What is "Truth"?

I see some members that don't know me very well so I will again post this friendly notice; I use caps for emphasis only, its not an fully emotional application. its easier and better communicates what I want to convey than bolding and italics etc.

Who said it was a new concept? You ? ha ha...THE TECHNIQUES ARE NEW or fairly so, as is the DISCOVERIES I mentioned AS ARE SOME OF THE THEORIES.

That is true to a degree. However you may be somewhat indoctrinated into LP paradigm evidenced by that answer, unless you are strictly talking about applied science.

Somewhat true again. However science fairly ignores religion, if they did not we would have known for a thousand years that the universe was dynamic instead of static and began rather than was eternal. Of course applied science is does describe the workings of things good enough to be very useful, or very destructive. Most of my reply was about real truth not if science can be used to design neat stuff. Today physics and science is fractured, ask any theoretical physicist, two theories* are needed to describe the universe and even then they are incomplete. So maybe as I mentioned in my reply a new physics will be discovered, if not I predict another dark age for science, at least as far as describing our universe with one theory, and fully.

Rev A

 

Well yes, I do ramble. That said, I feel that God must allow choice, however I do wonder if that choice was an accident or designed. To my mind God has to allow what we limited beings think of as imperfections in the natural universe. Of course the next question is ; Isn't God infallible and perfect? I did struggle with that for a long time. It occurred to me that maybe God is infallible and more near perfect in his realm, call it the spiritual world, maybe even heaven? However the natural world demands mistakes (all types of what we perceive as mistakes, mutations, bad design of physical systems etc) so it can be made to run, well naturally. I noticed that the bible states that in 99% of the cases God does not physically enter our natural universe but instead sends temporal messengers and messages. I believe that is because the spiritual world and our world are like matter and anti-matter analogically speaking. Possibly it's 'easier' for lack of a better word, for God to send a being or a dream to a earthly recipient. He used a bush that did not turn to ash ie the so called and erroneously so 'burning bush'. Anything it seems but appearing in person ha ha. Such as 'visions' dreams or even beautiful angels. Lets not forget weird fantastic wheels within wheels type creatures or machines to communicate his will ideas and commands.

Those messengers told me his oil does not mix easily with our water! Ha ha! But again I am kind of getting off topic, its so difficult to communicate these book length ideas in a paragraph or two, add to that my first language is french (it too is a long story) not English. It all adds up to length and sometimes critical mass boredom I suppose...HEY WAKE UP!!! ~

Rev A

 

No, actually, it was you.

"That is the two may be more similar and compatible than ever imagined!"

It's been imagined for centuries.

 

You do not bore me whatsoever Rev A. I enjoy your posts. (I just don't want to have Incorporeal cuff me up side the head for hijacking)

What I am driving at, is the personalization that is the integral component of salvation christianity. If you do not have a personal relationship with jesus christ then it isn't a true salvation faith. Even with an understanding that jesus christ is the personalizing component for humans to bridge themselves to god because humans cannot know god the father, is that because god the father in omnipotence is beyond all, inclusive of even the concept or reality of being limited and/or governed by the act of "choice".

Given the omnipotence, the reality of god as, simply IS...then choice cannot be possible to him/her/it.

Sorry Inc.

 

No need to apologize. As long as your discussion is within the vein of an attempted explanation of the subject of the thread. I appreciate those opinions.

 

"..it just is."???? What kind of a realistic answer is that? "interpretation" is a subjective process; perception is a subjective process; analysis is a subjective process; sensory impressions are a subjective process.

Oh look, there is an apple on the table. "Cognition" at work. Subjective as the day is long. Close the eyes: Oh look there is an apple on the table. "Re-Cognition" still subjective as long as the eyes are closed.

 

Then why are the many demands for the PROOF of the existence of God being made by some non-theists? If you are a non-theist, then why do you even pursue something that you already KNOW "cannot be proven"? That action, is seemingly NOT a very logical course of action, if in FACT you KNOW that object being sought "cannot be proven"?

 

So you believe in order for something to be true, it must be able to be proven?
I'm not sure what you are objecting to.

 

think of it like this;

you are causing your own action by your own choice; a time and period exist, in time, of your action and nothing will change that fact.

that is an example of 'just is'

You can lie to yourself, all you want!

"no" comprehend it's an apple, then dead (not a perspective of an identity; comprehending the "apple").

again; you eat food?

breath air?

'just is'

the process

 

The question itself is by necessity, subjective.

What implies that truth is in fact, something. That doesn't mean that truth is something, just that the questioning what implies it is.

Does changing the question structure help?

Is truth something? Is something truth? Maybe to both... again subjective, and now speculative.

So, I could do this 7 or 8 thousand times and it wouldn't lead to anything but more of the same. This might mean, there is no answer because the question, any question...can't be up to the task of discovering what is truth, by the limitations of subjective thought in the asking, before even the hope of a discovery of an answer.

