What is the Truth

KaosTheory · #1 08-22-2004, 07:38 PM

Jersee wrote:

KT,

This is as plain as I can state it. I thought my examples of acceptance would show you. Okay, here it is....

2 + 2 = 4. For me this is truth but there is a debate on this issue that some mathematicians don't agree with it. I don't know the details of the debate but I know it exists.

So if someone does not accept that fact--it is not fact to them. Follow me so far?

So if some mathematicians do not accept the fact of 2 + 2 = 4, then it is not fact to them. So weighing both sides of the argument over 2 + 2 = 4; what is truth?

Just because its truth to you (which maybe widely held) does not mean its truth to someone else. So what is truth?

The thought is basic--yet it is engrossing.

Definition: Truth to me is an absolute, undisputable, positive which cannot be false and must be accepted as such.

This is my definition of truth/fact. This may also be someone else's definition of truth when the situation that we know as truth is challenged by someone else's thought of what truth is in a particular situation or circumstance.

So let's go back to the Atheist. God does not exist for them---this is true. For the believer, God exists, this is true. So what is truth? Are there 2 truths?

Step out of your box and look at what I asked. Don't use your life as a measure of these things. I put this DISCLAIMER out there a page back. I understand your belief in the Almighty. This is not about what you believe in. It is about what is truth? How can your belief be true and an Atheists belief be true? Folks are injecting their belief of what is truth to them and not what is truth in its own sense to someone else.

IMHO this is the problem. Theologians, Politicians, Satanists, and whomever, spewing out what is truth and using it as a cover all.

My answer to "what is truth?" truth is truth if it is accepted as truth. It matters not of a outcome to a person. If they don't believe in the truth as I know it--then it is not truth to them. I cannot force my truth on their truth to try to disclaim it. That means I am judging if I attempted that. And that is not acceptance. That is persuasion. For only a person may accept things as truth and not be forced to accept it---that is not acceptance.

The same standard applies to the other side as well.

iamfree,

prove that an Atheist calls out to God on their death bed.

KaosTheory · #2 08-22-2004, 07:42 PM

Well from your point of view, it appears to me that it is pointless to discuss what the truth is.

Is this a fair assessment of what you are saying?

I mean if we are our own point of reference for truth then there is no point worrying if we are right about anything. We are all right all the time as long as we believe we are right. There is no absolute reference point for truth to judge by.

I guess that's the end of this discussion.....NEXT!!!

weishaupt1776 · #3 08-22-2004, 09:44 PM

[quote BY=Jersee]So how can Truth exist independently if it is not recognized or accepted?[/quote][color=black][b]This question ultimately is suggesting that truth is relative to people. In a later post of yours, I noted that you made it clear that you are not discussing objective truth. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that even though there may be an existing fact, until accepted, it is not really true to that person. This is basically saying that minds create truths or falsehoods. It appears to me that you are mixing up the concepts of a belief & a truth in a blender. Human beliefs depend on their human minds for existence, no doubt. <blockquote>However, to suggest that mankind's beliefs depend on minds for their truth is like saying that when the earth existed before humans dwelled on it; the concept of human existence wasn't true to us because we didn't exist in the first place. If this explains your position, I would have to agree with you. But if, on the first day humans dwelled the earth, Adam said to Eve , "You & I are existing right now", but Eve said , "You and I are not existing right now" ; can it still be reasonably justified that existence & non-existence of Adam & Eve could occur simultaneously in that specific situation when they were talking to each other?</blockquote>[quote BY=Jersee] So where does "FAITH" fit in? It isn't a object nor is it intellect. Or is it?[/quote][color=black][b]Because faith is the basis of hoping & trusting in things not seen, it would have to be different from the intellect. The intellect reasons deductively & inductively based upon tangible concepts. In turn, a conclusion is reached based upon the calculation. A faith based belief is a complete trust & reliance in hope for something not yet seen or presented.

Quote:

how do you know something?

[color=black][b]Knowing something begins with a starting point as the basis and needs no further demonstration to be true. Argumentation produces questions, but knowledge must be based on principles about which there can be no question. How could argumentation possibly be a source of knowledge within any frame of reasoning? Any form of a conclusion must be demonstrated through premises which are self-evident or being capable of being demonstrated other ways. Does the mind conform to reality or does reality conform to the mind?

Quote:

Based on what you said to know and believe mean...where does faith fit in all of that?

[color=black][b]Faith & belief can overlap as well as be seperated. Believing & knowing, in the sense of intellectually being aware of the existence of something right there in your face, is not tied into faith. However, believing; in the sense of trusting & relying upon someone or something is tied into the faculty of faith.

Also, do you we apply reasoning principles in light of Scripture

Or should we apply Scripture in light of reasoning principles?

Jersee, I'm having a meltdown like one of your nuke plants off

the turnpike! ! !

