How is it possible for me to conjure up the word absolute if there wasn't something associated with it? If, in fact we say nothing is absolute, then we, in our attempt to disprove it in the absolute sense, have just proved it. But then we say, "Well wait a second, everything is relative?" (hmm, another absolute?) which, of course makes no sense. Unless we ask, relative to what? And guess which answer fits better than no other and, in fact perfectly? ... that which is absolute. In other words an object (any object), by virtue of the fact that it exists, in the sense that it truly exists, is absolute ... albeit our perceptions of it are merely relative.

And what is that one of our famous materialists is quoted for saying? ... "Reality is that which remains after you stop believing."

All of which suggests that reality itself is absolute and, that who or whatever it was that created it, must be absolute as well.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

In the first place, you didn't "conjure up" the word absolute. It is a fairly common word in the English language. And the word has utility, as do other "absolute" words like 'always', 'never', 'everything' and 'nothing'. I use all of those words often. But to suggest that the word "absolute" has mystical significance is simply ludicrous.

And if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say you decided to use it because it is just about your favorite word. You are nearly monomaniacal about it.
No, you've simply gotten yourself into a linguistic loop. It's really not significant. Anyone can do it. For example, see if you can make sense out of the following.

"The statement I am making right now is false".
How about relative to other things? It doesn't have to be relative to some ideal. If I say, Bill is taller than Fred, that is relative, but it doesn't imply that there is some "absolute tallness" that they are being compared to.
It appears that you are merely trying to distinguish between subjective and objective, except you are calling the objective "absolute" and the subjective "relative". If it comforts you to substitute those less correct words for the more correct ones, then knock yourself out, but you haven't exactly revealed any universal truth here.
Something like that. It's a cute, catchy phrase, but it does nothing to discourage the "believer" from claiming the certainty of unprovable things. They will claim that It (meaning God) remains even if you don't believe in It. The little problem of demonstrating that It exists doesn't occur to them.
Objective reality exists. Our perception of it is subjective. This relationship holds true whether or not there is a creator. Suggesting this proves a creator is simply a non sequitur.

Does the apple which rests on the table exist in the absolute sense? I'm afraid it's one of those things, it either exists or it doesn't exist, and if it does, then it must be in the absolute sense. This is what we call reality you see. Do you believe existence is absolute? Or, are we all just figments of our own imaginations? These are the only two choices we have.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Ah but you see, the mystery is in trying to determine what that absolute is.

Or, maybe that's just the way I project myself? I didn't realize I used it that much.

Or, you could say, "The statement I am making right now is true." Either way, it doesn't mean anything, because it's self-referential and doesn't refer to anything outside of the statement itself, which it needs to do. But, when we say something is absolute we are referring to something outside of the statement, which therefore can be validated. Albeit when we say there are no such things as absolutes, it may be self-referential in terms of absolutes, but not in terms of the structure of the statement itself, in which case it allows us the opportunity to explore the nature of absolutes.

Except that at any given moment one will always be taller than the other, and that is an absolute. So, might I suggest it's the principles that determine the relationships -- or, axioms if you will -- that are absolute?

Albeit we can never be truly objective -- only that which is omniscient can -- that isn't to say true objectivity doesn't exist, and that would be an absolute.

And yet if reality is absolute, and God the creator is absolute then we have two ideas which seem to be in agreement with each other.

Except that if we understand our perception was merely relative to the absoluteness of the whole, then perhaps we would go in search for that absolute or, sense of completeness. In other words, in search of why we are here.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

How do the last four words of that sentence add anything? "In the absolute sense" is at best redundant, at worst meaningless in this context.It is also possible that we cannot know this absolutely, in which case your supposition is irrelevant. (Oh, and couldn't it be possible exists to differing degrees depending on our definitions of existence and absoluteness? An apple that has started to dry out is certainly not the full apple that was there before--is it still the same apple "in the absolute sense"? If I eat it, is it still the apple "in the absolute sense", even though it is in my stomach [I eat the cores too]? Once parts of it are incorporated into me, is it still an apple "in the absolute sense"? If it is either one or the other, these should be easy to answer.I believe the question as you ask it is without meaning.And that this, therefore, is a meaningless alternative.No, this is much too poorly phrased to adequately encompass the situation.

