Belief, faith, doubt

[Chriliman]

Citation needed.

?
It's common knowledge.

 

[SteveB28]

It is a fact that truth must first be known by an intelligent being and then conveyed by that same being. It then follows that the greatest truth must first be known by the greatest being and then conveyed by that same being.

What a strange claim. What makes a 'truth' into a 'greatest' truth?

And why do truths have to be "known by an intelligent being"? If it is true that the earth orbits its sun, then that will remain true, regardless of whether an intelligent being knows it or not. Truth is independent of any mind perceiving it.

 

[Chriliman]

What a strange claim. What makes a 'truth' into a 'greatest' truth?

And why do truths have to be "known by an intelligent being"? If it is true that the earth orbits its sun, then that will remain true, regardless of whether an intelligent being knows it or not. Truth is independent of any mind perceiving it.

Whether truth is independent of all minds or not is irrelevant to the point being made. The point is that truth can't be known without intelligence.

Therefore, the greatest most complete truth, must first be known by the greatest intelligent being and then conveyed to others.

The greatest most complete truth can be thought of as a theory of everything in scientific terms.

Christianity claims that Jesus Christ is the greatest, most complete truth, conveyed to us by God.

Science has yet to formulate a theory of everything, should be interesting to see how it compares to the greatest truth of Jesus.

 

[HitchSlap]

?
It's common knowledge.

You're not even trying, are you?

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol

Whether truth is independent of all minds or not is irrelevant to the point being made. The point is that truth can't be known without intelligence.

Therefore, the greatest most complete truth, must first be known by the greatest intelligent being and then conveyed to others.

The greatest most complete truth can be thought of as a theory of everything in scientific terms.

Christianity claims that Jesus Christ is the greatest, most complete truth, conveyed to us by God.

Science has yet to formulate a theory of everything, should be interesting to see how it compares to the greatest truth of Jesus.

 

[Chriliman]

You're not even trying, are you?

Nope, this is all pretty easy

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope, this is all pretty easy

I can tell.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It is a fact that truth must first be known by an intelligent being and then conveyed by that same being. It then follows that the greatest truth must first be known by the greatest being and then conveyed by that same being.

Non sequitur. Again...

 

[Freodin]

Right, which is where the personal experience of being saved would come in to justify the belief/faith that Jesus can save you.

Q: Save you from what?

A: Your sins and the eternal punishment of death/separation from God and life. (This does not imply that you'll be tormented forever)

So... you have the personal experience of not being eternally punished with death/separation from God?

And with all your reason and honesty, you never once realized that this is factually impossible to have such a personal experience?


Contrary to what you said earlier, this is what "faith" is: the baseless acceptence of something as factual, even without evidence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Whether truth is independent of all minds or not is irrelevant to the point being made. The point is that truth can't be known without intelligence.

Therefore, the greatest most complete truth, must first be known by the greatest intelligent being and then conveyed to others.

And another non sequitur. And once again, you're adding words that don't actually modify the noun. "Truth" is just truth. "Greatest" and "most complete" don't add anything to the word.

It's like saying "That light switch is in the greatest and most complete state of being on." No, it's just on...

Don't you realize that everyone sees these mistakes of language and gauge your responses to be nonsensical?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Faith is rewarded when you put your faith in the actual truth. Of course you don't know it's the actual truth before you put your faith in it, but that's the point of faith, it leads to knowledge of truth.

How, exactly, does knowledge follow from "faith"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd describe it as similar to making a hypothesis. You have a supposition that you're not sure is true, but you see evidence pointing in that direction, so you put your faith in what you think might be true based on the evidence available.

Faith is certainly not about disregarding all evidence just to believe whatever you want to believe. Faith is directed by evidence that we perceive in reality, just like a hypothesis is made when evidence is pointing to something that you think might be true, but you don't know for sure if it's true.

Then why do you have a need for the word "faith"? Why not just call it "hypothesis"?

 

[Chriliman]

Then why do you have a need for the word "faith"? Why not just call it "hypothesis"?

