The importance of testing and problem of eyewitness testimony.

[Chriliman]

You are skipping a step.

Evidence is only good to demonstrate truth and sound reason is evidence of truth. I have demonstrated sound reason. Whether you accept that as true or not is completely up to you.

 

[bhsmte]

Evidence is only good to demonstrate truth and sound reason is evidence of truth. I have demonstrated sound reason. Whether you accept that as true or not is completely up to you.

You have demonstrated you have sound reasoning, based on what exactly?

 

[Chriliman]

You have demonstrated you have sound reasoning, based on what exactly?

Based on the belief that there is a highest truth that can explain everything we humans perceive. The highest truth is God.

 

[bhsmte]

Based on the belief that there is a highest truth that can explain everything we humans perceive. The highest truth is God.

Indicating you have a belief that truth exists, tells me nothing about your reasoning and logic, to determine what the truth actually is.

 

[Chriliman]

Indicating you have a belief that truth exists, tells me nothing about your reasoning and logic, to determine what the truth actually is.

It's up to you to interpret my reasoning and logic and determine whether it makes sense to you or not. If it makes sense to you then you'll believe me, unless you have separate reasons for not believing me that I'm unaware of.

If my reasoning and logic does not make sense to you then you won't believe me. This seems to be your current position and that's fine, I'm not offended. I simply state what I believe to be true and give my reasonings as evidence of the truth, if other's disagree because I'm not making sense to them, then that's fine as long as they don't try to hurt me because their offended by what I'm saying. That would be wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

It's up to you to interpret my reasoning and logic and determine whether it makes sense to you or not. If it makes sense to you then you'll believe me, unless you have separate reasons for not believing me that I'm unaware of.

If my reasoning and logic does not make sense to you then you won't believe me. This seems to be your current position and that's fine, I'm not offended. I simply state what I believe to be true and give my reasonings as evidence of the truth, if other's disagree because I'm not making sense to them, then that's fine as long as they don't try to hurt me because their offended by what I'm saying. That would be wrong.

Yes, I have made that interpretation.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, I have made that interpretation.

I appreciate you not insulting my intelligence in your response

 

[Freodin]

You think its flawed because you do not believe we are meant to want to know the truth. You think we just happen to want to know the truth because we evolved in such a way that made us capable of understanding that things are true, but you don't believe there is a highest truth that can explain everything we perceive. I do believe there is a highest truth that can explain everything we perceive, please explain how this makes my logic flawed?

The only way you could explain it is if you could show that there isn't a highest truth that can explain everything, except in doing so you'd prove yourself wrong because to show this, you would be relying on a highest truth to explain that there isn't a highest truth, thus contradicting yourself.

All this to simply say, you have no grounds to call my logic flawed because my logic is based on the belief that there is a highest truth that can explain everything.

Well, he's right. Your logic is flawed here... or at least so incomplete that it becomes useless.

There isn't a "highest truth that can explain everything we perceive". There cannot be.


If it was a "highest truth" to "explain" everything, this explanation would then be an addition of the whole of everything. The explanation would also exist, be a part of reality, and thus would need to be explained itself. And so on and on.

So the "highest truth" would not explain everything... it would need to be everything. It is what we call "reality".

But not being "everything", but only a (tiny) part of "everything", we will never be able to "understand that things are true". If we were "meant" to want to know the truth, we were meant to fail.

And on the other hand, humans do not "want to know the truth"... we did indeed evolve to perceive the rest of reality (within out limited scope) and make as much sense out of it as we need it to survive. Everything that goes beyond it is just a bonus.
That's why we so often get things incomplete or wrong... we don't need "perfect truth". "Good enough" is good enough.

 

[Chriliman]

There isn't a "highest truth that can explain everything we perceive". There cannot be.

So the truth is that there isn't a highest truth. If I was willing to accept a contradiction as truth then this would make sense to me, unfortunately I'm not willing to accept contradictions as truth, therefore it does not make sense to me.

