What is the truth?

[Dave-W]

I think that was more fascinating for me, than anything else- to see the extent of delusion that a sane person can actually be under.

Yeah - I am not so sure "sex" (David Soller) was all that sane .....

 

[bhsmte]

I know some of the lousy contestants were faking just to get on air, get their fifteen minutes of fame, but it was amazing to see how many people (and their friends and family) thought they were good singers when obviously they were horrendous.

I think that was more fascinating for me, than anything else- to see the extent of delusion that a sane person can actually be under.

That doesnt reach the level of delusion, just denial. Everyone uses denial periodically as a fundemental defense mechanism. The difference is, some people can never get to a point, to recognize their denial.

 

[John 1720]

Listen, I fully understand your personal faith belief is not going to allow acceptance of what the consensus is with academic scholars and historians regarding the NT, that is no shocker.

From my perspective though, I have read the works of many of these academics; liberal, moderate and conservative. When you do that, it is not difficult to see who applies the historical method as it was intended to be implied and who is playing fast and loose with it.

The reality is; most NT scholars will state, the NT is more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history. There is a reason they have reached this conclusion and I don't expect you to accept it.

Hi BHsmte
Nice try but you're presupposing that my faith disallows for technical rigor in my evaluations or for the use of the scientific method. Your response has no empirical evidence to back up your claims and simply is not very rigorous or scientific on your part. You did not happen to answer anything in your response to my post relative to as why we should ignore the testimony of the early church fathers or why some hyperbolic theories postulated by modern scholars should trump our ancient testimony. As Ross Perot once said, "I'm all ears".

• Perot Im ears | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

However, you did happen make broad sweeping statements in this response that you did not back up with any facts. Are we just supposed to take your word for it that you know better?

You appear to be enthralled even idolizing modern scholars, even given their track record of being right is marginal at best. Why? Archeology continues to dig up more and more evidence to support the historicity of the Bible every day and scholars have had to walk back many of the things that they've postulated in the past. Biblical scholar Bart D Ehrmann for instance took exception to the method used in to extract the ancient papyrus from the paper mache of the mummy mask to acquire the text.

• Ehrmann wrote “This complete disregard for the sanctity of surviving antiquities is, for many, many of us not just puzzling but flat-out distressing.”

Really? The first century mummy mask of a middle class Egyptian was more valuable than the earliest surviving passages from the New Testament. Why would a Biblical scholar say this? Perhaps because skeptics have to walk back their claims? One can speculate all days but the truth is sprouting from the ancient grounds of the harvest field. Location, events, historical persons named in the Bible are being found all the time by competent archeologists and by using science to extract them. Many of these people, places and things were mocked by skeptics in past decades and centuries. Why should one presuppose we will not find more items that give further credence to the NT and the OT?

• 
  
  
  • World's Oldest Bible Scripture? Scientists Claim 1st Century Gospel of Mark Found in Ancient Mummy's Mask
  • Archaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Can you tell us exactly what the standard is that so called scholars apply in judging the writings of Homer, Plato and Aristotle and if they applied the same standard to that of the NT writings? Seems like a simple question to ask. Can you give a simple answer? What is the statistical evidence for other ancient writers and what is the statistical data for the New Testament?

Perhaps we can truly have a scientific conversation about the Bible using empirical evidence rather than opinion. Your choice.

Happy Good Friday all
This is to all of you who believe

In Christ, Patrick

 

[bhsmte]

Hi BHsmte
Nice try but your presupposing that my faith disallows for technical rigor in my evaluations or for the use of the scientific method. Your response has no empirical evidence to back up your claims and simply is not very rigorous or scientific on your part. You did not happen to answer anything in your response to my post relative to as why we should ignore the testimony of the early church fathers or why some hyperbolic theories postulated by modern scholars should trump our ancient testimony. As Ross Perot once said, "I'm all ears".

• Perot Im ears | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

However, you did happen make broad sweeping statements in this response that you did not back up with any facts. Are we just supposed to take your word for it that you know better?

You appear to be enthralled even idolizing modern scholars, even given their track record of being right is marginal at best. Why? Archeology continues to dig up more and more evidence to support the historicity of the Bible every day and scholars have had to walk back many of the things that they've postulated in the past. Biblical scholar Bart D Ehrmann for instance took exception to the method used in to extract the ancient papyrus from the paper mache of the mummy mask to acquire the text.

• Ehrmann wrote “This complete disregard for the sanctity of surviving antiquities is, for many, many of us not just puzzling but flat-out distressing.”

Really? The first century mummy mask of a middle class Egyptian was more valuable than the earliest surviving passages from the New Testament. Why would a Biblical scholar say this? Perhaps because skeptics have to walk back their claims? One can speculate all days but the truth is sprouting from the ancient grounds of the harvest field. Location, events, historical persons named in the Bible are being found all the time by competent archeologists and by using science to extract them. Many of these people, places and things were mocked by skeptics in past decades and centuries. Why should one presuppose we will not find more items that give further credence to the NT and the OT?

• 
  
  
  • World's Oldest Bible Scripture? Scientists Claim 1st Century Gospel of Mark Found in Ancient Mummy's Mask
  • Archaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Can you tell us exactly what the standard is that so called scholars apply in judging the writings of Homer, Plato and Aristotle and if they applied the same standard to that of the NT writings? Seems like a simple question to ask. Can you give a simple answer? What is the statistical evidence for other ancient writers and what is the statistical data for the New Testament?

Perhaps we can truly have a scientific conversation about the Bible using empirical evidence rather than opinion. Your choice.

Happy Good Friday all
This is to all of you who believe

In Christ, Patrick

Hey, if you think the NT is credible from a historical standpoint, knock yourself out. For me, i have reached different conclusions and will tend to listen and trust the academics, who forget more about this stuff, than you and i will ever know and there work must standup to academic scrutiny.

 

[Uber Genius]

Notice Jesus didn't write anything and John's Gospel was written decades later, maybe not even an eyewitness, so there's a chance Jesus didn't even say that.

Not only that, we've known that there is a chance you are just a brain in a vat of chemicals being fed all the sensory data directly. As Descartes points out:

We can't know for sure that there is a real external world

We can't know for sure that the past is real and all history including our own memories are real

We also can't no if other people (minds) exist.

But do we really want to live our lives with this level of skepticism?

Perhaps we could instead suggest that if we the "So there's a chance this didn't happen," method and apply it in an even-handed way, we will have eliminate the majority of history across all subjects. Not to mention science because we don't have a lot of original experimental data, and it could have been miscopied or even falsified.

What most do here is set the epistemic bar very high for one type of knowledge (knowledge that they disapprove of) and ask us to be skeptical of just that piece.

Hume and his ilk were masters of this approach.

A better question might be what are the normal approaches to ancient literature to determine its veracity?

Bibliographical, internal evidence and external evidence are the three general categories. I will let the readers engage google to determine a reasonable epistemic standard for John and evidence in support of its textual accuracy.

 

[Uber Genius]

Using this line of reasoning, all holy books could be considered objective truth. And, declarations are a dime a dozen. Demonstrating a declaration is accurate, is another story.

I didn't see any justification of the scriptures whatsoever. All I saw was a blanket assertion, followed by an attempt to poison the wells to dissent as "delusional." An ad hominem.

That said one might justify some claims to uniqueness via fulfilled prophecy. Also in terms of the bibliographical evidence (numbers of copies and closeness to originals), the Bible does better than the next ten pieces of classical literature combined.

However, it seems one would need more evidence than that to find the theological inferences action-worthy.

Personal experiences and a priori arguments at least.

 

[Uber Genius]

Hey, if you think the NT is credible from a historical standpoint, knock yourself out. For me, i have reached different conclusions and will tend to listen and trust the academics, who forget more about this stuff, than you and i will ever know and there work must standup to academic scrutiny.