Good question and the honest answer is that I have no issue with using either word. However, both words have extra meaning applied to them that doesn't necessarily need to be applied. 'Faith' implies religion and 'hypothesis' implies science, but I think both words are synonymous if you think about them in an objective way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because we don't know everything there is to know, so many of us choose to engage the unknown in order to figure out what's actually true. Faith or trust that there's truth to be known is required to engage the unknown, otherwise you won't engage it because you're afraid of what you don't know or you're afraid of what truth you'll discover.

If you don't know something, isn't it better to then say "we don't know, let's try and find out" instead of "I have faith that it is X" and then use that faith as justification that it is indeed X?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a fact that truth must first be known by an intelligent being and then conveyed by that same being. It then follows that the greatest truth must first be known by the greatest being and then conveyed by that same being.

This makes no sense at all to me.

Also, what is the difference between "truth" and "the greatest truth"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good question and the honest answer is that I have no issue with using either word. However, both words have extra meaning applied to them that doesn't necessarily need to be applied. 'Faith' implies religion and 'hypothesis' implies science, but I think both words are synonymous if you think about them in an objective way.

So, "religious faith" makes testable predictions that can be independently verified?

That's certainly news to me.

 

[devolved]

Whether truth is independent of all minds or not is irrelevant to the point being made. The point is that truth can't be known without intelligence.

Therefore, the greatest most complete truth, must first be known by the greatest intelligent being and then conveyed to others.

You'd have to define "known" and "intelligence" and "truth" when you are talking about the philosophical scope of this issue.

You have a habit of switching semantic context that's not really adequate for discussion here.

That's exactly what you are doing here.

Let's examine your claim piece by piece

The point is that truth can't be known without intelligence.

So far so good

Therefore, the greatest most complete truth, must first be known by the greatest intelligent being and then conveyed to others.

Sure. And that of itself doesn't necessitates God. Because you are then jumping and switching context between "greatest imagined" to "greatest known".

The greatest known intelligence so far is a network of human intelligence. Collectively we break down complex problems and progress and relay certain information, education methods and experience.

How do you progress from the above assumption to "Therefore God"?

 

[Chriliman]

You'd have to define "known" and "intelligence" and "truth" when you are talking about the philosophical scope of this issue.

You have a habit of switching semantic context that's not really adequate for discussion here.

That's exactly what you are doing here.

Let's examine your claim piece by piece

The point is that truth can't be known without intelligence.

So far so good

Therefore, the greatest most complete truth, must first be known by the greatest intelligent being and then conveyed to others.

Sure. And that of itself doesn't necessitates God. Because you are then jumping and switching context between "greatest imagined" to "greatest known".

The greatest known intelligence so far is a network of human intelligence. Collectively we break down complex problems and progress and relay certain information, education methods and experience.

How do you progress from the above assumption to "Therefore God"?

Because I have no reason to not assume God. You may have a reason to not assume God and it's understandable that we all have reasons for our assumptions or lack there of.

However, our assumptions are made based on what the evidence is pointing to, not based on the evidence itself. Our knowledge is based on the evidence itself. If you had direct evidence of God, then you would not need to assume God.

 

[devolved]

Because I have no reason to not assume God. You may have a reason to not assume God and it's understandable that we all have reasons for our assumptions or lack there of.

But that's not the logic that you present. What you've described has nothing to do with God at all. You propose that truths has to go through intellect, which is correct IMO.

Then you say that the greatest truths require greatest intellect, that's also correct IMO... at least I wouldn't say that it's incorrect.

None of the above defines God into picture. You need another step somewhere to justify bringing God into this equation, and you haven't really attempted to do so.

 

[Chriliman]

But that's not the logic that you present. What you've described has nothing to do with God at all. You propose that truths has to go through intellect, which is correct IMO.

Then you say that the greatest truths require greatest intellect, that's also correct IMO... at least I wouldn't say that it's incorrect.

None of the above defines God into picture. You need another step somewhere to justify bringing God into this equation, and you haven't really attempted to do so.

One way in which I define God is that God has the greatest intellect of any being in existence. This is how he's capable of conveying the greatest truths.