Can I assume this is what you were driving at Incorporeal? It is unanswerable because it simply is beyond our questioning, and if that reasoning is accepted, further reasoning can be reached that the unquestionable, and unanswerable is in the realm of god, where it is/was designed to be, or, is an encompassing god nature.

 

"If" "If" .... why all the 'ifs' ? "ifs" indicate that you are talking about a hypothetical situation, and any hypothetical, as most of us realize, is not a matter of "reality", but is in itself just another 'subjective' matter. You see, even in your attempt to discredit the subjective, you are forced to climb upon that subjective and hope that you can formulate some way to indicate that you do not need the subjective to prove what you imagine to be the objective. BTW: what are "buddhistic monks"? Never heard that term before.

 

Read your own statements very carefully. In those statements, there is also, coming from you, the potentiality that 'reality' (as you call it) is merely an 'illusion' (a creature of the mind). As for whether or not one "can never know"; that is purely speculative, guess work, but at the same time is stated in as an "absolute": Now, because you have stipulated an absolute, where is your PROOF to substantiate that absolute?

You are right in saying that I am making the case that perception is 'subjective'. Please show the other readers that you are capable of demonstrating (in writing) anything that "exists" without using the perception.
This all begs the questions: What is existence? What is real?

 

Exactly where did I say that please use quote tags? You have misinterpreted what I said, or taken it out of context.

Not in the way it is today! Exactly when did quantum physics, the singularity etc be thought compatible with religion and God? Not until 'recently'. Please stop nitpicking if you have something productive to say say it.

Rev A

 

Yes our beloved IC, I apologize in advance Incorporeal!

I agree fully! Its my opinion that is why we were created in flesh in blood. God may have wanted or needed beings that had emotions and free will etc which required a physical system, ie a body, and a mind to produce those emotions and free will etc. So God designed and created a natural system ie man. Of course he also created a natural world (the Universe) to create that fleshly body (Man) meaning the universe was created to create man, maybe. God created evolution to produce a vessel that was suitable for a soul eh? So with that body the same kind of body that Jesus sacrificed, we can experience salvation and oneness with God.

I think I understand what you are saying. We have a somewhat different opinion of Gods make up. I believe that we can not hope to understand Gods mind so you may be correct. However that doesn't effect our (or my) idea that God is truth does it? I feel God in his realm is omnipotent. However his creation does not reflect that perfection and knowledge at least as far as our human understanding is concerned. So maybe we are on the same page eh? ~ And IC if this is getting too invasive we could move this part of the discussion else where if you wish ?

Rev A

 

RA: You already know that you and I are pretty much on the same page, and unless you go way outside the bounds that you and I have previously discussed, there is no worry on my part with regard to what you say. BTW: There was also no need of apology from you on this thread (or any other thread that I recall).

I will suggest, however, that I do believe that in your dissertation above, you were withholding in regard to some spiritually discernible material. IMHO. Otherwise a good posting.

 

Great posts and rebuttals Incorporeal. I believe that 'real reality' is the afterlife because its eternal as is God and his domain. I was wondering do you think the physical world will be changed to be eternal? I mean do you think the physicist etc will make earth and the universe eternal. Of course our most gifted scientists say the universe is not eternal, at least not in the form we are familiar with. Our bible offers fairly good evidence that we will live on a new earth etc and have rejuvenated bodies. Maybe that was the real reason for the creation? I love to speculate, of course we may never know real truth until we meet in heaven.

Rev A

 

Truth is not attainable or 'knowable'* at this time if truth means knowing everything. Science is limited and therefore barred from truth in several areas as of today. However the future may not be so bleak, but that remains to be seen. Contemporary secular science is limited by quantum physics, ie uncertainty etc, by Godel's theory of incompleteness (two theorems of mathematical logic which show that there are inbuilt limits of all but the most basic axiomatic systems) to name a couple of biggies. There are other trolls that prevent us as human beings reaching truth across the intellectual bridge, the most scary to today's scientists is the incompatibility between classical physics and quantum physics. In fact the roadblocks and trolls seem to be conspiring to keep we intellectually feeble humans ignorant of truth.

However does that mean truth is subjective*? No its not, if God exists. If God does not exist yes truth is wildly subjective.

* Truth is knowable by God if God is as Christian scripture describes, of course I being a christian minster etc I believe our bible is the best we have describing the creator of the universe.

** (according to who)

Rev A

 

In the mind of Christians, that statement would not be questioned. Likewise, I concur for the same reason.

It is eternal and it will change per the descriptions afforded by the book of Revelation. In that change, all traces of 'sin' will be removed and the earth will become a 'new earth'.

ABSOLUTELY.... not. Unless you are considering God as the greatest of any and all physicists that ever was/is?