That is quite a blanket appeal to authority that infers a consensus that doesn't exist!

Even atheist scholars like Dominic Crossen and Bart Erhman don't deny the minimal facts case around Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Now they deny the evidence on presuppositional not textual grounds. Bit neither deny he existed.

And those are at the far end of scholarly skepticism NOT IN THE MAIN AS YOU REPRESENTED IN YOUR POST.

 

[John 1720]

Oh, I got your point quite well, thank you. But it seems you didn't get mine.


What I said in my first post was indeed a "truism". I did indeed present it in this form to make it paradoxical. The last line, combined with the "tongue in cheek" smiley should have made it clear that I was taking a humorous approach to this topic. Sorry if you didn't get that... humour is difficult to transport via written text, even with the adding of emoticons.

But the point I was trying to make in this way was very sincere, and, as I think, very valid. And you missed it. Even after I deliberately reminded you of it and asked you to think about it.

See, here you go again: "'There is no truth' is a statement that presupposes you are telling us a truism we should believe..."
But I didn't tell you "there is no truth". I told you "In reality, there is no truth".
Can you not see the difference? Are you not even bothering to ask why I make this difference? Do you take it just for a figure of speech, scrollwork without any meaning? Even after I ask you that this is an important difference that you should think about?
Truth is a human abstraction. In reality, there is no truth - there only is reality.

"Every truth is an abstraction", I said. Think about it. What does that mean?
"2+2=4" was given as an example of "truth"... and instantly put into the correct abstract system ("talking about rational, positive integers- here"). This is "true" in (a certain set of) mathematics. This is "true" in our normal lifes because we agree to use this certain set of mathematics. But it only works within these abstractions... because in reality, there is no "2" or "4".

Hi Freodin
Thank you for your clarification.

How do I know this post is real? I only know because I believe you are truly a living person and not some abstaction from the recesses of my mind. You make some good points about useful abstractions but I believe you may draw conclusions a bit hastily.

I also believe you have it the wrong way around. Reality exists because of truth and not truth because of reality. Whatever doesn't exist in truth isn't real. Yes I do agree there are representative abstractions of the truth - especially in regard to mathematics.

• 2+2=4 is correct in the reality of the base 10 numbering system in base-3 it is 2+2=11 and in base 4 it is 2+2=10. So I think you would say it depends on your perspective of what you "base" reality upon I guess. I'm usually a base 10 guy myself but have been known to use base 2, base 8 and base 16 at times. But whatever base I use I am really saying the same thing about what I am representating despite the abstraction. Math definitely points to universal truths and is simply one of the language of truth.

That is because anything that vectors towards the truth is able to manifest itself in a plethora of symbols. All manifestation of what is truly real as well as words and symbols can point us to the truth which is absolute. Yes they are finite means but the finite is a subset of the eternal and not the other way around. Lies would be an example of things that would deflect us from the truth. Lies are abstraction that vector away from the truth. They may temporarily look something like the truth - these are called half-lies but really they are just a subset of lies in general. Like I said I do believe that the truth is absolute and that the truth can set us free from the bondage of lies as well as our finite chains. I also believe the truth is eternal and knowledge is but a dynamic vector which is finite in nature that shall be revealed in the eternal Truth when all knowledge reaches it useful fulfillment. When that occurs Absolute Truth will then be everyone's reality. However the reality is the Truth is the dividing point between the real Life and the reality of the damned. The reality is there are two different realities for all of us. One leads to life the other to death.

Jesus did not say,

• "I Am the Way, the Reality and the Life."

but

• “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

the reality is whether we will choose this day whom we shall serve; for both heaven and hell are very real. This being Good Friday reminds me that love is not an abstraction but the Truth which is very real indeed.

In Christ, John 17:20

 

[Freodin]

Hi Freodin
Thank you for your clarification.

Thank you for your time and effort answering to it.

How do I know this post is real? I only know because I believe you are truly a living person and not some abstaction from the recesses of my mind. You make some good points about useful abstractions but I believe you may draw conclusions a bit hastily.

Even if I weren't a "living person", but some abstraction (note: different usage of "abstraction" than I did before)from the recesses of your mind... this post would be real. Sorting it into the categories of "made by a living person" or "made up by my imagination"... that is a different case.

I also believe you have it the wrong way around. Reality exists because of truth and not truth because of reality. Whatever doesn't exist in truth isn't real.

That is a bold statement, considering that we are here in a thread titled "what is the truth?", and you haven't answered this question, or defined what is "reality"?

I did. Reality is that what exists. All that exists. Truth is the attempt at representing reality in an abstracted form.
Based on that, "truth" exists because of "reality".
I have even explained what it means to exist "in reality". I do not know what it would mean for something to exist "in truth" until you tell me what you mean with that phrase.

Yes I do agree there are representative abstractions of the truth - especially in regard to mathematics.

• 2+2=4 is correct in the reality of the base 10 numbering system in base-3 it is 2+2=11 and in base 4 it is 2+2=10. So I think you would say it depends on your perspective of what you "base" reality upon I guess. I'm usually a base 10 guy myself but have been known to use base 2, base 8 and base 16 at times. But whatever base I use I am really saying the same thing about what I am representating despite the abstraction. Math definitely points to universal truths and is simply one of the language of truth.

That is because anything that vectors towards the truth is able to manifest itself in a plethora of symbols. All manifestation of what is truly real as well as words and symbols can point us to the truth which is absolute.

Simple question: are these manifestations "truth"?

Yes they are finite means but the finite is a subset of the eternal and not the other way around. Lies would be an example of things that would deflect us from the truth. Lies are abstraction that vector away from the truth. They may temporarily look something like the truth - these are called half-lies but really they are just a subset of lies in general.

As I have pointed out that the only "true" representation of something is this something itself, every other "truth" would be a "half-lie" under this assumption. So, basically, I agree with you here: it is as I said. There are not "truths". There are only "lies" that are better representations of reality than others.

Like I said I do believe that the truth is absolute and that the truth can set us free from the bondage of lies as well as our finite chains. I also believe the truth is eternal and knowledge is but a dynamic vector which is finite in nature that shall be revealed in the eternal Truth when all knowledge reaches it useful fulfillment. When that occurs Absolute Truth will then be everyone's reality.

Hm. Still I am not sure what "reality" and "truth" are for you in this regard.
I would counter that there is only one - everyone's - reality. You don't need to be "set free" or anything to experience it... you already do.

But we all, necessarily, do so in our own - potentially shared - abstractions. It is not possible to do differently... the only perfect representation of "everything that exists" is "everything that exists".
So beyond being "everything that exists", there is no way to achive that... and that would include everything that you want to classify as "not real".

However the reality is the Truth is the dividing point between the real Life and the reality of the damned. The reality is there are two different realities for all of us. One leads to life the other to death.

That makes no sense. Even in that case there would only be one reality, one including living and dead. And you might notice that I did not exclude that potential option... just expressed my lack of belief in the Christian variant of that.

Jesus did not say,

• "I Am the Way, the Reality and the Life."

but

• “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He might have said that. Or not. In fact, he did not say that... he didn't speak English, nor did the writer of John. (who wrote in Greek, which Jesus wouldn't have spoken either.)
What you posted is in fact an abstraction, a representation in a different system.

But as long as it is unclear what "being the Truth", especially in the context of a person being truth means... to you, to the author of John, to the character saying it... it is rather useless.

the reality is whether we will choose this day whom we shall serve; for both heaven and hell are very real. This being Good Friday reminds me that love is not an abstraction but the Truth which is very real indeed.

In Christ, John 17:20

Love is an abstraction. That doesn't make it any less real. Or less true. You are not listening to what I am saying.

 

[bhsmte]

That is quite a blanket appeal to authority that infers a consensus that doesn't exist!

