-->
@Athias
Are you suggesting you don't see the value of distinguishing truth from un-truth?I don't see "truth" as you do.
That seems important.
How do you see "truth"?
There'll never be closure on whether God exists
Posts
Total:
554
-->
@Athias
Thought itself exists as a logical necessity (NOUMENON).Your contention against the posit that the mind is self-evident is that it can't be tested with "100%" veracity.
This is 100% undeniable truth.
Now, you seem to be conflating mind-thought-truth-certainty.
Just because the mind exists with 100% certainty, DOES NOT mean that every single thought (perception) is true.
-->
@3RU7AL
That seems important.How do you see "truth"?
Truth is determined by the subject; the subject is the primary agent in one's own experience; experience is shaped by perception.
Thought itself exists as a logical necessity (NOUMENON).This is 100% undeniable truth.Now, you seem to be conflating mind-thought-truth-certainty.Just because the mind exists with 100% certainty, DOES NOT mean that every single thought (perception) is true.
Seem is not an argument; and yes, because the mind exist with 100% certainty, thoughts by extension exist with 100% certainty.
Truth is determined by the subject; the subject is the primary agent in one's own experience; experience is shaped by perception.
What is impossible, is all that remains after all that is possible has been excluded.
What is truth, is all the remains after all that is false has been excluded.
Or something like that.
We know the sum of the angles of Euclidean triangle is eternally true, when the base unit/unity is 360 degrees.
You can't change a persons prespective on the way they look at the world again. Religion has played such on society that it will take centuries to erase religion if it is proven false.
Countries are founded off the premise of religion influencing policies, this means these policies overall mean power countries dissolve
It is also extremely negative to not live a religious life. You have no morals or ethics to believe in
What is impossible, is all that remains after all that is possible has been eliminated.
What is truth, is all the remains after all that is false has been eliminated.
Or something like that.
We know that, the sum of the angles of Euclidean triangle is 180 degrees is eternally true, when the base unit/unity is 360 degrees.
-->
@ebuc
What is truth, is all the remains after all that is false has been eliminated.
No.
If you only eliminate what is PROVABLY-FALSE, you end up with a giant pile of unfalsifiable OPINION.
-->
@Athias
Truth is determined by the subject; the subject is the primary agent in one's own experience; experience is shaped by perception.
So, when you say "true" you mean "only true for me"?
You seem to be saying that in your view, GNOSIS = TRUTH.
-->
@Athias
...because the mind exist with 100% certainty, thoughts by extension exist with 100% certainty.
Correct.
HOWEveER, this does not mean that ALL "thoughts" are 100% TRUE.
Some thoughts are "non-true", you know, like dreams and magic and make-believe and fairy-tales and religious-experiences.
-->
@3RU7AL
No. If you only eliminate what is PROVABLY-FALSE, you end up with a giant pile of unfalsifiable OPINION.
Ex there exists three primary colors red - green - blue ---putting aside artists yellow--.
What primary color is the apple behind my back? No it is not red nor is it blue ergo it must be green.
Red and blue are eliminated as false, that can only leave one truth in regards to the primary color of the apple.
-->
@ebuc
In other words,
(IFF) your claim is not provably-TRUE (AND) not provably-FALSE (THEN) it must necessarily be indistinguishable from (unfalsifiable) OPINION.
Three categories, (1) provably-TRUE, (2) provably-FALSE, and (3) unverifiable-unfalsifiable-OPINION.
Category (3) dwarfs the other two.
-->
@3RU7AL
Three categories, (1) provably-TRUE,
Via process of elimination.
(2) provably-FALSE,
If the truth is that the apple is not red or blue, then there can exist only the truth.
and (3) unverifiable-unfalsifiable-OPINION.
If we see the and the apple looks green, then our oppinion is also a verified truth.
Somehow it appears to that your tying to say there is no truth in Universe or outside of Universe, only "opinion".
If the latter is belief-oppinnion, I disagree with your conclusion. Maybe you can better explain, cause I'm not clear as to how you would think all truth is oppinion and not truth.
