No, I'm not talking about the section at the local bookstore about divinization, I'm talking about philosophy and necessary truths. I think there is at least one assertion that is undeniably true: "Something exists." DesCartes said "I think, therefore I am," but the thinking subject may be a dream in the mind of a wizard who ate some bad mushrooms. However, the thinking subject does imply something exists. And the assertion "Nothing exists," is, as far as I can tell, simply nonsense -- it is an assertion that can have no meaning because the very act of asserting it implies that something exists to make the assertion.

So, what difference does it make? Well, I believe it bears serious reflection whether there are other necessary truths either independent of this one or derivative of it, yet one of the mantras of our time seems to be "there are no universal truths," or "truth is a matter of perspective." While I'm certainly willing to grant the tenuous nature of any assertion, I also think it is disingenuous to assert "there are no universal truths," since that claim itself is a universal truth claim.