Even atheist scholars like Dominic Crossen and Bart Erhman don't deny the minimal facts case around Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Now they deny the evidence on presuppositional not textual grounds. Bit neither deny he existed.

And those are at the far end of scholarly skepticism NOT IN THE MAIN AS YOU REPRESENTED IN YOUR POST.

In all the research i have done, NT scholars and historians have consensus the following is considered to have historical credibility regarding jesus; jesus was a real person, jesus was baptized, jesus had followers and jesus was crucified. Beyond that, ths rest the NT claims about jesus, is not considered historical, but theological, by the consensus of these experts.

 

[John 1720]

How do I know this post is real? I only know because I believe you are truly a living person and not some abstaction from the recesses of my mind. You make some good points about useful abstractions but I believe you may draw conclusions a bit hastily.

Even if I weren't a "living person", but some abstraction (note: different usage of "abstraction" than I did before) from the recesses of your mind... this post would be real. Sorting it into the categories of "made by a living person" or "made up by my imagination"... that is a different case.

I would have to disagree with you Freodin. I think many others here on the forum would as well, but that is beside the point since popularity of opinion is not our standard for truth. I believe it is a dangerous thing to believe your imaginations and fantasies are to be deemed as real. They must be judged by the court of substance and to be found to be grounded in what is really true and what is not.

For example:

A teenage boy might imagine the girl next door loves and desires him but if he acts upon his imaginations and fantasies, and the reality of the situation is she thinks he’s a complete creep, his advances would be most unwelcome, even quite scary for her. This then fails the test for reality and additionally causes angst or something far worse.

Similarly, a mortal person who believes he is God and the ruler of the universe in own his imagination will tend to act out like a megalomaniac, when they are only a legend in their own mind. There have been several historical cases of this which have ended quite badly for both the perp and sometimes the rest of the world.

These would both be examples of false realities and would illustrate that people not grounded in the truth are extremely prone to believing the lie instead of the truth. There is certainly a penalty for that and the penalty blast radius is not only isolated to the perpetrator of the one acting solely on the beliefs of their imagination but it clearly extends to several other people who may be impacted by the overly imaginative person caught up in the need to make their fantasies a false reality. True history surely bears this out and one who refuses to study history is doomed to repeat it.

I also believe you have it the wrong way around. Reality exists because of truth and not truth because of reality. Whatever doesn't exist in truth isn't real.

That is a bold statement, considering that we are here in a thread titled "what is the truth?", and you haven't answered this question, or defined what is "reality"?
I did. Reality is that what exists. All that exists. Truth is the attempt at representing reality in an abstracted form.
Based on that, "truth" exists because of "reality".
I have even explained what it means to exist "in reality". I do not know what it would mean for something to exist "in truth" until you tell me what you mean with that phrase.

It is really not any bolder than yours. We all have journeys in what is truth, perhaps on paths that are quite diverse. When Pilate asked the question of Jesus there is no recorded response yet the Truth was staring right back into His face. My encounter with Truth began in hearing about a young Marine, same age as me at the time, that threw himself on top of a grenade to save his buddies that didn’t see it. He had the time to jump clear and save himself but chose to save his friends instead by sacrificing his own life. That was certainly a reality for the three young men and for the family of that young marine who gave his life up for them. Our Chaplain, in speaking of him, told us that Jesus did the same thing for our sins. Our sins can have a blast radius that injures and the kill and maim zone goes far beyond ourselves. When I finally understood cross and the truth that Christ absorbed my sins on that cross for the love of us all, the Truth of God's love immediately made the connection with my heart. I finally understood the love of God went far deeper than my head knowledge of the event. That was my 180 degree turn down the path to truth. I don’t expect everyone to understand the effect of understanding the cross had on me. We all come down different roads and are impacted by truth in the many different ways the Truth can manifests itself in our lives. However, it does happen to be the short version of the beginning of my story; for on that day Christ’s story became my story. The result of a personal event that was indeed real with a loving truth that caused me to both ask and answer the question myself as to what is Truth. Though I did not understand the Bible up to that point I believed I had finally found that Truth is the love of God revealed in Jesus. I took the first step to trust and believe in the cross of Christ. God's Spirit in me brought me the rest of the way. Jesus’ words that ‘there is no greater love than a man lay his life down for his friends’ is a truism that Jesus not only articulated but one He surely physically and spiritually manifested for the sake of you and me and everyone that draws breath.

Reality is not one thing as it can have many manifestations. Our reality here on earth is primarily situational. One might be a drug addict, an insane person, a king or a pauper. That is their situational reality and that reality is the prime motivator in driving their actions from a human standpoint. Death is a reality people usually don’t want to talk about or be reminded of. Dying people are usually isolated away from view and not many like to be reminded for whom the bell tolls. For the atheist, death is the final reality of existence. They imagine that death comes to all and life is really pretty much a meaningless existence. There is no hope just the light of life being extinguished. The light of life is full of cognition and reason and is joined by desires and dreams but all that is rendered void by death. in this worldview death wins. This belief system, or imaginative worldview is not without consequence. If life truly is only a random, meaningless accident, a metaphorical crapshoot that ends up snake-eyes for all of us, then morality and love become abstract things and are rendered quite meaningless to the human race. See Snake eyes - Wikipedia in case the comparison is lost.

In the atheist worldview when a person draws his last breath their time is up and it really is on to oblivion and non-existence. They believe that is the final reality and hence disregard the truth before them. Truth be told It is a principle which even contradicts the naturals laws of Physics which states that “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed rather it can only be transformed from one form to another.” I don't believe its a leap or faith or a fairy tale to believe in life after death or the promise of God that we shall be transformed. Tranformed to what reality depends on the judgment for each will reap what they sow, but the arbiter of life is God and we believe He has the ability to transform us. I get the fact that you don’t share my worldview. However, I will say that I was not born with this worldview either but acquired it over time as a result of experiences shaped by, what I call, Rational Truth. Of course as a Christian I believe God reasons with us all the time, even saying to all who will hear it Isaiah 1:18

He is the Hope of the Nations

END PART 1 of MY RESPONSE[/QUOTE]

 

[John 1720]

PART 2

Yes I do agree there are representative abstractions of the truth - especially in regard to mathematics. 2+2=4 is correct in the reality of the base 10 numbering system in base-3 it is 2+2=11 and in base 4 it is 2+2=10. So I think you would say it depends on your perspective of what you "base" reality upon I guess. I'm usually a base 10 guy myself but have been known to use base 2, base 8 and base 16 at times. But whatever base I use I am really saying the same thing about what I am representating despite the abstraction. Math definitely points to universal truths and is simply one of the language of truth.

That is because anything that vectors towards the truth is able to manifest itself in a plethora of symbols. All manifestation of what is truly real as well as words and symbols can point us to the truth which is absolute.

Simple question: are these manifestations "truth"?

They are all integrals and subsets of “the Truth“ for ‘All Truths are God’s Truth”. The symbolism of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is the example of Christ broken body becoming the substance of nourishment and survival for the many. The universe is made up of suns, planets, moons and dark matter as much as it is made up of photons, electrons, neutrons, protons, and every subatomic particle in existence. It is also made up of laws we are still discovering, many of which were once unknown but in later times revealed by a rigorous pursuit of truths. Everything out there in the universe is built upon relationships. But the universe is also comprised of life and cognitive reasoning, and life at the macro level is as dependent upon its major organs, as well as blood, neurons, cells and cell reproduction. These are all part of the larger physical universe and defines what the universe is in the physical sense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes they are finite means but the finite is a subset of the eternal and not the other way around. Lies would be an example of things that would deflect us from the truth. Lies are abstraction that vector away from the truth. They may temporarily look something like the truth - these are called half-lies but really they are just a subset of lies in general.

