Two persons searching for same truth often come to two different conclusions.That I agree.As that doesn't mean truth differs from person to person.I agree only if theory is EXPLICIT that "Truth is one but appears as different". As this is knowledge(social)(new)(computer) age,computer(knowledge) accepts only EXPLICIT statements but not IMPLICIT statements like "my opinion on law(God) is my opinion and your opinion on law(God)".

I don't suffice to theory that "my opinion is my opinion and your opinion is your opinion" after arguing over religion(law)(mind) as "one law must be consistent with another law".
I will agree with other only after other agrees that "there is one law(God) but appears as different".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When there is no knowledge(which seeks self or sensible mindful voice)(literary words) to any mathematical or biochemical law,then it will be either self ignorance or social ignorance. So information thus obtained in other/s must be complexed(adverse) with self(sensible mindful voice) by applying one's mind on his/her mind again towards goal of equality(peace),love(retaining self as self in other/s) and truth(which solves deception appearance as deception can not stand against adverse questions). Law in universe is one. That law is being lawful only to lawful as society matures. And purpose of that universal law is to solve immorality(inconsistency against adverse questions)(being self in self and other/s) into morality(being other/s in self or being self in self). That means any voter can question universal law. But no voter can rise above universal law. Pl.note that any public questioner goal is to be public solution which means being public question to public question within self. Simple ! Govt audit looks after itself. And people(individuals) will looks after their audit "by being in groups/laws/parties". Govt is party to all diverse parties.