[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Chany]

I understand how you define truth. What I'm saying is why can't I define truth as non-physical and infinitely timeless, meaning truth has no beginning and no end simply because it has always existed and exists now and will exist forever, truth is timeless? What understanding of truth do you have that would prove that my definition is false?

Now I really want you to answer the above questions without going off on some tangent about how you define truth. Just honestly answer the questions.

I am not sure, but did you not say that there are only correct definitions? I argued with someone over this; I said there are only good definitions and bad definitions, but no such thing as correct definitions.

I am answering honestly. You can define truth however you want. I am saying your definition is bad because it specifically sets up the deck away from how we normally use truth (a term we use as a catch-all phrase for the propositions that are true) and loads the deck into a specific framework where truth is some sort of entity which you will then personify into part of a deity. I already don't accept there is no such entity in existence or that what we call truth is some force, so using that definition of "truth" is next to useless unless you can prove such an entity exists, which is the entire point you are arguing for.

I'm sorry, I don't really want to deal with the cosmological argument over and over again on this site. There are only two people who I really discuss the cosmological argument with anymore, and both of them I know personally.

 

[ScottA]

Ok.

Carry on.

[No Demon'(stration) Baggage Beyond This Point]

Evidences from this world are just as unacceptable in God's spiritual realm, as spiritual evidences are in the natural/scientific realm. Thus, it is impossible to relate or relay, in such terms. Demanding such terms is futile. The spiritual parties have allowed for and do concede to the natural/scientific evidence (except when it is known to be in error according to the greater authority of Him who create the natural/scientific realm, in which case it would not serve anyone to let it go, even to appease). The natural/scientific parties have yet to concede that there is anything beyond their realm, even though many have admitted that it is possible. Natural and supernatural. What a concept. It's not that difficult.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Of course, in fact, I have said that it is not I who can reveal it to you.

So, if you are tracking so far: There are two distinct realities, where the supernatural supersedes the natural, the supernatural being the only true reality, while the natural reality is [even scientifically] an illusion (a closed circuit world, created for demon'stration of the supernatural reality). The handwriting is not only on the wall, it is blatant.

In order to know of the greater spiritual reality, one must ask...not in unbelief, but in sincerity. Seek and ye shall find.

 

[ScottA]

Your words need to be expanded to include the religious as well. Often, they would be equally guilty in denying their ability to venture out.

.

Absolutely! That is an equally evident and sad statement on humanity. I couldn't agree more.

I would have to say also, that there are an equal number of misunderstandings about both positions: I am sure you could site numerous misunderstandings by the spiritual camp. I would offer that the greatest misunderstanding by the scientific camp, is not receiving even the elementary statements made about the spiritual realm, while the spiritual camp (in general) not only receives the elementary statements of science, medicine, technology, but quite literally has placed their natural life in their hands. That, on the other hand, cannot currently be said of the general scientific community.

 

[Chriliman]

If I said that, and I don't think I did, then let me correct it now. If consciousness did't exist it would still be a fact that existence existed. I said that I can define truth. Let me do that now.

This statement is your belief because you can't prove this, but I agree and believe the same thing.

Truth is the non-contradictory, objective identification of the facts of reality.

One of the facts of reality is that humans cannot be absolutely objective when it comes to truth.

The very first fact that we can identify is that existence exists. In the act of grasping that fact, we grasp the fact that we are conscious.

Unfortunately, this does not explain how we became conscious. It also does not mean that consciousness has to come from physical existence, when consciousness could possibly come from non-physical existence, since consciousness is not physical. And as I said before this non-physical existence would be unprovable by us physical humans, so it could take any form, including the form of infinite timelessness. And I believe this is the form non-physical existence takes, so God, truth and love can all be defined in this way.

Our human consciousness has a beginning and will have an end, when we die, or when God ends the physical and replaces everything with his non-physical existence. When this happens, from our perspective it will be like this physical existence on this physical earth never happened. What we will experience is non-physical existence with God or separate from God. God will either destroy all evil within us through the power of Christ or He will hand us over to the evil within us and allow us to non-physically suffer forever. This non-physical suffering is spiritual suffering, which is far worse than physical suffering, simply because it can last forever. If you don't accept the sacrifice of God's son for your evil sins you will spiritually suffer forever. This is what it all comes down to guys, this is the truth. I realize you currently don't believe it, but someday you will.

