What is the Truth - Page 3

KaosTheory · #21 09-17-2004, 07:37 PM

BT wrote:

"I think certain knowledge is better gained using certain methods. .. How about you?"

----

Well, generally, I would agree. Could you elaborate?

Have you studied philosophy? Did you happen to read my post called "A Brief Introduction on the Theory of Knowledge"?

TheBlackTruth · #22 09-17-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseee

BT,

If no one believes in what you believe in--is it still truth for you?

Now I'm using your phrasing of turth and belief--not what KT and I agreed upon previously for discussion sake.

Jerseee,

If you were in fact using my phrasing, then you would not have said "truth for you"

.

My argument is that Truth simply IS. Only knowledge or belief requires acceptance. But to apply my definitions as earlier, I'd have to rephrase your question like so:

If no one believes in what you believe in--would you still believe in it?

I can't answer that generally because of the miriad of different beliefs I could hold that vary in conviction. For instance if on a particular day in a particular location I came to believe that it was raining, but could not find a single person to support my belief, I may come to believe otherwise. However if you were discussing the existence of God, I'd have the opposite stance.[/color]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

BT wrote:

"I think certain knowledge is better gained using certain methods. .. How about you?"

----

Well, generally, I would agree. Could you elaborate?

Have you studied philosophy? Did you happen to read my post called "A Brief Introduction on the Theory of Knowledge"?

Well for instance, lets say we would like to know what causes Water to freeze. I believe it is plausible to use a scientific method involving varying temperatures and control groups to come to a conclusion.

However, if wanting to come to know the exsistence of God, a different method (or perhaps, a combination of methods) would be called for.

Yes, I've studied philosophy extensively. I just now read through the Introduction to Knowledge. I can't say I disagree too much with the rundown (except for perhaps the theory on the virtue of intellect)

Just on a side-note, I think the study of truth is truly ontalogical in nature and the most effective argument for the existence of God (by this, I mean a supreme being, singular in this position) is by ontalogical postulation using logical, self-reinforcing premises.

This, from a purely epistemological standpoint of course.

-BT[/color]

Jerseee · #23 09-18-2004, 02:10 PM

BT,

It matters not what Truth IS or ISn't. What matters is your conviction of belief of that Truth regardless of society.

If you are influenced to believe in something or not believe in something--through the dictations of the masses--then you will never know Truth for yourself.

Truth is not just simply "IS". It cannot be boiled down to that because of your vision of Truth. Truth IS what it IS to whom believes in it regardless of the masses support or non-support of it.

If you don't believe in what you are doing--then why do it? If you don't believe in what you say--the why say it?

What is your Truth?

Would you still believe in your truth if no one did not?

If so, you have found your truth.

If not, then it is no longer true. But before that--it was true. No one can have it both ways. This is where pride steps in sometimes.

So that is why I state that I cannot tell an Atheist that there is a God and expect them to believe my truth without acceptance of my truth first.

NO one can tell me that 2+2=4 if I do not accept that. Yes the masses have accepted that truth for them but, I have not. This does not make me wrong or my truth false.

Good discussion! Thanks for bringing it back on track.

DISCLAIMER: THis is just a discussion--not trying to convert anyone into thinking something else.

TheBlackTruth · #24 09-18-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseee

BT,

It matters not what Truth IS or ISn't. What matters is your conviction of belief of that Truth regardless of society.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the name of the thread was "What is Truth"; and in response to that, I answered that question where you have not.

Instead, you have changed the question from "What is Truth" to "What is YOUR truth" and then you answered your question. This is an altogether different discussion which is COMPLETELY unmergeable with the original question.

I really don't know how else to put it. There is a fundemental, philisophical chasm between those two concepts. The latter relying on the former. I can't even say we don't agree, because we aren't arguing the same question.

This is a great discussion. However, without a bridge between those two questions, there can be no useful continuation.

-BT

[/color]

Jerseee · #25 09-18-2004, 03:29 PM

BT,

Good point.

I am leading up to what is truth. If you do not know what it is for yourself--then how can you know what it is?

THis whole thing started in another thread and was transferred.

For example, my truth is that I believe in music comes from the soul and not the person. Music comes from experience of life and not just eh creativity of the writer.

I have accepted this as truth and it is truth for me. This is what it is to me.

My position has been one of there can be no truth if it is not accepted first. Regardless of what it is or is not.

So what is your truth?

My apologies if there was confusion created by me.

KaosTheory · #26 09-18-2004, 07:06 PM

Jersee,

This gets complicated fast. Are you basically saying that everything, including Truth, is relative with respect to the observer? Or are you saying that "There is the Truth (God's Truth)" and then there is our limited interpretation of it (Our Truth)? And.....since all we can only really have is our interpretation of God's Truth and not the Truth itself, then as far as we are concerned, everything really is relative? Hence, all we can only really concern ourselves with is what is "True" for us?

Like I said.....confusing fast.....sorry....I did my best to explain myself and anticipate how you might take it.

BT,

I understand you. That was a great explaination. The arguments for the existence of God go to the heart of "knowing" itself. Basically, nothing comes from nothing so since something exists, then something or someone must have the power of being in and of himself in order to be.

I basically have come to believe that there is God's Truth and then there is our interpretation of it (our truth). Yet we are the product of God's Truth and so is our ability to interpret it. I don't believe that I can "Know" (*) God's truth until I receive my new uncorruptable body. I believe that the only way to actually "Know" God's truth is to have one on one fellowship with Him again the way it was meant to be in the beginning. Until that time, all I have is my belief and my faith. At that time, I will truly be a Being instead of what I am now......a Becoming.

Paul makes reference to this in is analogy of the dirty window.

(*) Know- believe with 100% certainty.

TheBlackTruth · #27 09-18-2004, 07:29 PM

Yes, KT! When applied to theology, this is exactly right.

The concept is pretty much Plato's theory of enlightenment (shadowy reflections). Paul's Dirty Mirror is yet another good analogy.

THE Truth, and by that I mean the subject-matter, and not the definition, has only been known by few if any. Thankfully, if one believes in the Christian/Biblical doctrine, only "belief" is required for salvation. I think that is why the concept of faith is so important/vital to Christian doctrine.

-BT[/color]

TheBlackTruth · #28 09-18-2004, 07:48 PM

For those of you who are up to the challenge, I put before you a logical construct which lays out an Ontological Proof for the Existence of a Supreme Being.

Examine the following:

There can be conceived a being who is maximally perfect.
To exist is more perfect than to not exist.
Therefore, a Supreme Being must necessarily exist.

I open up the floor to conjectures!

-BT

p.s. This proof has been examined and debated for over a century[/color]

Jerseee · #29 09-18-2004, 08:26 PM

KT,

That is it! You've explained it very well in your first paragraph. Better than I. Thanks.

BT,

I may not be as sharp as I once was but correct me if I'm wrong. Your Proof Challenge....This is from Plato, right? Or is it from David Hume?

TheBlackTruth · #30 09-18-2004, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseee

BT,

I may not be as sharp as I once was but correct me if I'm wrong. Your Proof Challenge....This is from Plato, right? Or is it from David Hume?

Plato was many things, but a Theologian he really was not (at least he didn't profess such). Although, many have tried to reconcile his theories with that of Christianity and other various religions.

The author of this Ontological proof is Anselm. Anselm's proof has left doubters in the dust for a LONG time. Its a great brain exerciser though!

-BT[/color]