Absolutism vs relativism

In defense of his position, he posits: "Relativism allows us to still judge actions, thoughts, or events, but within context, or having the fact of these influences constantly looming behind us, thus leading to a more sound judgment of a given event. We cannot be objective, but it is something that we can and do to strive for. Relativism is at its most effective use in this manner: helping us to see events in as much light as we can, helping us to understand them as well as possible, by allowing us to examine the complex web of relationships that give rise to the event in the first place and giving those relationships a prime place in our mind's eye. " I agree that relativism, while never staunchly subjective, is open to objectivity and lends itself to extenuating or unforeseen circumstances. As well, relativism often serves utilitarian, pragmatic, or practical purposes. There certainly is nothing wrong with them on a fundamental level. However, the question I posed was if absolutes exist anywhere in the known universe. I believe they do, and I will illustrate why I maintain this belief. The simplest way to prove that absolutes exist is to have someone answering a question about it. For instance, I asked my detractor if absolutes exist in the known universe, or if everything is relative. Supposing his answer would have been, something to the affect of, "No, there are no absolutes because everything is relative," then not only would they undermine their own mines once, but twice! Lets examine it closely: If there are "no" absolutes in the universe, then how is it you can use an absolute in order to negate an absolute? That's obviously logically inconsistent. Likewise, if you were to maintain that "everything" is relative, this also would be an example of someone positing an absolute in order to negate an absolute. This too is clearly a contradiction, as it violates the law of non-contradiction. But perhaps you may be saying to yourself, words are exempt from such things since they are concepts. Though I strongly disagree, I will momentarily allow it to show that tangible objects also follow such rules and limitations. Indeed, it is through absolutes that physical laws exist and operate. Answer the following questions: 1. Can you be completely wet and completely dry simultaneously? 2. Can you be on Mars and on Earth simultaneously? 3. Can you be Spain and Sri Lanka simultaneously? 4. Is anyone getting younger with the passing of time, as opposed to aging? The answer to all these questions is no. People will sometimes attempt to get around these questions by introducing silly contingents and conditions, none of which have any demonstrable value to them. If you believe you can usurp them, I would be very interested in hearing how. Therefore, it seems evident that absolutes do in fact exist in the known universe, and, in fact, attempting to prove their non-existence invariably will lead to a contradiction that in fact proves that which they attempt to disprove. Furthermore, absolutes and relativism can exist together in the universe. For instance, if you were to ask a 6'0 foot tall person if they were tall, their answer in an absolute sense would not make sense since it is an objective question. To a pygmy, 6 feet might be considered quite tall, but to an Scandinavian, 6 feet of height might be quite average. It stands to reason that both exist. I therefore challenge my detractor to prove otherwise. Thank you. ..