 

[Chriliman]

I am not sure, but did you not say that there are only correct definitions? I argued with someone over this; I said there are only good definitions and bad definitions, but no such thing as correct definitions.

Nope, not me.

I am answering honestly. You can define truth however you want. I am saying your definition is bad because it specifically sets up the deck away from how we normally use truth (a term we use as a catch-all phrase for the propositions that are true) and loads the deck into a specific framework where truth is some sort of entity which you will then personify into part of a deity. I already don't accept there is no such entity in existence or that what we call truth is some force, so using that definition of "truth" is next to useless unless you can prove such an entity exists, which is the entire point you are arguing for.

Truth should not depend on how humans normally use truth. Truth should be able to stand on its own as being true.

I'm sorry, I don't really want to deal with the cosmological argument over and over again on this site. There are only two people who I really discuss the cosmological argument with anymore, and both of them I know personally.

That's fine, I'll continue to access the actual source of truth for my knowledge and understanding and of course that source is God. Relying on two human individuals as your source for truth seems unintelligent, but go ahead, I can't control what you do. And you seem intelligent

God bless!

 

[True Scotsman]

This statement is your belief because you can't prove this, but I agree and believe the same thing.

It's unclear why this would ever be a rational requirement, to prove existence.

One of the facts of reality is that humans cannot be absolutely objective when it comes to truth.

Well no they can't if they hold that consciousness is primary to existence. But It is possible since objectivity rests on never violating the primacy of existence principle. But you have to know it and understand all of its implications.

One of those implications is that if truth is the correct identification of the facts of reality and reality exists independently of consciousness, then no truth can ever violate the primacy of existence. That's why my premise two is irrefutable. No truth can overturn the primacy of existence because truth depends on the fact that existence, facts, exist independently of consciousness. So if the idea of God violates the primacy of existence it can not be true. That's why I kept telling you that the big bang or the singularity was irrelevant when it comes to challenging premise two of the argument I presented. Now I have demonstrated why both of my premises are irrefutable, in reason. Of course you are free to reject reason and that's what you have to do to reject the argument from primacy.

Unfortunately, this does not explain how we became conscious. It also does not mean that consciousness has to come from physical existence, when consciousness could possibly come from non-physical existence, since consciousness is not physical. And as I said before this non-physical existence would be unprovable by us physical humans, so it could take any form, including the form of infinite timelessness. And I believe this is the form non-physical existence takes, so God, truth and love can all be defined in this way.

Our human consciousness has a beginning and will have an end, when we die, or when God ends the physical and replaces everything with his non-physical existence. When this happens, from our perspective it will be like this physical existence on this physical earth never happened. What we will experience is non-physical existence with God or separate from God. God will either destroy all evil within us through the power of Christ or He will hand us over to the evil within us and allow us to non-physically suffer forever. This non-physical suffering is spiritual suffering, which is far worse than physical suffering, simply because it can last forever. If you don't accept the sacrifice of God's son for your evil sins you will spiritually suffer forever. This is what it all comes down to guys, this is the truth. I realize you currently don't believe it, but someday you will.

It's not meant to. What it does show though, is that existence is primary. Or do you think it is possible for there to be conscious awareness without anything to be aware of?

 

[Chriliman]

It's unclear why this would ever be a rational requirement, to prove existence.




Well no they can't if they hold that consciousness is primary to existence. But It is possible since objectivity rests on never violating the primacy of existence principle. But you have to know it and understand all of its implications.

One of those implications is that if truth is the correct identification of the facts of reality and reality exists independently of consciousness, then no truth can ever violate the primacy of existence. That's why my premise two is irrefutable. No truth can overturn the primacy of existence because truth depends on the fact that existence, facts, exist independently of consciousness. So if the idea of God violates the primacy of existence it can not be true. That's why I kept telling you that the big bang or the singularity was irrelevant when it comes to challenging premise two of the argument I presented. Now I have demonstrated why both of my premises are irrefutable, in reason. Of course you are free to reject reason and that's what you have to do to reject the argument from primacy.



It's not meant to. What it does show though, is that existence is primary. Or do you think it is possible for there to be conscious awareness without anything to be aware of?