As I have pointed out that the only "true" representation of something is this something itself, every other "truth" would be a "half-lie" under this assumption. So, basically, I agree with you here: it is as I said. There are not "truths". There are only "lies" that are better representations of reality than others.

I think your hypothesis of the only “TRUE representation of something” is far too rigid. It ignores the relationship between the macro and micro view of existence. Examples of inter-relationship permeate existence – the known universe, which is not only expanding but expanding into ex-nihlo as affirmed by the best minds in modern Physics. The universe itself is physical existence but I do not believe the physical realm comprises everything that exists for I recognize there has to be a prime mover and driver behind the universe that fulfils the demand for cause and effect. The random accident theory still does not explain how something came from nothing (ex-nihlo). I call this Divine intellect “I AM”, in other words always existent, and believe “I AM” is not only capable of revealing Himself through His Creation but believe He already has manifested His Truth in our world through His Son who took on physical existence transcended from His Spiritual Abode as the Word of God, the Wisdom of God who reasons with us through Him. Our God is a God of relationship. All the theology and philosophy in the world cannot create a relationship. Only recognizing God’s love can awaken our individual heart to a LOVE that truly overcomes all things.

Like I said I do believe that the truth is absolute and that the truth can set us free from the bondage of lies as well as our finite chains. I also believe the truth is eternal and knowledge is but a dynamic vector which is finite in nature that shall be revealed in the eternal Truth when all knowledge reaches it useful fulfillment. When that occurs Absolute Truth will then be everyone's reality.

Hm. Still I am not sure what "reality" and "truth" are for you in this regard.
I would counter that there is only one - everyone's - reality. You don't need to be "set free" or anything to experience it... you already do.

But we all, necessarily, do so in our own - potentially shared - abstractions. It is not possible to do differently... the only perfect representation of "everything that exists" is "everything that exists".
So beyond being "everything that exists", there is no way to achive that... and that would include everything that you want to classify as "not real".

Everyone’s reality can be quite different. I could see how in the Atheistic Worldview one would assume the reality after death is non existence and you would be transformed into nothingness, the void, nihlo. However, that’s not what we see in the universe with regard to the physical. Matter and energy can be transformed but not destroyed. Matter may become energy and energy matter but it doesn’t become nothing. The Christian Worldview is that we are transformed and our eternal existence can take on quite different realities based on whether we are in Christ or are not. We probably depart on this point, as it can be quite an emotional subject. But the reality of Heaven or hell could be diversely quite different and we are warned that in fact it truly is. We Christians take a lot of heat for this view but really we wish all would come to eternal life. God does also.
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

We are told to preach the Good News that Jesus has delivered us from sin and death and that our debt has been paid in full by Him who has redeemed us. We are told to provide the message of saving grace both in season and out of season. We are taught to be life savers. One may ask, "Saved from what?" Answer: Saved from sin and death that not only eats away at the fabric of human life in this present reality but also in our everlasting reality. We are also taught to warn others of this.

“But now I (

Yeshua) go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (the Holy Spirit) will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, (the Holy Spirit) has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

It is no different in educating others about spiritual death as it to educate people to physical death. Both are realities and the 2nd a Christian reality we trust to be true. I would far rather hear from a doctor that would tell me I have stage 4 cancer than one who would pretend everything is fine with my health if I really do have cancer. Especially if there is a remedy for that cancer we call sin.

However the reality is the Truth is the dividing point between the real Life and the reality of the damned. The reality is there are two different realities for all of us. One leads to life the other to death.

That makes no sense. Even in that case there would only be one reality, one including living and dead. And you might notice that I did not exclude that potential option... just expressed my lack of belief in the Christian variant of that.

I was speaking of the reality between heaven and hell, death and life. I don’t expect you to believe me, although I do believe intellectually it is a rational argument for the truth. I don’t think I was ever an atheist but once upon a time I was agnostic. I believe Acts 17:24-31 states quite clearly that in God we live and move and have our being. He is not far from the Atheist, the Agnostic, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jew or anyone but commands Christians everywhere to tell all about the good news of Jesus Christ for He loves them all and His cross proves that. However my testimony is just my morsel of the truth it is God’s love and His Truth that brings transformation. I’m just a little voice among the many voices that have a story to tell about the love of Jesus. As Paul stated I am not ashamed of the Gospel Roman 1:16 and 2 Tim 1:8

It is the power of God unto salvation.

Jesus did not say,

o "I Am the Way, the Reality and the Life."
but
o “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He might have said that. Or not. In fact, he did not say that... he didn't speak English, nor did the writer of John. (who wrote in Greek, which Jesus wouldn't have spoken either.)

What you posted is in fact an abstraction, a representation in a different system.

But as long as it is unclear what "being the Truth", especially in the context of a person being truth means... to you, to the author of John, to the character saying it... it is rather useless.

You’re forgetting my example of 2+2 within the different base numbering classes. There is such a thing called equivalency Whether it is the Greek λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ or the Aramaic: ܐܳܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܐܽܘܪܚܳܐ ܘܰܫܪܳܪܳܐ ܘܚܰܝܶܐ ܠܳܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܫ ܐܳܬ݂ܶܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܳܒ݂ܝ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܐܶܢ ܒ݁ܺܝ really does not matter any more than 2+2=4 or 2+2=10 or 2+2=11 they all mean the same thing. It’s not an abstraction, it’s merely the linguistic equivalent in the context of the cultures, which is exactly what Bible translations seek to convey.

the reality is whether we will choose this day whom we shall serve; for both heaven and hell are very real. This being Good Friday reminds me that love is not an abstraction but the Truth which is very real indeed.
In Christ, John 17:20

Love is an abstraction. That doesn't make it any less real. Or less true. You are not listening to what I am saying.

Ah but I am. I’m just not believing in your hypothesis that love is an abstraction. It is a reality, especially in Christ, Patrick

Hier sitz´ich, forme Menschen
Nach meinem Bilde,
Ein Geschlecht, das mir gleich sei,
Zu leiden, zu weinen,
Zu genießen und zu freuen sich
Und dein nicht zu achten,
Wie ich!

"I hold to faith in to the divine love — which, so many years ago for a brief moment in a little corner of the earth, walked about as a man bearing the name of Jesus Christ, as the foundation on which alone my happiness rests."
Haben sie eine fröhliche Ostern. Er ist auferstanden
God bless the Deutschen

And us as well 1987 years after the firstfruits of the Glory to come

Happy Easter to All
In Christ, John 17:20

 

[bhsmte]

They are all integrals and subsets of “the Truth“ for ‘All Truths are God’s Truth”. The symbolism of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is the example of Christ broken body becoming the substance of nourishment and survival for the many. The universe is made up of suns, planets, moons and dark matter as much as it is made up of photons, electrons, neutrons, protons, and every subatomic particle in existence. It is also made up of laws we are still discovering, many of which were once unknown but in later times revealed by a rigorous pursuit of truths. Everything out there in the universe is built upon relationships. But the universe is also comprised of life and cognitive reasoning, and life at the macro level is as dependent upon its major organs, as well as blood, neurons, cells and cell reproduction. These are all part of the larger physical universe and defines what the universe is in the physical sense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




I think your hypothesis of the only “TRUE representation of something” is far too rigid. It ignores the relationship between the macro and micro view of existence. Examples of inter-relationship permeate existence – the known universe, which is not only expanding but expanding into ex-nihlo as affirmed by the best minds in modern Physics. The universe itself is physical existence but I do not believe the physical realm comprises everything that exists for I recognize there has to be a prime mover and driver behind the universe that fulfils the demand for cause and effect. The random accident theory still does not explain how something came from nothing (ex-nihlo). I call this Divine intellect “I AM”, in other words always existent, and believe “I AM” is not only capable of revealing Himself through His Creation but believe He already has manifested His Truth in our world through His Son who took on physical existence transcended from His Spiritual Abode as the Word of God, the Wisdom of God who reasons with us through Him. Our God is a God of relationship. All the theology and philosophy in the world cannot create a relationship. Only recognizing God’s love can awaken our individual heart to a LOVE that truly overcomes all things.

