, then it is grass.

That's why there are people who accept that everything is true and false at the same time. In their complete distortion of thoughts, they ignore examples where something is indeed true, until proven otherwise. Relativizing everything is neither possible nor evident; it would only be a way of seeing everything, but not the applied truth. 

The most obvious truth of all is that you exist. If you believe otherwise, that is pure conjecture and mere thought, which you cannot prove. Therefore, the truth does exist, and in the network of everything, you will be able to know it from the beginning and in all matters.

Se conoce como relativismo, es decir eres un ser humano pero a la vez tampoco, cuando estás triste no lo estás, existen algunos ejemplos donde esto se usa para fomentar el relativismo con afirmaciones puntuales, por ejemplo cuando te ves al ejemplo, no eres tú realmente es lo que dicen, lo cual tiene algo de cierto, tú eres tú, y tu reflejo es tu reflejo, tu apariencia real solo podrá ser vista en todas las dimensiones y con la precisión de tus ojos, si sales de tu cuerpo y te observas. 

Es con este tipo de afirmaciones como el relativismo se apodera de todo, ahora bien concentremonos en esa palabra todo, quiere decir que si encuentro algo dentro del todo que no cumpla con ser cierto y falso a la vez, habré demostrado que no todo será relativo, y muchos más ejemplos podrán ser evidenciados como tal. 

Cuando hay fuego y pones tu mano encima ¿el fuego quema y a la vez no? la respuesta es que quema, y si cambias su naturaleza, podrá no quemar, lo que quiere decir que el relativismo tiene su destrucción como filosofía en su naturaleza, mientras que no le quites su esencia, no puede cumplir con ser cierto y falso a la vez, si no porque sea condicional la pregunta y difierente a la que fue cuando afirmó ser cierta (con evidencias) y ser falsa no puede ser también (con evidencias) a la misma pregunta, porque sería una contradicción. 

Con respecto al origen de la vida, los datos indican que no hay tiempo para que le proceso se de ¿cual es el relativismo de esta afirmación? ¿que sí hay tiempo? bueno demuestrenlo (eliminen los datos que evidencian lo contrario) y veremos si también esa es la verdad. 

Porque si se cree por filosofía que esto tiene que cumplirse aún sin ser demostrado, eso es creencia y un completo absurdo, aunque relativicen lo que les conviene, ciertamente en el tema del origen de la vida no se puede.