Discerning truth

[Penumbra]

It would take the fourth party, the one under discussion to have that answer. A living God of gods would have His own concepts about everything would He not? And that would include how a third party will be able to determine what is correct.

Basically in the simpliest of terms it would need revelation by Him which is somewhat like how scientific inspiration works. As an example before Eistein could figure out E=MC2 (can't type 2 in the square position), he would have needed to comprehend what E is, what = is, what M is and so on. Otherwise he would of never have been able to put things together properly.

Likewise direct revelation from God is needed to start the process of determining what the truth or facts are about a spiritual, non-physical being or idea.

So basically you're saying that the supernatural being or idea would have to somehow interact with our natural world before we could discern any truth about it. I agree.

An issue is that basically all religions believe that the supernatural can interact with the natural, and all contain revelation of some sort. Verifying that the revelation is true is the difficult part.

Here is a rather interesting web page that explores this process in much greater depth. Be warned however this person writes a few levels higher than what your going to read in a Reader's Digest.

How I would decide between conflicting revelations (Part One)

Hmm, I've actually read that before. I don't remember who or when, but someone provided me with that link in the past. I refreshed myself and read part one, and then followed the link to part two where it ends apparently.

I wouldn't say the level is terribly high. It's high enough to be thorough yet low enough that most reasonably intelligent people should be able to read it easily.

In my opinion the article starts off strong by asking basically the same question I do and by getting into a good summary analyzing his own assumptions and reviewing basic concepts of logic and reasoning. But as it goes on, it seems to begin to deteriorate a bit because the writer bites a bit more off than he can chew. He seemingly disregards some religions like Buddhism based on limited reasoning, though he does discredit Mormonism pretty thoroughly.

Regardless, it is a worthwhile contribution to my thread. Thank you for sharing it.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

Either way, it is pure speculation, and very dangerous. Christians, very early on, started killing each other over such points as whether the Son was of the same undetectable substance as the Father (homoousion) or of a similar substance (homoiousion). They were murdering and damning each other over things that no one could even demonstrate were real! It got so bad that the government stepped in and called the Council of Nicea. They decided that point, and a number of other points, equally nonsensical, and began to punish dissenters very harshly indeed.
The method adopted by Christianity was to convince the opposition by any means necessary, starting with persuasion, and progressing through torture to capital punishment and "Holy War".
It turns out that no matter how hard you try, you can’t get people to agree about postulated undetectable phenomena. That is why there are thousands of Christian sects today, and even within sects there is much disagreement. (It occurs to me that perhaps the Tower of Babel wasn’t so much a confusion of language as about a confusion of unverifiable theology.)

I agree that it's dangerous. The fact that humanity has disagreed for so long about even the most fundamental issues leads me in some ways towards strong agnosticism. This thread is mainly to provoke thoughtful discussion and to challenge all participants to look deeply into how they have discerned truth for themselves. Though, of course, I'm always interested to see if someone can really surprise me!

You might start off by discarding any concept that doesn’t make sense, any concept that is an outrage to reason, and any concept that is contrary to observation.

That seems like a fair list of advice.
Whether fortunately or unfortunately, in my own experience of reasoning, following your statements there leads me to discard most or all of the supernatural concepts I've become familiar with.

Garbage in, garbage out, o

r as Voltaire put it, "It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." From Christianity we have had two thousand years of atrocities, and from Islam, over a thousand years of horror, all in the name of God.

"He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?" --- Micah 6:8

If your religion goes much beyond that, you are almost certainly wrong.

Unless of course there exists a god that is evil. (Which would be rather unfortunate!)

-Lyn

 

[SUM]

For me to believe that energy can retain a consciousness, someone would have to describe and prove a mechanism about how it does so.

I agree, like I said it’s a work in progress and it may never happen. I was reading a medical journal about bodies losing a fraction of an oz after all the normal loss of fluids and it sparked my curiosity.

 

[Norbert L]

So basically you're saying that the supernatural being or idea would have to somehow interact with our natural world before we could discern any truth about it. I agree.

-Lyn

I would refine that and take it a little further. The idea of a supernatural being is already interacting with people wether they are believers or not.

However the specific supernatural being, this Almighty God of gods would also have to decide the time at which this interaction with a person would occur. Of course now we've reached the point where there are numerous ideas about that! And sadly for all the third people this situation is greatly compounded, that by extension it involves the entirety of humankind. The lives that have past, those who live in the present and the hopes all individuals carry.

But concidering the prerogative in giving revelation is Gods to begin with, towards every individual at some point in time. It could be said there is a small speckle of great hope for all the third people. Because due to the number of arguable methods about how revelation works, where mortal people put forward numerous concepts of God and when they are made up of their own imagination. Then at least this would be true, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD." (Isa 55:8)

 

[ChildOfGod97]

We weigh one against the other and if we are pure at heart and therefore not biased, we weigh honestly. But a problem still may arise which is 'not enough information', though one matter is weightier then another does not make the weightier matter the highest truth. That is, there still may yet to be something weightier then the other.

If one compares between two lies, then how is it?

Or how can one lie be weightier then another?

