~ TRUTH A BILLION SHADES OF GRAY ...Or ? ~

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by RevAnarchist, Jun 21, 2014.

  1. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read most of the posts etc concerning the recent subject of ‘truth’. They for the most part were good debates on that old question i.e.; 'the meaning truth'. The big question in other words, because the meaning of life and what is 'real truth' are weirdly similar in my world. Ok, now to the point of this thread, and I hope without sounding arrogant, I can say confidently that I don’t think anyone got the ‘question’ of ‘what is truth’ right or even close to being correct. The problem may be that there is no real truth! Or it may be if God does not exist we may not be able to ‘extrapolate’ what is truth from the universe ? (maybe finesse to wrench truth from the universe would be a better choice of words?) Science has revealed many things about our natural world in a remarkable explosion of information the last hundred years or so. However still, our methods are very limited and the worst is that our brains are inheartinetly limited. Maybe the truth is too complex or will remain unknown until our science and our brains can evovolve by natural means, or faster by science enhancing our brains abality to interface with devices. One thing I havent mentioned is the mind which is not limited by our brain. (see notes please).

    Oh well I welcome fresh comments or even rehashed old comments to the question ; What is real truth? My answer is real truth is the answer to how everything works in real time, real time meaning t (t and T = time in notation) as in t-zero, not intuitive time. All comments of related subjects are welcome as well because I am always interested in learning new stuff about time and its secrets.

    notes;

    *…I intentionally included a mind brain duality specifically to highlight the abilities of the brain may not be all a function of the brain. Yes that sounds like a whimsical statement but if questioned my replies will reveal why I say that in that way. Of course in the realm of entrenched western positivism (as in science), the mind brain duality is a decidedly minority theory/hypothesis.


    reva
     
  2. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmm' It looks like there are no budding philosophers here at PF interested in truth. Ok whast about why are we here? No? Lol...

    reva
     
  3. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm interested in truth. That's why I elect to place my trust in facts and evidence. If I CHOSE to ignore facts and reality, that would be placing my emotional needs (vanities) above truth. While our humanity often pushes us to accommodate such drivers, it behoves us to rise above and forge ahead.
     
  4. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ahhhh yes! Fact: something believed to be true or real. AND, evidence:"1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:"

    And who determines what is 'evidence'? Oh yeah! A group of people with a special interest in the subject matter... however, the determination is reached through the subjective processes of the human mind.
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay, that 20 storey building downtown isnt real (in my opinion), and neither is the concrete at the base. Now, go jump off :)
    Oh sorry .... you probably meant YOUR reality (opinion). Isnt it lucky then, that yoyr opinion seems to align so well with reality :)
     
  6. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Been through this one already .... can't you come up with something original?
     
  7. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Truth ...

    For some ... It is the arrival at a conclusion of any specific idea proposed that can be confirmed by facts and or evidence.

    For others... It is the arrival at a conclusion of any specific idea proposed that can be arrived at by ignoring facts and or evidence.

    Guess it depends on who you are and how easy it is for you to accept reality.
     
  8. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    then comes the question along with all the nuances related to the subject of the question which is "what is reality"?
     
  9. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Reality? ... yeah it's right next door to where you are now.

    Reality is what is left over when you discard mythology and supposition for facts and evidence.
     
  10. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Insufficient definition... it is not all inclusive.
     
  11. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Oh so I suppose that you are gonna bust out a dictionary on us or should we just assume that what ever the dictionary says is what you agree on? That didn't work so well for you in the other thread did it?
     
  12. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No dictionary this time... Just common sense. The definition you offered does not include the things that exist in my reality therefore, it is an insufficient definition.
     
  13. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You have effectively redefined the word "truth". If you mean "omniscience", then why not simply say omniscience? I encounter truth on a fairly regular basis, but I've never met an omniscient entity.
     
  14. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    As I pointed out, some arrive at truth one way and others arrive at it another!

    And I don't think it should come as a shock to either of us that disagree on which method should be used!
     
  15. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Absolutely... "I am the way, the truth and the life".
     
  16. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63

    A truth told long enough and often enough becomes a lie. It would be refreshing if religious folk would speak in terms of Evidence....oops, they can't. :roll:
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Truth is the subjective belief of an individual in his/her mind and is irrelevant to those outside it. Fact however is that which is verified as reality through extensive evaluation and exposure to critique.

    We are here to be here...and all get to decide what they do with it.
     