​

Everyone’s reality can be quite different. I could see how in the Atheistic Worldview one would assume the reality after death is non existence and you would be transformed into nothingness, the void, nihlo. However, that’s not what we see in the universe with regard to the physical. Matter and energy can be transformed but not destroyed. Matter may become energy and energy matter but it doesn’t become nothing. The Christian Worldview is that we are transformed and our eternal existence can take on quite different realities based on whether we are in Christ or are not. We probably depart on this point, as it can be quite an emotional subject. But the reality of Heaven or hell could be diversely quite different and we are warned that in fact it truly is. We Christians take a lot of heat for this view but really we wish all would come to eternal life. God does also.
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

We are told to preach the Good News that Jesus has delivered us from sin and death and that our debt has been paid in full by Him who has redeemed us. We are told to provide the message of saving grace both in season and out of season. We are taught to be life savers. One may ask, "Saved from what?" Answer: Saved from sin and death that not only eats away at the fabric of human life in this present reality but also in our everlasting reality. We are also taught to warn others of this.

​

It is no different in educating others about spiritual death as it to educate people to physical death. Both are realities and the 2nd a Christian reality we trust to be true. I would far rather hear from a doctor that would tell me I have stage 4 cancer than one who would pretend everything is fine with my health if I really do have cancer. Especially if there is a remedy for that cancer we call sin.

​

I was speaking of the reality between heaven and hell, death and life. I don’t expect you to believe me, although I do believe intellectually it is a rational argument for the truth. I don’t think I was ever an atheist but once upon a time I was agnostic. I believe Acts 17:24-31 states quite clearly that in God we live and move and have our being. He is not far from the Atheist, the Agnostic, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jew or anyone but commands Christians everywhere to tell all about the good news of Jesus Christ for He loves them all and His cross proves that. However my testimony is just my morsel of the truth it is God’s love and His Truth that brings transformation. I’m just a little voice among the many voices that have a story to tell about the love of Jesus. As Paul stated I am not ashamed of the Gospel Roman 1:16 and 2 Tim 1:8

It is the power of God unto salvation.

​

You’re forgetting my example of 2+2 within the different base numbering classes. There is such a thing called equivalency Whether it is the Greek λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ or the Aramaic: ܐܳܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܐܽܘܪܚܳܐ ܘܰܫܪܳܪܳܐ ܘܚܰܝܶܐ ܠܳܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܫ ܐܳܬ݂ܶܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܳܒ݂ܝ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܐܶܢ ܒ݁ܺܝ really does not matter any more than 2+2=4 or 2+2=10 or 2+2=11 they all mean the same thing. It’s not an abstraction, it’s merely the linguistic equivalent in the context of the cultures, which is exactly what Bible translations seek to convey.

​

Ah but I am. I’m just not believing in your hypothesis that love is an abstraction. It is a reality, especially in Christ, Patrick


"I hold to faith in to the divine love — which, so many years ago for a brief moment in a little corner of the earth, walked about as a man bearing the name of Jesus Christ, as the foundation on which alone my happiness rests."
Haben sie eine fröhliche Ostern. Er ist auferstanden

In Christ, John 17:20

Can you demonstrate, why someone should believe; all truths are God's truth?

 

[John 1720]

Can you demonstrate, why someone should believe; all truths are God's truth?

Because God gave us free will to believe or disbelieve I cannot. I also never made any claim everyone would believe it. Most orthodox Theists, however, do indeed believe it. Another analogy is that I can play you a good song that many would sing along with or dance to. That doesn't mean everyone will like it. A song may move you or not the same hold true of any statements one makes, whether they are based on science or whether they are based on a Christian worldview.

You can read the book for in depth explanation which is far better than my quick response. The book is basically the Christian view of what Truth is and what it means in contrast to the confusion that is inherent within the domain of post modernism.
Amazon.com: Buying Choices: All Truth Is God's Truth

I myself believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient like most Christian Theists do. John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

1. I believe God created the universe is true
2. I believe it is true that the universe continues to expand based on the red shift/doppler COBE and the the later 2 satellites that has measured that effect - That observation is not incompatible with the Bible in which the Lord states, "It is I who stretch forth the heavens"
3. I believe the universe defines everything that is "physically" existent, many famous physicists would agree with that position as well.
4. Since the universe is expanding into what was formerly void or nihlo, it follows that He is bringing existence and being from what was formerly non-existent. Yes, the universe is in constant continum in bringing into existence that which was formerly not existent, even to this very day. Theists believe God is the primary mover and cause of all existence.
5. It follows that all the laws that govern the laws of physics both known and unknown were put into motion by God who is omniscient, without Him nothing exists. Some may believe this is chance but statistically the interrelationship for an existent universe are astronomically small.
6. He himself has told us He cannot lie - there is no falsehood in Him
7. His Son Jesus who is the exact image of the Father in physical form, stated that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. God is therefore is the source of all living things as well as the sustainer of life itself. Without Him there is no life.
8. Conversely, lies and falsehood cannot produce anything that is true or lasting. For example a mutant RNA message at the biological cell level left uncorrected will produce a cancer cell. Cancer cells left untreated can multiply and kill you. Cancer cells being false and unnatural cells cannot create a healthy cell.
9. God is both the Truth and the arbiter that has set all truth in motion.
10. All Truth is God's truth

 

[bhsmte]

Because God gave us free will to believe or disbelieve I cannot. I also never made any claim everyone would believe it. Most orthodox Theists, however, do indeed believe it. Another analogy is that I can play you a good song that many would sing along with or dance to. That doesn't mean everyone will like it. A song may move you or not the same hold true of any statements one makes, whether they are based on science or whether they are based on a Christian worldview.

You can read the book for in depth explanation which is far better than my quick response. The book is basically the Christian view of what Truth is and what it means in contrast to the confusion that is inherent within the domain of post modernism.
Amazon.com: Buying Choices: All Truth Is God's Truth

I myself believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient like most Christian Theists do. John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

1. I believe God created the universe is true
2. I believe it is true that the universe continues to expand based on the red shift/doppler COBE and the the later 2 satellites that has measured that effect - That observation is not incompatible with the Bible in which the Lord states, "It is I who stretch forth the heavens"
3. I believe the universe defines everything that is "physically" existent, many famous physicists would agree with that position as well.
4. Since the universe is expanding into what was formerly void or nihlo, it follows that He is bringing existence and being from what was formerly non-existent. Yes, the universe is in constant continum in bringing into existence that which was formerly not existent, even to this very day. Theists believe God is the primary mover and cause of all existence.
5. It follows that all the laws that govern the laws of physics both known and unknown were put into motion by God who is omniscient, without Him nothing exists. Some may believe this is chance but statistically the interrelationship for an existent universe are astronomically small.
6. He himself has told us He cannot lie - there is no falsehood in Him
7. His Son Jesus who is the exact image of the Father in physical form, stated that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. God is therefore is the source of all living things as well as the sustainer of life itself. Without Him there is no life.
8. Conversely, lies and falsehood cannot produce anything that is true or lasting. For example a mutant RNA message at the biological cell level left uncorrected will produce a cancer cell. Cancer cells left untreated can multiply and kill you. Cancer cells being false and unnatural cells cannot create a healthy cell.
9. God is both the Truth and the arbiter that has set all truth in motion.
10. All Truth is God's truth

This is all basically opinion, which you are welcome to.

