What is "Truth"?

consulting YOU.

 

Good post. Thanks for that input.

 

Pain is an illusion - but - omen est nomen - a very heavy and real painful illusion. So I would go on my hands with the picture between my teeth to a doctor who hopefully knows how to interpret the truth out of this picture and who has the ability to repair this desaster. Fortunatelly he can make a good job or unfortunatelly a bad job. "Good" means direction truth - "bad" is the other way.

http://youtu.be/OoI57NeMwCc

 

"good or evil is the name". Very intersting. I also like your description of the preferred doctor. I had to pay Him a visit on a couple of occasions and found that the service and the counseling that He offers to be very effective.

 

Unfortunately the best doctor is not able to heal antisemitism.

http://youtu.be/E2EyPu9mxTg
http://youtu.be/0IQvfuElJpA

 

Without consent of the patient, you are correct. He does maintain a very strict code of ethics that are self imposed and self enforced.

BTW: Beautiful message in the u-tube link. Love it.

 

Really? ...you're kidding, right? : I'm not controlling, but ...stay focused and get back on topic?

That's a monumental lack of personal insight, my friend. But...okay...pardon my interruption...

carry on...

 

And what specific authority does my comment (suggestion) have with regard to what people post? Any authority at all? I did not think so... therefore, the concept of me 'controlling' this thread is total BS and is delusional.

 

I didn't say you ARE controlling it, I said you WANT to. Obviously you have no control, but you did start with a good idea--it just goes to hell like most of the threads you involve yourself in--dissolving into bickering about nonsense. SEE--here I am bickering with you, and here you are responding...lalalalalalalalal B.o.r.i.n.g. For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, you sure like spewing diddley.

 

No! You said that I am too controlling. That would indicate that you believe that I am controlling to an excess.

Well, I appreciate you expressing your suspicions regarding my level of intelligence, though the comment was not necessary.

As for your perspective regarding my 'spewing diddley'.. well, if you examine my postings, you will find that I normally don't get involved in that sort of activity until such time as I am given reason to behave in that fashion. The old rule of 'cause and effect'. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Take your pick on whichever of those idioms you prefer and would best suit your way of thinking in regards to my rationale for my actions.

I do take very seriously, the misuse of words that people sometime involve themselves with, as such misuse causes me to think initially that the misuse might have been an oversight,,, so I make inquiry,, then the misuse continues and then I realize that the misuse was not an innocent mistake. Words are very very important to me, as it is our only means of communicating on forums such as this. I admit it is difficult to convey some ideas in mere words and subsequently there can be miscommunications as a result of poorly chosen words. We all make that mistake. I don't commit such actions, however, out of pleasure or as a means of belittling someone (unless previously provoked).

 

There are few things I find more boring than pedants.

 

Well thank you. I take pleasure in the fact that you are conceivably imparting on to me a note of recognition. Uhhh... You were referring to me weren't you??? I hope so.

 

If you take that as a complement, who am I to dissuade you?

 

Truth is subjective in religion. What is true for a Christian will probably not be true for a Buddhist... or a Hindu... or a Muslim... you get the pic.

 

Everything is subjective; both in the religious realm and in the secular realm. Even the word "it", apple, dog, fish, bird, rock, tree, etc., they are all subjective. Please name one thing that is not 'subjective'.

 

If a piece of reality - like for example "the" human brain - simulates "the" reality all around in its subjective way (there is no other way because every human brain is limited in space, time, energy and complexity) - then this doesn't mean reality itselve is not existing in an objective way. If someone is able to make mistakes then this also doesn't mean everything is a mistake. There are for example very interesting communications between Buddhists and Christians. Sometimes even some catholic monks and some buddhistic monks are visiting each other because they like to understand each other.

http://www.youtu.be/9-zopGY6xVc

 

Some good thoughts Anobsitar. Consider this.

Cognizance of anything is in itself subjective. Therefore, how is it possible that there can be anything in reality that is not cognitively subjective? Therefore, I will repeat the request:
"Please name one thing that is not 'subjective'. "

 

Yes, but what is true to a Christian is often absolutely true regardless if it's true to anyone else

 

You are only making the case that perception is subjective, not reality itself. What you're saying makes the case that reality may not be perceivable by man.

Great case for agnosticism. One may believe, but can never know.

 

What is truth? That depends who one asks. By that I mean there are two ways to understand reality, with blends. The main two are believers and non believers. BTW I am not going to use graduate level words and terms in this thread. I am a believer in a creator God and feel that God is truth. A non believer usually believes that science can obtain truth, therefore science is truth. The strange thing is that science could be truth if everything could be known by science. Which is not an impossible goal given enough time, and I mean eons of time.

If God exists and created the universe I would suppose he or she (Gods gender is a non question really) would know how everything works, from all physical processes to the finest detail. Some people asks if God is so perfect that he knows everything then why is the natural universe so imperfect and flawed? The answer is two fold. God has a plan and that plan was to design a natural world that allows free will etc. All experiments have requirements etc. To put it bluntly, and even Einstein recognized this, God had no other choice but to create the natural universe as he did. He created man in his and his created beings (angels etc) images, however that was not a physical image it meant his soul etc. Maybe and it’s a huge maybe God wanted to know if a created free will being in a NATURAL world could exist and become pure by certain processes. He could have created more angels but apparently that was not what God wanted. I am getting a bit off topic, but that’s my take on it, God is truth if God exists, and is truth only in his realm. By in his realm I mean that the natural world is not perfect by design, the line of what is truth and what is perfection is a bit different tho’** !

Anyway, again IMO, there is NO 100% pure infallible truth without God. At least not yet. Given enough time and if we do not destroy ourselves* science may become that truth (i.e. science may learn everything about our natural world given enough time). However barring near unbelievable scientific breakthroughs such as a new physics etc the time needed to learn ‘everything’ probably on the order of the lifetimes of stars. I am not optimistic to say the least! God bless all of you regardless if your God is science, Allah, etc….

* Or if there are not other sentient beings in the universe. Who knows one of these races may have evolved to 'angel-hood' or above, maybe even to what would be nearly the equivalent of Gods! A lot can happen in the 14 billion years since God created the Universe.

** I am sure I will have to expand on that one!

Rev A

 

Just as in quantum physics vs classical physics the same is true in religious belief vs Secular, scientific belief. By that I mean it seems that the two are irreconcilable and never will be joined. However recent advancements in QFT astronomy (ie seeing a black holes event horizon or more precisely the shadow of it) we may have an faint idea of how the two may be merged into a TOE, the same is happening between science and spirituality or more precisely (again) metaphysics and LP(ism). That is the two may be more similar and compatible than ever imagined!

Rev A

 

The compatibility of science and spirituality has been posited for centuries. It is not a new concept at all.
Science is of the "how", theology more of the "why". Science can impact theological concepts when they become untenable in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, but theological concepts are uniquely malleable, as they are not provable anyway.

 

truth!

ie.... existence is not subjective to interpretation, it just is!

 

I'm steering a little of topic as well, but am intrigued that you believe god exhibits choice.