The truth is weightier then them all, so when one finds it, one throws away any lie they have come across and holds onto that. Then one can always have a matter to weigh against lies and anyone not biased can embrace it, too, and the two can share in the joy which comes from God.

 

[bricklayer]

My dear, respected friend, childof God97,

Your last post souned dangerously close to a claim of objectivity.

I think that i know your heart, and that you do not hold yourself to be objective but subject.

Would you please clairfy?

 

[WhatGoesUpMustComeDown]

How does one determine truth or facts about a spiritual, non-physical being or idea?

What methods work?
What methods do not work?

For instance, if two people have two contradicting god concepts, how can a third party determine if either one of them is accurate?

Thanks,

-Lyn

In a nutshell, don't get pushed around and don't over-think things. Neither blind faith nor reason equal cognizance.

In most cases I think that it is impossible to determine who has the right idea or not, and I think everyone would do well to focus more on themselves and what they know and/or believe to be true.

 

[bricklayer]

In all due respect, whatgoesup...

That is an amazingly self-defeating post.
Should I take it to heart, I would have to dismiss it entirely.

 

[WhatGoesUpMustComeDown]

That is an amazingly self-defeating post.
Should I take it to heart, I would have to dismiss it entirely.

Interesting. Why is it that you think it is self defeating and why would you have to dismiss it?

 

[bricklayer]

You essentially affirm that truth is not knowable,
would that not include your position?

 

[WhatGoesUpMustComeDown]

You essentially affirm that truth is not knowable,
would that not include your position?

Not at all. My position is more or less the idea that it is impossible for you to know everything that I know and vice versa, so there is no point in quibbling about who is right or wrong. I could make any fantastic claim that I want to, but if its unfalsifiable, you could never know whether it is true or not unless you had experienced the truth for yourself.

 

[bricklayer]

Fantastic point,
which leads me to a passion.

I am left to believe that there is a necessary uniform standard of reason, which emanates from God's nature.
A necessary uniform "calibration", if you will.

Such as this can only emanate from a necessary being.
An objective being, by definition cannot employ it, but a contingent being may.

I am left to believe that, the first-principles of logic are the necessary
(that is to say that, they exist necessarily) standard of sound reason.

 

[bewithmelord]

It is up to the Church to decide. Concepts of God should not be considered independently of the Church.

You serious?(maybe you are kidding,,if so i apoligize)
So for 400 years the church decided it was okay to burn those who were called witch,,and who believed in a Goddess,,to torture them,,murder and force them to recant? They were stripped of all they owned,,brutally tortured and then murdered,,in the name of Christ,,and the church decided it was Gods will,,was it ok?

Where are those who killed women for being witch,,in heaven,,or hell?

 

[david_x]

You serious?(maybe you are kidding,,if so i apoligize)
So for 400 years the church decided it was okay to burn those who were called witch,,and who believed in a Goddess,,to torture them,,murder and force them to recant? They were stripped of all they owned,,brutally tortured and then murdered,,in the name of Christ,,and the church decided it was Gods will,,was it ok?

Where are those who killed women for being witch,,in heaven,,or hell?

The Catholic Church is not thee church, people are the Church.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How does one determine truth or facts about a spiritual, non-physical being or idea?

Tautology eg:

If God is, then God is.​

Immediate inference eg:

If God is all good, then no part of God is not good.​

 

[canukian]

the bible defines the holy spitit as the spirit of truth. science locates morality in the frontal lobe. the bible identifies gods elect and the mark of the beast with a mark IN the foreheak aka frontal lobe. science has determined peole with unusually high amounts of white matter in the frontal loab are pathalgical liars.
these liars get so caught up in lies that they really cannot discern the truth. the bible identifies the devil as the father of all lies and gods elect as those who are truth seekers. people with a preponerence of grey matter in the frontal lobe are truth seekers.

therefor a reletive absence of white matter in the frontal lobe is reqiered to discern the truth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The Catholic Church is not thee church, people are the Church.

But just because a Christian believes in the Church's opinion, that does not make that opinion true. For it is both possible that the church can be mistaken, and that the foundationds of your belief in it are unsound.

 

[david_x]

But just because a Christian believes in the Church's opinion, that does not make that opinion true. For it is both possible that the church can be mistaken, and that the foundationds of your belief in it are unsound.

I said that nothing should be decided apart from the Church, not by just the Church.

 

[Penumbra]

It's nice to see my thread has been resurrected. Now more people can contribute.

Tautology eg:

If God is, then God is.​

Immediate inference eg:

If God is all good, then no part of God is not good.​

But that's forming logical statements from existing statements that may or may not be true. How does one determine whether a given statement is true or not?

"If God is, then God is."
Well, yeah, but how does one determine the first part- whether God "is" or "is not"?

"If God is all good, then no part of God is not good."
Sure, but how does one determine whether God is all good?

If I start with claim A, and then from that logically derive claim B, and then from that logically derive claim C, then B and C are likely to be incorrect if claim A is incorrect. How do we check claim A?

-Lyn

 

[variant]

How does one determine truth or facts about a spiritual, non-physical being or idea?

What methods work?
What methods do not work?

For instance, if two people have two contradicting god concepts, how can a third party determine if either one of them is accurate?

Thanks,

-Lyn

Truth is not discerned it is evidenced.