-->
@3RU7AL
If no living person has ever seen “god”, then there is no undeniable proof that it exists.
-->
@3RU7AL
So, when you say "true" you mean "only true for me"?
One can say only "true just for me."
You seem to be saying that in your view, GNOSIS = TRUTH.
Seem is not an argument; it would be more like my saying, QUALIA = TRUTH; where as you're stating "non-pure" qualia and quanta = truth.
Correct.HOWEveER, this does not mean that ALL "thoughts" are 100% TRUE.
Why not? Why does the veracity of one's own mind not extend to one's thoughts?
Some thoughts are "non-true", you know, like dreams and magic and make-believe and fairy-tales and religious-experiences.
But your premise is based on a concept that bears no capacity to be falsified. If we changed the definitions, would the argument still hold? If I use a particular definition, my argument will hold; if you use a particular definition, your argument will hold. But in this epistemological exploration, lexical semantics isn't sufficient. Otherwise, why are we still engaging each other in this discussion? I presume that we are both seeking to resolve that which we each believe constitutes the value of truth. You argue that the value in creating a distinction between real/true/fact and purely abstract/imaginary/make-believe is to prevent entertaining delusions and con-artistry. My position is that all of it is part of one's experience and thereby can be assigned a "truth-value" subject to its agent.
There are two things that betray your argument, and this information has been accumulated in my experience debating you:
1. You reject the notion of objectivity (or objective truth.) You offer that your metric for REAL/TRUE/FACT is subject to inter-subjectivity. This means necessarily that any metric you propose must be accepted by the inter-subjective collective. But we both know that the number of people has no relevance to the determination of truth, less it posits an ad populum fallacy. So then, what is scientific verification actually "verifying"? Intersubjectivity can only inform on the number of observers to a particular event; what does it do to escape the ad populum fallacy? In order to reconcile this, the resolution must be one independent of any and all observation. Or, it can be dependent on any one observation. (Because you have to rule out the relevance of the number.) Scientific verification does neither because observation and reproducible results are key. One would have to abandon logic.
2. You stated in the past that your position is necessarily one of materialism. (I believe you cited a video where quantum mechanics undermined materialist concepts.) So if REAL/TRUE/FACT isn't necessarily material, I then ask, why is the metric that the thousands of people who claim to have seen Big Foot usesubject to more criticism than that of scientific verification which is also contingent on number and observation?
-->
@blanks
If no living person has ever seen “god”, then there is no undeniable proof that it exists.
(IFF) The "YHWH" was able to send a personal message via a talking donkey (THEN) I'm sure it's fully capable of revealing itself to me, personally, if it wanted me to do (or not do) any particular thing.
You can't know if "no living person has ever seen gods".
What you CAN know is that you've never seen one for yourself.
-->
@Athias
So, when you say "true" you mean "only true for me"?One can say only "true just for me."
Thanks for clearing that up.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm sure it's fully capable of revealing itself to me
It never has, though.
There isn’t any liable evidence that proves that there is an existing god, so it can be assumed that there is no god.
-->
@Athias
You seem to be saying that in your view, GNOSIS = TRUTH.Seem is not an argument; it would be more like my saying, QUALIA = TRUTH; where as you're stating "non-pure" qualia and quanta = truth.
Pretty close. I'd say, Qualified Qualia = TRUTH.
-->
@blanks
I'm sure it's fully capable of revealing itself to meIt never has, though.There isn’t any liable evidence that proves that there is an existing god, so it can be assumed that there is no god.
Other than the logical necessity (NOUMENON) legendary (religious) gods are indistinguishable from non-existent gods.
My appeal to personal revelation is an argument against people trying to convert others to belief in their favorite fairy tale.
(IFF) your gods are so great and love me so much (THEN) they can speak to me directly.
-->
@Athias
HOWEveER, this does not mean that ALL "thoughts" are 100% TRUE.Why not? Why does the veracity of one's own mind not extend to one's thoughts?
The Mind is a logical necessity. HOWEvEer, your personal experience has proven to you, personally, that some ideas and perceptions are unreliable.