 

[Freodin]

I would have to disagree with you Freodin. I think many others here on the forum would as well, but that is beside the point since popularity of opinion is not our standard for truth. I believe it is a dangerous thing to believe your imaginations and fantasies are to be deemed as real. They must be judged by the court of substance and to be found to be grounded in what is really true and what is not.

Oh, I expect you to disagree with me... though I would prefer it if you disagreed with me on the points I made. It seems you are still missing them. But I am nothing if not persistent.
(In the following post, I will most likely snip out some of your quote. That doesn't mean I ignored these passages. I'll only try to keep the post shorter. Everything will still be influencing my response.)

For example:

A teenage boy might imagine the girl next door loves and desires him but if he acts upon his imaginations and fantasies, and the reality of the situation is she thinks he’s a complete creep, his advances would be most unwelcome, even quite scary for her. This then fails the test for reality and additionally causes angst or something far worse.

A good example!

You know what doesn't result in unwelcome advances, is scary, or causes angst or something worse? The teenage boy's fire-breathing dragon with an unhealthy appetite for the virgin-next-door.
Because it doesn't exist. It is not real. No one has to deal with it or with any consequences of its existence.
But for the boy's imagination... there are interactions, effects, consequences. Something that doesn't exist - something that isn't real - could not have any of these. If they were not real, nothing would come from them.

These imaginations are real - they exist. These imaginations are not true - they are not good abstract representations of the situation in the whole of reality.

Please note how I consistently use these terms here. If you want to disagree with my thoughts, or show me how they are wrong, you would need to do that on the basis of my usage... or present your own version and demonstrate how it is better than mine.

These would both be examples of false realities and would illustrate that people not grounded in the truth are extremely prone to believing the lie instead of the truth. There is certainly a penalty for that and the penalty blast radius is not only isolated to the perpetrator of the one acting solely on the beliefs of their imagination but it clearly extends to several other people who may be impacted by the overly imaginative person caught up in the need to make their fantasies a false reality. True history surely bears this out and one who refuses to study history is doomed to repeat it.

I think this quote presents a perfect opportunity to point out the problems you seem to have with my position. I think it is based on misunderstandings, and what seems to be an unwillingness or inability on your side to talk to me on my terms.

You said: "These would ... be examples of false realities". In conclusion, there would have to be examples of true realities.

Now, are there more than one "true realities"?

I say, no, there isn't. There is only one "true reality".
It seems to me that this is what you call "the truth"... but without you explaining your usage of these terms, I cannot be sure.

In the same way, are "false realities" real? If they were real, they would exist, and thus be part of the whole - reality. And if they are not real, they don't exist. They are not part of reality. So there are no "false realities" either.

Both of that means that there is only one reality. Not true or false, or green or tall... just reality.

It is really not any bolder than yours. We all have journeys in what is truth, perhaps on paths that are quite diverse.

We all might have "journeys in what is truth"... but I presented the pictures from my travel diary... while you are stuck with telling me where you have been and I have not.

Sorry, no offense meant. What I wanted to say with that: I layed out how I use the terms that I do. I explained what I mean with the terms in question, how the fit together and how that permeates my whole position.

You didn't. You simply stated that you believed I was wrong. You still haven't told me what these terms mean to you when you say them.
I may be wrong, but from what I read so far, it seems to me that these terms can even mean different things each time you say them.

As far as I have concluded yet, you hold "truth" (or "Truth") to be the absolute, the highest level.
It also seems to me that what you call "realities" are representations of this "truth"... what people think or imagine about "truth", what they "follow". Thus there can be different "realities", which represent the "truth" better or worse.
These "realities" that you think do bad at representing "truth" you call "lies", "imaginations" or "false realities".

Now if I represented your position correctly - please tell me if I got it right or where I understand you wrong - we only differ on the usage of terms here.

What you call "truth" is what I call "reality". Reality is the hightest standard. It is that what exists. Everything that exists is "real"... the form in which it exists is irrelevant.
What you call "realities" is what I call "truths". Representations of reality.
This for me includes what you call "lies" or "imaginations". All "truths" fail at correctly representing reality, by necessity. Thus "truth" and "lie" is a gradual, not a categorical difference.

I think that this sums up about the differences we are talking about. If you still think that I am wrong... then please explain! Explain where I misunderstood or misinterpreted you, what your real position is and how I am wrong under this your position.

When Pilate asked ...
***snip***

That's nice, but doesn't answer the question of "What is truth?". You just exchanged one undefined term with another undefined term.

Reality is not one thing as it can have many manifestations. Our reality here on earth is primarily situational. One might be a drug addict, an insane person, a king or a pauper. That is their situational reality and that reality is the prime motivator in driving their actions from a human standpoint.

That isn't reality. That is a subjective interpretation. This is basically the exact opposite of the teenage boy that you used at the beginning of this post. Here you have the reality of the boy who is loved by the girl-next-door, and the reality of the girl-next-door who thinks boy is a creep.

But you only have one reality: one reality where one human is a drug addict AND one is an insane person AND one is a king AND one is a pauper. All of that is real. All of that exist together.

Death is a reality people usually don’t want to talk about or be reminded of. Dying people are usually isolated away from view and not many like to be reminded for whom the bell tolls. For the atheist, death is the final reality of existence. They imagine that death comes to all and life is really pretty much a meaningless existence. There is no hope just the light of life being extinguished. The light of life is full of cognition and reason and is joined by desires and dreams but all that is rendered void by death. in this worldview death wins. This belief system, or imaginative worldview is not without consequence.

I would love for you Christians to stop telling me what my worldview is. You keep interpreting it through your own worldview, cannot imagine any other interpretation to be valid, and thus keep misrepresenting what other people really think. It is condescending. Please don't do it.

I could tell you what I truly believe in all the instances you listed above, but it would be irrelevant. Regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with my views or even accepted that these were really my views... nothing of that is relevant to the question of what "reality" or "truth" is.

If life truly is only a random, meaningless accident, a metaphorical crapshoot that ends up snake-eyes for all of us, then morality and love become abstract things and are rendered quite meaningless to the human race. See Snake eyes - Wikipedia in case the comparison is lost.

I disagree, but again this is irrelevant for the question at hand.
If I were to lay out how life, morality, love are only meaningful to the human race IF life truly is a random accident... it would still do nothing to determine if it was real, or what "reality" is.

In the atheist worldview when a person draws his last breath their time is up and it really is on to oblivion and non-existence. They believe that is the final reality and hence disregard the truth before them. Truth be told It is a principle which even contradicts the naturals laws of Physics which states that “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed rather it can only be transformed from one form to another.”

This is quite a misrepresentation of what "atheists" believe, but again, I'd say this is irrelevant for this topic at hand. Basically it does nothing but state: "What you believe is wrong... even if I do not really understand what you believe." Condescending. Please stop that.

Just as a little hint about this "oblivion and non-existence" and the truth of "transformation":
Take a piano. Smash it with a slegdehammer. Burn the wood and the ivory, melt the metal. Now play the piano.

I don't believe ...
*** snip ***

I understand that this is what you believe. I think you are wrong. But whether your belief or mine refers to something existing outside of this belief itself is irrelevant for the fact that both beliefs exist... and thus are real.

They are all integrals and subsets of “the Truth“ for ‘All Truths are God’s Truth”. The symbolism of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is the example of Christ broken body becoming the substance of nourishment and survival for the many. The universe is made up of suns, planets, moons and dark matter as much as it is made up of photons, electrons, neutrons, protons, and every subatomic particle in existence. It is also made up of laws we are still discovering, many of which were once unknown but in later times revealed by a rigorous pursuit of truths. Everything out there in the universe is built upon relationships. But the universe is also comprised of life and cognitive reasoning, and life at the macro level is as dependent upon its major organs, as well as blood, neurons, cells and cell reproduction. These are all part of the larger physical universe and defines what the universe is in the physical sense.