.

weishaupt1776 · #4 08-22-2004, 10:21 PM

[color=black][b]Hey guys, I've been appointed by an inventor to draft a trade secret agreement regarding a formula & to also hook up w/ the companies. I'll be unable to respond for a little while, but I will check periodically. This could mean mega FRN's that I can convert into Gold!!! I might even be able to float the bill for a speaker to where no ticket purchases are necessary!!! Keep me in prayer.

KaosTheory · #5 08-22-2004, 10:39 PM

Best wishes Weis. Good post there by the way.

KT

weishaupt1776 · #6 09-03-2004, 10:51 AM

[color=black][b]The more I study the Concepts of Truth & the Knowability of it & other concepts within those concepts, I can conclude that faith & human logical principles are like oil & water. The Scriptural outlook on faith is that faith comes from your Spirit which is composed of the faculties of your conscience, intuition, and of the ability to commune with & worship god. Logic is an aspect of the mind, which in turn, is one of the 3 faculties of the soul, of which remain two other faculties being the will & the emotions. The big question is, "Do we look at Scripture in light of human logic principles or do we look at human logic principles in light of Scripture?"

TheBlackTruth · #7 09-03-2004, 01:17 PM

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>Jerseee,

I noticed some inconsistencies in your argument. Namely the idea that "Truth", instead of being an objective, universal constant, is a subjective, individual belief.

In your own words you state your definition of truth as ". . .an absolute, undisputable, positive which cannot be false and must be accepted as such."

I see no room for personal subjectivity in this definition, do you?

I myself have done a lot of thinking and studying on this topic and have come to the realization of two things:

There is a difference between "fact" and "truth". All Truths are facts, but not all facts are truth. A fact is something identifiable as provable. For instance in your example: 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. Is it true? We (as a society) apparently aren't sure yet.
Truth MUST be universal in scope, crossing all cultural and temporal barriers. <font color=red>The truth is that which IS[/color]. Pure and simple. People can debate facts. But the truth is undebatable.

So the question I think we will likely spend our time on for the longest is will we ever discover the truth and will we be able to recognize it when we see it?

My two cents.

-BT

<font size=1>

p.s. This, I beleive, is why when Moses asked of God who he was at the burning bush, the reply was "I am". The noun was not modified by any subjective adjectives (however factual they may be), because any adjective behind that which IS automatically reduces and diminishes that noun. Think about that one. ..[/color][/color]

Jerseee · #8 09-05-2004, 12:51 AM

BT,

Good response.

First let me state my position...I believe in god. This is my truth. This is my fact.

Can I speak for an athiest?

TheBlackTruth · #9 09-05-2004, 02:22 AM

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>Jersee,

I, too, believe in God. So, it goes without saying that I believe it is TRUE that God exists. However, I think the application of my argument earlier would suggest the phrase "my truth" is ambiguous and improper given the definition of truth is universal, crossing all cultural, personal and temporal/metaphysical barriers. In other words, that which IS is regardless of my beliefs or yours.

I will then have to assume your phrase, "my truth" is interchangeable with "my belief"

-BT[/color]

Jerseee · #10 09-05-2004, 07:10 AM

BT,

For the purpose of this thread, KT and I have decided that to know is 100% and to believe is less than 100% sure. So I may have used the term 'believe' inadvertently because of the time spent away from this thread. So with that said, we know of God. God is a 'truth' for us. God is a 'fact' for us.

Can we speak for athiest?

You see, we cannot impose our truths on those who have truths of their own--no matter how right or wrong. I use the athiests because they have their own truth about God. So who are we to impose our 'truth' on their 'truth'?

Who are we to judge?

Who are we to legislate God's word on the world?

We are only messengers not enforcers or corruptors taking advantage of free will. THis is what government does. This is why I despise religion--it is not of God, it is man-made.

You see, for there to be REAL truth; truth must be accepted freely and not under duress. This is highlighted by the puritan laws, the Witch Hunts of New England, the Spanish Inquisition and even in McCarthy-ism. If folks bend under duress to accept a forced truth, then this is against God's will (IMHO).

So if athiests do not hold God to be true, then that is their truth and it is God who makes decisions based on this and our efforts to present his word/law in an unforceful way.

Would you want your child to love you by duress and fear or by free will?

If folks take a step back and not be so consumed with their own preceptions of life--I think most will agree that there is no truth without acceptance.

These of course are my thoughts on this--not gospel. This thought process allows me to help more people without judgement and fosters a trust factor that cannot be replaced. Also it helps me to help someone gain confidence in what they are doing. So I understand atheists but I do not accept their truths about God. this should not be a barrier to helping folks.

I have faith in folks just as God has faith in people--all someone can do is disappoint me--not change my love for my God. Truth must have acceptance by one to exist.