Perhaps due to the fact that they rely entirely on the temporal laws and do not give consideration to the Laws of God. Remember, it was God that brought into (what we refer to as )existence a universe that was not but now is. And that universe was brought into "existence" through the mind and power of God. So where the physicists of this world stop in their wondering, God moves ever forward to accomplish that which He has in mind.

Yes! In the form of an inspired revelation.

From a limited intellect and an almost total lack of KNOWLEDGE regarding the nature of God, I can only say: Perhaps.

Speculation is great. The only problem with human speculation is the fact that all too often (mostly always) the human will lean on his own understanding and will make conclusions based on his/her experience mixed with a heap of ego and the intellect of (as described in the Bible) a dung heap. Speaking as one Christian to another Christian, I would be willing to saying that I am assured that you have already had 'truth' revealed to you.

Have a nice evening Brother.

 

Thanks for your reply especially your vote of confidence of my faith, I am sure by your writings and our correspondence that you are a man of God as well. Concerning your reply, I agree with you, however I made a typo ha ha. Here is the mistake; I typed ;

"I mean do you think the physicist etc will make earth and the universe eternal"

I don't know how in the world that came from my fingers. I meant to say; 'do you think the physics (the natural laws of the universe) will be changed to make the workings of the natural world, our universe eternal?' I think I was typing that about the time Bogie the basset began bugging me to go out.

Lastly yes I agree that our knowledge is on a nano scale compared to Gods. I think the natural world by Gods design limits our access and understanding for a reason not revealed. Do you remember or know the verse and book where God or Jesus talked about secrets that we are not privy to? Its been a long time since Milligan (a bible school), and the verse location has slipped my mind.

A good night to you IC. God bless you and yours~

Rev A

 

I think this might be the verse that you are referring to.... it is the closest one that I can find that will fit within the parameter you established.

"Ecc 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek [it] out, yet he shall not find [it]; yea further; though a wise [man] think to know [it], yet shall he not be able to find [it]."

As for the error you made... When I read your reporting of that, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. . . surely you must of had something on your mind other than what yo were typing.

At any rate: No! I do not believe that the 'laws of physics' as we know them, will have anything to do with that rebirth of the earth. No more so than what they had to do with the original birth of the earth. Genesis 1; plainly states that the earth was 'void and without form'... Contemplate those words, and please explain where the laws of physics could possibly fit into that scenario. Keep in mind, that before physics can become a part of the picture, there must first be something (in some form) by which physics can act upon. And then God said "Let there be" and things started acquiring form.

 

I was no able to imagine that someone could deny the neuropsychological side of our human existance in this world here. How often do you win in such senseless "war of words" games? And what will you win in the end with such methods?

http://youtu.be/mHQJReaAmfM

 

Everythgin what we are speaking about is always a process where psychological and biological laws are envolved. Biology as well as psychology are empirical sciences - so we are able to speak in a way of intersubjective truth abhout all this things ... And no one interprets "rain" for example as "sunshine" and latest if someone has to step in 2 yards high snow he will start to accept reality indendent from the ability of the language to combine every word with every word - wether it makes sense or not to do so.

http://youtu.be/D2rLUCAjI3Y

 

The words rain, sunshine, snow (in fact all words) are also a product of language which in itself is subjective. Remove the language in the scenario you have put forth and what is the effect of walking in the sunshine, the rain, or the snow with regard to expressing oneself? Even the process of interpreting is subjective. As for your suggestion that psychology is empirical and that there are "laws" relating to psychology: I once had conversation with the head of the psychology department at FSU: During that conversation it was indicated in no uncertain terms that there is only one law in psychology which applies to every individual as a pragmatic absolute: that law being "we will all live until we die, everything else is subjective." Therefore your conclusion about the non-presence of language with regard to the '2 yards high of snow" is equally subjective" as it is rendered as a 'hypothetical' with your use of the instrument of language called the word "if", and the fact that language would not exist under the other portion of the scenario (independent of language -- a condition known only to new-born children).

 

I agree. If god is real, then god is in fact, Truth, and beyond human understanding, and in my way of thinking, literally has to be. Which, would not even bring into play a questioning of omnipotence, since it is the nature/essence of god that results in a void of a choice....not a limitation to his being.

My daughter just wandered by and read that...says I am dead wrong, stating of course god has choice. LOL. (and tells me she is going scripturally school me later on tonight).

Ugh.

 

Omnipotence is only one of the aspects or nature of His being. Omnipotence or 'all powerful' means only that He is all powerful. Just because He is all powerful does not mean that He uses that force or power in a manner which would result in what you describe as "results in a void of a choice....not a limitation to his being." On the other side of that scenario is the subject of Omniscience. Another part of the nature of His being that would allow Him to know when and if the application of His power was even necessary in regard to any individual man, woman, or child. Please explain why you did not address the issue of the Omniscience of God.