When considering infinite timelessness the term "primary" becomes obsolete because existence and consciousness and truth and love and everything else God describes himself with simultaneously exist in timelessness. So Gods being is so unfathomable to our mere human minds, he can experience 0 time as well as eternity all at once. Obviously there can be nothing else to compare this to other than God. This is what your up against, which is why I pray for your soul and I pray for you to find understanding in Jesus name!

 

[True Scotsman]

When considering infinite timelessness the term "primary" becomes obsolete because existence and consciousness and truth and love and everything else God describes himself with simultaneously exist in timelessness. So Gods being is so unfathomable to our mere human minds, he can experience 0 time as well as eternity all at once. Obviously there can be nothing else to compare this to other than God. This is what your up against, which is why I pray for your soul and I pray for you to find understanding in Jesus name!

In this context, primary means a precondition of. You can pray to a non-existent god all you want to, it won't change a thing in reality. know why?

 

[madera23]

Yes, unflinchingly.

I HAVE COME TO a CONCLUSION ON THIS TOPIC.
I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU ARE GOOD PEOPLE, YOU MAY BE SAYING YOU DONT BELIEVE IN GOD,
BEING GOOD COMES FROM GOD WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT.
THOSE WHO PREACH TOO MUCH HAD BETTER THINK ABOUT THAT.
Madera

 

[True Scotsman]

I HAVE COME TO a CONCLUSION ON THIS TOPIC.
I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU ARE GOOD PEOPLE, YOU MAY BE SAYING YOU DONT BELIEVE IN GOD,
BEING GOOD COMES FROM GOD WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT.
THOSE WHO PREACH TOO MUCH HAD BETTER THINK ABOUT THAT.
Madera

Why are you yelling?

 

[madera23]

Sorry, but my tablet does that sometimes.
it must bt tempermental
see now I cant get it to yell.
the capital key must get stuck.
it's behaving now.
Madera

 

[True Scotsman]

Sorry, but my tablet does that sometimes.
it must bt temperrmental
see now I cant get it to yell.
the capital key must get stuck.
it's behaving now.
Madera

Oh. I see. I hate posting from my Ipad too.

 

[fatherjimparker]

If I said that, and I don't think I did, then let me correct it now. If consciousness did't exist it would still be a fact that existence existed. I said that I can define truth. Let me do that now.

Truth is the non-contradictory, objective identification of the facts of reality.

The very first fact that we can identify is that existence exists. In the act of grasping that fact, we grasp the fact that we are conscious.

Truth Is Jesus, according to Jesus.

The problem with "non-contradictory, objective identification of the facts of reality" is that quantum mechanics has demonstrated that objective reality changes when you observe it.

 

[True Scotsman]

Truth Is Jesus, according to Jesus.

The problem with "non-contradictory, objective identification of the facts of reality" is that quantum mechanics has demonstrated that objective reality changes when you observe it.

The jury is still out on that and I am not aware of anyone who can actually observe events at the quantum level. Sure we can use a device to measure quantum events and physical objects interact with each other and effect each other all the time.

Scientists have recently "observed" a particle as both a particle and in its wave form simultaneously.

 

[True Scotsman]

Truth Is Jesus, according to Jesus.

That's not circular at all.

 

[fatherjimparker]

The jury is still out on that and I am not aware of anyone who can actually observe events at the quantum level. Sure we can use a device to measure quantum events and physical objects interact with each other and effect each other all the time.

Scientists have recently "observed" a particle as both a particle and in its wave form simultaneously.

"Observation" can be by the eye or by an instrument.

 

[fatherjimparker]

That's not circular at all.

No, that's what He said. John 14:6

 

[True Scotsman]

"Observation" can be by the eye or by an instrument.

Yes but an instrument isn't conscious.

 

[fatherjimparker]

Yes but an instrument isn't conscious.

Hopefully, the operator is.

 

[True Scotsman]

No, that's what He said. John 14:6

One must first assume that the one who said it is God. Also truth is an attribute of identification. It is conceptual in nature. If you want to say that God is a concept I don't have a problem with that except to say that it would only be a concept in way that a writer comes up with a concept for a character. A true concept is a mental integration of two or more concretes and God is supposed to be unique.