All thoughts EXIST (as GNOSIS), sure, BUT not all thoughts are TRUE.
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) your gods are so great and love me so much (THEN) they can speak to me directly.
You seem to have misunderstood, so let me rephrase this.
There is no liable proof for the existence of a god, meaning that not once has there been a piece of evidence that completely proves the existence of a god.
-->
@blanks
There is no liable proof for the existence of human free-will, meaning that not once has there been a piece of evidence that completely proves the existence of human free-will.
This is a classic appeal-to-ignorance. Also commonly presented as "you can't prove me wrong". It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent. BOTH PRO and CON must be able to construct their OWN case.
Most people consider their own, personal, private experience (GNOSIS) as conclusive "evidence" if not "proof".
If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".
-->
@3RU7AL
Give an example.HOWEvEer, your personal experience has proven to you, personally, that some ideas and perceptions are unreliable.
All thoughts EXIST (as GNOSIS), sure, BUT not all thoughts are TRUE.
How does subjective information make a perception "non-true" and intersubjective information make a perception "true"?
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no liable proof for the existence of human free-will, meaning that not once has there been a piece of evidence that completely proves the existence of human free-will.This is a classic appeal-to-ignorance. Also commonly presented as "you can't prove me wrong". It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent. BOTH PRO and CON must be able to construct their OWN case.Most people consider their own, personal, private experience (GNOSIS) as conclusive "evidence" if not "proof".If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".
Well stated.
-->
@Mopac
I whole heartedly disagree.The Ultimate Reality by necessity exists. The position that there is no ultimate reality has no ground to stand on.
What do you mean by Ultimate Reality?
If all you mean by "Ultimate Reality" is some vague sense of order and natural or moral law, then you haven't really dealt with God. God isn't just order and reality. When we talk about God, we generally mean a personal God with intentions, actions, discretion, and maybe even a name.
-->
@sylweb
What do you mean by Ultimate Reality?
Not to speak for Mopac, but it just means Reality as it is or as it exists independent of our own personal experiences and observations of life. The spin Mopac puts on it (and in this case he would be right) is that the Reality that I just described would be what we call God. If you don't accept that God exists then it would still work only no one could ever be aware of it. But...as God exists so this reality obviously is observed.
God is not limited by space or time, so the reality God experiences is of totality....there is nowhere something exists where the Creator is not present. God is aware of what is within creation and also what is transcendent of that creation.
Just for your interest here is a good description of what we would mean by an "Ultimate Reality". This is a Hindu term but the principle is the same universally. You can say that an ultimate reality simply means totality, in comparison we experience reality through a limited perception. But the Ultimate Reality exists apart from that isolated observation.
When we talk about God, we generally mean a personal God with intentions, actions, discretion, and maybe even a name.
Well the Ultimate Reality is a conscious Reality albeit formless, it pervades all of creation much like energy and all things comes out of that first Source. Any state of reality that is conscious is also a being, since consciousness is a state of being, awareness and observation. So yes, this Reality has intentions and we see that play out in creation. The fun part is what exists beyond the physical world and physical sense perception.
God isn't just order and reality
That is some of what God is of course. But you're correct, much more to God.
-->
@3RU7AL
A green apple, rather than red or blue = truth.Pretty close. I'd say, Qualified Qualia = TRUTH.
We can validate this truth via instrumentation that measures frequency of visible radiation reflected off apple
Unless the instrumentation is rigged to give false information.
The truth is what remains after all false narratives have been eliminated. Process of elimination is what is the auto mechanic has as his fall back and answering the question, how come my car does'nt run correctly.
Impossible as the correct answer and what remains after all that is possible has been eliminated as correct answer.
A space qualifys as occupied via instrumentation validation of a quanta ergo PING!
Gravity nor Dark Energy has PINGED! any instrumentation, yet we indirectly we see its effects, ergo it is likened to virtual particles, that, we only indirectly see their effects.
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are attempting to say that something exists, you have the burden of proof.It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent.
If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".
You can assume that they are not being truthful, if they have not presented evidence.