Am merely suggesting there's a difference between what we observe and what is. The "what is" part being that which is absolute.

Perhaps it would make more sense if you thought of it in terms of a process, of which everything is and of a part of?

The whole thing is elementary!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

No, the mystery is in why you take a perfectly good word and treat it like it is some sort of paranormal object!But now you are using "absolute" in a completely different manner: "there absolutely will be relative differences in height" By which definition of god? Certainly not all.You do not have the knowledge about perception to be throwing around phrases like "if we understand our perception..."

Not much of a mystery when you have already stated that these "absolutes" are unreachable. Sort of like wondering "what number is infinity", when, by definition, it is unknowable. I'd call it more of a fixation than a mystery.

I count a dozen times in this post alone.No. "The statement I am making right now is true." is not internally contradicting. "This statement is true" can in fact be a true statement, but "this statement is false" cannot be false and it cannot be true. It is this sort of statement you make when you say "everything is relative", because "everything" is an absolute, thus for "everything" to be relative, your statement would have to be false. Do you see the conundrum? But I am pleased that you see the need for statements to have clear references. Perhaps you won't be making that "it=God" assumption again.
No, that is relative. Taller. Comparitive, not superlative. I would have thought a person who had written a book would know about basic elements of grammar.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
It is true that, by definition, no person can be truly objective. That does not, though, imply that there must be some entity that is. True objectivity, like infinity, is merely a concept which can never be reached. Frustrating, isn't it?
No, what you have there is your basic, garden variety non sequitur. Reality is, by definition, real. God is a fantasy, at least until you can demonstrate His reality. So far, many have tried and all have failed.
IF God were real and IF God were the reason we were here, you would still have to be able to read God's mind in order to know why he did anything, so your quest is chimerical. You don't even know why another person does things. I don't know why you are so obsessed with this.
***
From Iacchus32's post to Digital Cuttlefish:Bad example, Iacchy. The apple, in an "absolute" sense does not rest on the table. If you like, I'll explain why. I'll just say that it would demonstrate why it is so very silly to pursue such simple statements to extremes.Or perhaps you could say it is relatively absolute. See what happens when you start engaging in this kind of meaningless wordplay?If you have an imagination, you are real, and therefore cannot be a figment. It does not, as you say, "refer to anything outside of the statement itself". Remember what I said about statements like "The statement I'm making is false"? You just gave us a very good example of such a statement.
The only "choice" here is what you wish to believe. There are a virtually unlimited range of things for you to believe. I like to test my beliefs by asking myself if there is evidence for my belief, but even that doesn't guarantee that what I believe is correct. It does tend to make it closer though.

Did the fact that I just walked over and flipped the light switch off happen in all actuality -- i.e., in the absolute sense -- or, was it merely a virtual experience? So you see, if it can be answered with a definitive yes or no, then the fact that it happened becomes an absolute.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That's actuality, Iacchus! Actually, I just turned the light switch off in my office in anticipation of going home.

Thanks! I just noticed that and was in the process of fixing it prior to your posting but, it looks like you beat me to the punch! Well, actually, have a good evening.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well, you are just telling me about it, so it's virtual. But if you really did it, it's actual. NO! But you didn't do it, your hand did under the virtual direction of your brain. NO! But your brain is part of you, so it's actual. NO! But your brain only does what God tells it to do, so it's virtual. NO! You are part of God, so it's actual... ad absurdum.
***
Iacchy, does this little dialogue with myself help you see how silly and pointless such questions of yours are? And do you plan to address any of the things Diggy or I have said?

Just pretend like I was never here, or you for that matter.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Wrong. Try again. Gooze and I have both explained absolutes, to you who absolutely (ha!) do not.Wrong. Try again. As Gooze said, that is relative, not absolute. Belief has nothing to do with it.A response devoid of meaning. Which definition of god? All that apply? Which definitions apply? Those that apply. Of course? Perfectly circular...of course.I don't think I want to click on your links any more--last two times, you were just being rude. I claim you do not know about perception. You could very easily disprove that by demonstrating your knowledge. I do not think there is a chance you will do this. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.