  18. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Once again you lean on your crutch/wooden leg. Evidence. Who determines what is acceptable 'evidence'.?. of course... those who fight against things that they don't understand and cannot explain, so they reject those things from their official listing of what is acceptable evidence. Science as portrayed by non-theists on this forum is such a weak foundation .. it cannot explain the religious experiences had by so many billions of people on this planet without physical evidence. Well, those billions of people are physical and their experiences are a part of their being.
     
  19. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Evidence that can be tested at any time is acceptable evidence. Not hard, its only you that makes it hard.

    "religious experiences" are nothing more than people who want to believe because there genetic make up makes them believe:

    The Evolution of the God Gene

    What you fail to understand time and time again, is that genetics makes up everything about you, including have the disposition of being illusion that some 'god' exists. There ya have it, 'billions' of religious experiences chalked up a gene that makes people spiritual.
     
  20. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So, evidence that cannot be tested "at any time" is not acceptable then. correct? Well, as I sit here in my den at this time, how do you propose that I test a piece of evidence relating to a strand of DNA or a black hole, or ..... and the list goes on and on... So your conditional statement fails, as those things cannot be tested in my den at this time nor within any time that could be related as 'soon'. Therefore, your evidence is rejected because it cannot be tested in this here and now (at this time).

    There we go now on the path of genetics again... even after not being able to resolve the last dissertation you gave on the subject. Where did the information found in a strand of DNA come from? Show proof that DNA or genetic make up can "make" someone do something. That would imply that the genetic makeup has intelligence, free will, and force capable of making someone do something. Prove your claim.




    As above,,, so below... prove your claim. Not through the opinions of other people, but tangible PROOF.
     
  21. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Easy. Any biologist can compare DNA. You could to, if you took the time and effort to goto college, and learn how to do this.

    Easy. Any astronomer can detect a black hole by constant observation of the effects of a black hole, not to mention that black hole can be mathematically proven.

    And the list goes on.

    This quote is rejected on the grounds of ignorance of the scientific method.



    Does not matter where the 1st strand of DNA came from. Intellectual Honesty would go along way here. The first strand of DNA was formed from inert matter billion of years ago. I have proved you with a video on Abiogenesis several times (how lives arises from inert matter). It is your choice to remain ignorant on the matter.

    What does matter is that there is indeed a 'god gene', and that explains why 'billions' of people have had 'religious experiences'. This is not different than asking why are there billions of right handed people. Its genetics.
    You claimed that science cannot explain 'religious experiences', it just did.



    I did. This request for 'tangible proof' is rejected on the grounds of ignorance of what constitutes scientific evidence.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The above portion of your message is rejected as it presents your appeal to special pleading.

    You have not shown PROOF of your claim that DNA was formed from inert matter billions of years ago. All you have provided is a theory and some fancy mathematics to support your claim when knowing that the theory is a concept and the mathematics are also concepts. Subjective and subject to the mind of man.

    Oh really? Then you are admitting to the existence of God via the "god gene".


    So billions of right handed people and billions of left handed people (due to genetics) and billions that believe in God because there is a 'god gene' (genetics). So where is the tangible proof that this 'god gene' demands people worship 'God' or 'gods'?

    OK... that is an explanation... (which is subjective)... now where is the tangible PROOF that the god gene demands that people worship God or 'gods'?




    Read my opening statement above.
     
  23. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I accept your white flag that you know that you could test proven evidence such as Evolution at any given time.




    WRONG! You simply refuse to understand the EVIDENCE that is presented.

    Last universal ancestor

    All independent living organisms on this Earth, have the same DNA structure, its just the details inside differ. there is your proof of all life coming from one strand of DNA.



    Not at all. Per usual you are showing a lack of intellectual integrity. The 'god gene' is simply a gene that makes people 'spiritual'. It is simply called the 'god gene' and YOU are being intellectually dishonest by mangling the term.


    Your own words that science cannot explain the religious experiences is 'proof' enough. A gene that pre exposes people would certainly explain why rational people would toss aside perfectly good scientific evidence for a bunch of nonsense.


    Your own words that science cannot explain the religious experiences is 'proof' enough. A gene that pre exposes people would certainly explain why rational people would toss aside perfectly good scientific evidence for a bunch of nonsense.
     
  24. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I accept your white flag relating to you showing any PROOF either through argument or evidence... especially the evidence part... you have not shown any of that.


     
  25. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I dismiss this post based on an ignorance of science and an ignorance of what constitutes Evidence.
     

Share This Page