Unless you know everything there is to know then you cannot say that there isn't a highest truth(God).

If it was a "highest truth" to "explain" everything, this explanation would then be an addition of the whole of everything. The explanation would also exist, be a part of reality, and thus would need to be explained itself. And so on and on.

Exactly, the highest truth is capable of explaining itself and we have no control over that truth.

So the "highest truth" would not explain everything... it would need to be everything. It is what we call "reality".

What we call "reality" is just our sliver of what we can perceive. The highest truth would encompass literally everything we perceive and beyond.

But not being "everything", but only a (tiny) part of "everything", we will never be able to "understand that things are true". If we were "meant" to want to know the truth, we were meant to fail.

We do fail and have failed. Only the highest truth remains successful because it is eternally true.

And on the other hand, humans do not "want to know the truth"

Speak for yourself please.

... we did indeed evolve to perceive the rest of reality (within out limited scope) and make as much sense out of it as we need it to survive. Everything that goes beyond it is just a bonus.
That's why we so often get things incomplete or wrong... we don't need "perfect truth". "Good enough" is good enough.

This view has no effect on "perfect truth"(God) existing or not existing.

 

[Freodin]

So the truth is that there isn't a highest truth. If I was willing to accept a contradiction as truth then this would make sense to me, unfortunately I'm not willing to accept contradictions as truth, therefore it does not make sense to me.

Which isn't what I said. At all. So in order to make your point, you had to perceive a "truth" that is false. What does that tell us about your own personal desire to know the truth?

Unless you know everything there is to know then you cannot say that there isn't a highest truth(God).

Again, which is not what I said.
But you are still wrong.

What I said was "So the "highest truth" would not explain everything... it would need to be everything. It is what we call 'reality'."
You see the "highest truth" as God. But God isn't everything - at least not if you aren't a pantheist, which I know you aren't.

So even if there is a God, it isn't the "highest truth".

Exactly, the highest truth is capable of explaining itself and we have no control over that truth.

I never said something about "control". Again, you are inventing "truth" that are not there. How does that compute with your "desire to know the truth"?

It is not possible that the "highest truth" is capable of explaining itself. An explanation has to go beyond the thing it explains... and it is not possible for "everything" to go beyond itself. That would be a contradiction, and you said that you do not accept contradictions as truth.

Well, it seems you do, if they are "good enough" to make sense to you.

What we call "reality" is just our sliver of what we can perceive.

No, what we call "reality" is everything that is. I never said anything about perception.

The highest truth would encompass literally everything we perceive and beyond.

Yes, that is correct. And that is what reality is. Do you know what we call something "beyond" reality... that is, something that isn't part of reality? We call it "imagination".
And that means that if the "highest truth" was not "reality"... but something "beyond"... it would be unreal. Imaginary.

We do fail and have failed. Only the highest truth remains successful because it is eternally true.

Yes, I agree. But as I have shown, your concept of what this "highest truth" is seems to be imaginary.

Speak for yourself please.

For someone who claims to want to know the perfect truth you show very little and very flawed effort in doing so. It almost seems you want to prove me right.

This view has no effect on "perfect truth"(God) existing or not existing.

It has an effect - an explanatory effect - on your statement that "we just happen to want to know the truth because we evolved in such a way that made us capable of understanding that things are true".
Because that is correct: understanding that things are true can be very helpful... and evolution favours "helpful".

 

[Chriliman]

Which isn't what I said. At all. So in order to make your point, you had to perceive a "truth" that is false. What does that tell us about your own personal desire to know the truth?


Again, which is not what I said.
But you are still wrong.

What I said was "So the "highest truth" would not explain everything... it would need to be everything. It is what we call 'reality'."
You see the "highest truth" as God. But God isn't everything - at least not if you aren't a pantheist, which I know you aren't.

So even if there is a God, it isn't the "highest truth".


I never said something about "control". Again, you are inventing "truth" that are not there. How does that compute with your "desire to know the truth"?