Yes, I agree. And it is also made up of teenage boys who think the girl next door loves them even if she thinks he is a creep. All this is part of the larger physical universe.

I think your hypothesis of the only “TRUE representation of something” is far too rigid.
It ignores the relationship between the macro and micro view of existence. Examples of inter-relationship permeate existence – the known universe, which is not only expanding but expanding into ex-nihlo as affirmed by the best minds in modern Physics. The universe itself is physical existence but I do not believe the physical realm comprises everything that exists for I recognize there has to be a prime mover and driver behind the universe that fulfils the demand for cause and effect. The random accident theory still does not explain how something came from nothing (ex-nihlo). I call this Divine intellect “I AM”, in other words always existent, and believe “I AM” is not only capable of revealing Himself through His Creation but believe He already has manifested His Truth in our world through His Son who took on physical existence transcended from His Spiritual Abode as the Word of God, the Wisdom of God who reasons with us through Him. Our God is a God of relationship. All the theology and philosophy in the world cannot create a relationship. Only recognizing God’s love can awaken our individual heart to a LOVE that truly overcomes all things.

Just for a second... try to leave the limitations of your own worldview, the ideas you have and the ideas you think others have.

You tell me about "the physical realm", and you tell me that you do not believe it "comprises everything that exists".

Yes, so what? Did I ever say anything contrary? Did I ever say anying about "physical existence"? No.

You are not listening to what I am saying. You are listening to your own thoughts about atheists.

Is there a divine intellect who manifests itself in a son to reveal his love by a relationship? Yes? Ok, fine, if such thing exists... then it is part of reality.
I have no problems with that. I just don't believe it. I believe that reality is different from that.

So, just for a second... please stop telling me what you think reality is LIKE, and what you think I think reality is LIKE... and start talking about what reality IS.

This said, back to the quote:

I think your hypothesis of the only “TRUE representation of something” is far too rigid.

If you think that macro and micro views of existence have anything to do with the representation of reality, you need to explain that a little better.

But to justify my assertion: every "non-perfect" representation of something can be used to represent several different but similar objects. Would you agree?
"An apple" is the representation for every single of the myriads of apples in existence.
Every further expansion of the representation can only limit that scope of objects it represents. With each further step of clarification, you further limit this scope... most likely to a point where, for every common human usage, it is "good enough".
But the disambiguity remains, as long as there are differences between representation and represented object. It is only overcome when the representation and the represented object are identical.
And because it is impossible for two different things to be identical, this is only achived when the representation IS the represented object.

​

Everyone’s reality can be quite different. I could see how in the Atheistic Worldview one would assume the reality after death is non existence and you would be transformed into nothingness, the void, nihlo. However, that’s not what we see in the universe with regard to the physical. Matter and energy can be transformed but not destroyed. Matter may become energy and energy matter but it doesn’t become nothing.

Piano. Sledgehammer. Energy cannot be destroyed, it only transforms. The piano is transformed into a form that can no longer be played as a piano.
Does that clarify the position of "atheists"?

The Christian Worldview is that we are transformed and our eternal existence can take on quite different realities based on whether we are in Christ or are not. We probably depart on this point, as it can be quite an emotional subject. But the reality of Heaven or hell could be diversely quite different and we are warned that in fact it truly is. We Christians take a lot of heat for this view but really we wish all would come to eternal life. God does also.

2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

We are told to preach the Good News that Jesus has delivered us from sin and death and that our debt has been paid in full by Him who has redeemed us. We are told to provide the message of saving grace both in season and out of season. We are taught to be life savers. One may ask, "Saved from what?" Answer: Saved from sin and death that not only eats away at the fabric of human life in this present reality but also in our everlasting reality. We are also taught to warn others of this.

​

It is no different in educating others about spiritual death as it to educate people to physical death. Both are realities and the 2nd a Christian reality we trust to be true. I would far rather hear from a doctor that would tell me I have stage 4 cancer than one who would pretend everything is fine with my health if I really do have cancer. Especially if there is a remedy for that cancer we call sin.

(Again, no offense meant, and the following "you" is meant to referring to Christians in general, not personal.)
Yes, this is your job. But you are very very bad at it.

I was speaking of the reality between heaven and hell, death and life. I don’t expect you to believe me, although I do believe intellectually it is a rational argument for the truth. I don’t think I was ever an atheist but once upon a time I was agnostic. I believe Acts 17:24-31 states quite clearly that in God we live and move and have our being. He is not far from the Atheist, the Agnostic, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jew or anyone but commands Christians everywhere to tell all about the good news of Jesus Christ for He loves them all and His cross proves that. However my testimony is just my morsel of the truth it is God’s love and His Truth that brings transformation. I’m just a little voice among the many voices that have a story to tell about the love of Jesus. As Paul stated I am not ashamed of the Gospel Roman 1:16 and 2 Tim 1:8

It is the power of God unto salvation.

I really appreciate you telling my all that. But I fear we are having two different conversations here. And as long as we can't sort this out, we will keep talking around each other.

To use a silly example:
You are telling me that there is a herd of elephants living in my fridge. I keep telling you that, even if there is a herd of elephants living in my fridge, they are not the fridge.

To turn that back to the topic: even if there is a God and a Jesus in the way you describe, they would not be "reality", but just a part of it.

You’re forgetting my example of 2+2 within the different base numbering classes. There is such a thing called equivalency Whether it is the Greek λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ or the Aramaic: ܐܳܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܐܽܘܪܚܳܐ ܘܰܫܪܳܪܳܐ ܘܚܰܝܶܐ ܠܳܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܫ ܐܳܬ݂ܶܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܳܒ݂ܝ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܐܶܢ ܒ݁ܺܝ really does not matter any more than 2+2=4 or 2+2=10 or 2+2=11 they all mean the same thing. It’s not an abstraction, it’s merely the linguistic equivalent in the context of the cultures, which is exactly what Bible translations seek to convey.

As someone who knows more than one language, you should be aware that there is never a complete equivalency between two languages. There isn't even a complete equivalency between two speakers of the same language. All of these are abstractions.
It is just that some of more precisely defined as others. Equivalency works a lot better in mathematics than in language, because mathematics is a precisely defined set of abstractions. It is created to be that way. Language is not.

Ah but I am. I’m just not believing in your hypothesis that love is an abstraction. It is a reality, especially in Christ, Patrick

Hm. I am telling you that love as an abstraction does still mean it is part of reality... and you tell me that you don't believe that love can be an abstraction because it is a reality.
Yep, that sounds a lot like you don't listen to what I tell you.

Happy Easter!

 

[John 1720]

Oh, I expect you to disagree with me... though I would prefer it if you disagreed with me on the points I made. It seems you are still missing them. But I am nothing if not persistent.
(In the following post, I will most likely snip out some of your quote. That doesn't mean I ignored these passages. I'll only try to keep the post shorter. Everything will still be influencing my response.)


A good example!

You know what doesn't result in unwelcome advances, is scary, or causes angst or something worse? The teenage boy's fire-breathing dragon with an unhealthy appetite for the virgin-next-door.
Because it doesn't exist. It is not real. No one has to deal with it or with any consequences of its existence.
But for the boy's imagination... there are interactions, effects, consequences. Something that doesn't exist - something that isn't real - could not have any of these. If they were not real, nothing would come from them.

These imaginations are real - they exist. These imaginations are not true - they are not good abstract representations of the situation in the whole of reality.

Please note how I consistently use these terms here. If you want to disagree with my thoughts, or show me how they are wrong, you would need to do that on the basis of my usage... or present your own version and demonstrate how it is better than mine.


I think this quote presents a perfect opportunity to point out the problems you seem to have with my position. I think it is based on misunderstandings, and what seems to be an unwillingness or inability on your side to talk to me on my terms.

You said: "These would ... be examples of false realities". In conclusion, there would have to be examples of true realities.

Now, are there more than one "true realities"?

I say, no, there isn't. There is only one "true reality".
It seems to me that this is what you call "the truth"... but without you explaining your usage of these terms, I cannot be sure.

In the same way, are "false realities" real? If they were real, they would exist, and thus be part of the whole - reality. And if they are not real, they don't exist. They are not part of reality. So there are no "false realities" either.

Both of that means that there is only one reality. Not true or false, or green or tall... just reality.


We all might have "journeys in what is truth"... but I presented the pictures from my travel diary... while you are stuck with telling me where you have been and I have not.

Sorry, no offense meant. What I wanted to say with that: I layed out how I use the terms that I do. I explained what I mean with the terms in question, how the fit together and how that permeates my whole position.

You didn't. You simply stated that you believed I was wrong. You still haven't told me what these terms mean to you when you say them.
I may be wrong, but from what I read so far, it seems to me that these terms can even mean different things each time you say them.

As far as I have concluded yet, you hold "truth" (or "Truth") to be the absolute, the highest level.
It also seems to me that what you call "realities" are representations of this "truth"... what people think or imagine about "truth", what they "follow". Thus there can be different "realities", which represent the "truth" better or worse.
These "realities" that you think do bad at representing "truth" you call "lies", "imaginations" or "false realities".

Now if I represented your position correctly - please tell me if I got it right or where I understand you wrong - we only differ on the usage of terms here.

What you call "truth" is what I call "reality". Reality is the hightest standard. It is that what exists. Everything that exists is "real"... the form in which it exists is irrelevant.
What you call "realities" is what I call "truths". Representations of reality.
This for me includes what you call "lies" or "imaginations". All "truths" fail at correctly representing reality, by necessity. Thus "truth" and "lie" is a gradual, not a categorical difference.

I think that this sums up about the differences we are talking about. If you still think that I am wrong... then please explain! Explain where I misunderstood or misinterpreted you, what your real position is and how I am wrong under this your position.


That's nice, but doesn't answer the question of "What is truth?". You just exchanged one undefined term with another undefined term.


That isn't reality. That is a subjective interpretation. This is basically the exact opposite of the teenage boy that you used at the beginning of this post. Here you have the reality of the boy who is loved by the girl-next-door, and the reality of the girl-next-door who thinks boy is a creep.

But you only have one reality: one reality where one human is a drug addict AND one is an insane person AND one is a king AND one is a pauper. All of that is real. All of that exist together.


I would love for you Christians to stop telling me what my worldview is. You keep interpreting it through your own worldview, cannot imagine any other interpretation to be valid, and thus keep misrepresenting what other people really think. It is condescending. Please don't do it.

I could tell you what I truly believe in all the instances you listed above, but it would be irrelevant. Regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with my views or even accepted that these were really my views... nothing of that is relevant to the question of what "reality" or "truth" is.

I disagree, but again this is irrelevant for the question at hand.
If I were to lay out how life, morality, love are only meaningful to the human race IF life truly is a random accident... it would still do nothing to determine if it was real, or what "reality" is.


This is quite a misrepresentation of what "atheists" believe, but again, I'd say this is irrelevant for this topic at hand. Basically it does nothing but state: "What you believe is wrong... even if I do not really understand what you believe." Condescending. Please stop that.

Just as a little hint about this "oblivion and non-existence" and the truth of "transformation":
Take a piano. Smash it with a slegdehammer. Burn the wood and the ivory, melt the metal. Now play the piano.


I understand that this is what you believe. I think you are wrong. But whether your belief or mine refers to something existing outside of this belief itself is irrelevant for the fact that both beliefs exist... and thus are real.


Yes, I agree. And it is also made up of teenage boys who think the girl next door loves them even if she thinks he is a creep. All this is part of the larger physical universe.


Just for a second... try to leave the limitations of your own worldview, the ideas you have and the ideas you think others have.

You tell me about "the physical realm", and you tell me that you do not believe it "comprises everything that exists".

Yes, so what? Did I ever say anything contrary? Did I ever say anying about "physical existence"? No.

You are not listening to what I am saying. You are listening to your own thoughts about atheists.

Is there a divine intellect who manifests itself in a son to reveal his love by a relationship? Yes? Ok, fine, if such thing exists... then it is part of reality.
I have no problems with that. I just don't believe it. I believe that reality is different from that.

So, just for a second... please stop telling me what you think reality is LIKE, and what you think I think reality is LIKE... and start talking about what reality IS.

This said, back to the quote:

If you think that macro and micro views of existence have anything to do with the representation of reality, you need to explain that a little better.

But to justify my assertion: every "non-perfect" representation of something can be used to represent several different but similar objects. Would you agree?
"An apple" is the representation for every single of the myriads of apples in existence.
Every further expansion of the representation can only limit that scope of objects it represents. With each further step of clarification, you further limit this scope... most likely to a point where, for every common human usage, it is "good enough".
But the disambiguity remains, as long as there are differences between representation and represented object. It is only overcome when the representation and the represented object are identical.
And because it is impossible for two different things to be identical, this is only achived when the representation IS the represented object.

​

Piano. Sledgehammer. Energy cannot be destroyed, it only transforms. The piano is transformed into a form that can no longer be played as a piano.
Does that clarify the position of "atheists"?


(Again, no offense meant, and the following "you" is meant to referring to Christians in general, not personal.)
Yes, this is your job. But you are very very bad at it.


I really appreciate you telling my all that. But I fear we are having two different conversations here. And as long as we can't sort this out, we will keep talking around each other.

To use a silly example:
You are telling me that there is a herd of elephants living in my fridge. I keep telling you that, even if there is a herd of elephants living in my fridge, they are not the fridge.

To turn that back to the topic: even if there is a God and a Jesus in the way you describe, they would not be "reality", but just a part of it.


As someone who knows more than one language, you should be aware that there is never a complete equivalency between two languages. There isn't even a complete equivalency between two speakers of the same language. All of these are abstractions.
It is just that some of more precisely defined as others. Equivalency works a lot better in mathematics than in language, because mathematics is a precisely defined set of abstractions. It is created to be that way. Language is not.


Hm. I am telling you that love as an abstraction does still mean it is part of reality... and you tell me that you don't believe that love can be an abstraction because it is a reality.
Yep, that sounds a lot like you don't listen to what I tell you.

Happy Easter!

Poisoning the well is not a good way to have a dialog.
It is Easter here in the US, a huge family day, do not expect me to respond to you - as family and church functions take precedence.

 

[Freodin]

Poisoning the well is not a good way to have a dialog

Throwing out one-liners to adress a two-pages-post is also not a good way to have a dialogue. If you have any specific problems with what I wrote, please point it out.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

As an hallucination or vision? No, and I have not heard Him audibly. I did have an experience when I was saved- I can not describe it. The best way I can put it is being filled with light- or being completely washed inside. It was a filling sensation. Never happened before or since. I know not everyone who is saved necessarily has an emotional experience, but I did.

What is salvation like for those who don't have an emotional experience, sensation, or hears or sees Christ? How does one who's never had such an experience know they are saved?

 

[Galatea]

What is salvation like for those who don't have an emotional experience, sensation, or hears or sees Christ? How does one who's never had such an experience know they are saved?

I can not say, I think it must be something like being completely convinced in heart, like a light being switched on and suddenly everything being turned on. The Bible says that if you believe in your heart that Jesus died for your sins and rose again and confess with your mouth, you will be saved.

Believing in your heart is different from believing in your mind. There are many people who agree with Christianity academically. This is giving mental assent, but not believing in your heart.