It is not possible that the "highest truth" is capable of explaining itself. An explanation has to go beyond the thing it explains... and it is not possible for "everything" to go beyond itself. That would be a contradiction, and you said that you do not accept contradictions as truth.

Well, it seems you do, if they are "good enough" to make sense to you.


No, what we call "reality" is everything that is. I never said anything about perception.

Yes, that is correct. And that is what reality is. Do you know what we call something "beyond" reality... that is, something that isn't part of reality? We call it "imagination".
And that means that if the "highest truth" was not "reality"... but something "beyond"... it would be unreal. Imaginary.


Yes, I agree. But as I have shown, your concept of what this "highest truth" is seems to be imaginary.


For someone who claims to want to know the perfect truth you show very little and very flawed effort in doing so. It almost seems you want to prove me right.


It has an effect - an explanatory effect - on your statement that "we just happen to want to know the truth because we evolved in such a way that made us capable of understanding that things are true".
Because that is correct: understanding that things are true can be very helpful... and evolution favours "helpful".

You must literally think you can't be wrong in your belief that "perfect truth" can't be God.

I find that remarkable!

 

[Ana the Ist]

All this to simply say, you have no grounds to call my logic flawed because my logic is based on the belief that there is a highest truth that can explain everything.

No...I'm correct in saying that your logic is flawed (if you were using any sort of logic to begin with, which I doubt). You have a tendency of saying that you are using "logic" when all you're really doing is making empty claims.

You said that we ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives...then you said that the fact that we do so somehow "points" to the existence of a god. You never explained why...that's the flaw in your "logic".

Without explaining why one claim leads to the other claim...you just end up with two empty claims. They are baseless, groundless, and without merit.

Now, your first claim...that we ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives...I'll give you. It appears to be true. I do it...I've known others that do it...it's a reasonable assumption.

Your second claim...that because we ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives, indicates the existence of a god...doesn't follow the first claim. What's the connection? I have a meaningful, purposeful life that has nothing to do with any god whatsoever. I know that people do believe that god has a purpose or meaning for their life...but that doesn't indicate the existence of a god. I don't see how it could. They, like you, may want it to indicate the existence of a god...but wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. You've said this yourself.

So, in summary, until you can explain why the fact that people ascribe meaning and purpose to their lives somehow indicates the existence of a god...your logic remains flawed. It's simply an empty claim, a bare assertion, a belief that lacks any reasoning behind it.

 

[Freodin]

You must literally think you can't be wrong in your belief that "perfect truth" can't be God.

I find that remarkable!

Two simple questions to start with.

- Do you exist?

- Are you God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's up to you to interpret my reasoning and logic and determine whether it makes sense to you or not. If it makes sense to you then you'll believe me, unless you have separate reasons for not believing me that I'm unaware of.

If my reasoning and logic does not make sense to you then you won't believe me. This seems to be your current position and that's fine, I'm not offended. I simply state what I believe to be true and give my reasonings as evidence of the truth, if other's disagree because I'm not making sense to them, then that's fine as long as they don't try to hurt me because their offended by what I'm saying. That would be wrong.

Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? You always seem to assume that disagreement with your position is based on a lack of understanding on the part of those who disagree. Perhaps it's you who lacks understanding?

 

[quatona]

You must literally think you can't be wrong in your belief that "perfect truth" can't be God.

I find that remarkable!

Well, I know of no common definition of "truth" that would allow for a being to be "truth". Because "truth" is basically the word to describe the relation between an idea and facts. "God = the perfect truth" ist just word salad based on a figure of speech in your holy book.

You are invited to pick one of these definitions. In the following we will replace "God" in every statement you make by this definition. Let´s see how that works out for you.

(Merriam Webster

Full Definition of TRUTH
1
a archaic : fidelity, constancy

b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>

c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

b chiefly British : true 2

c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4
capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually

 

[Chriliman]

- Do you exist?

Yes

- Are you God?

No

 

[Chriliman]

Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? You always seem to assume that disagreement with your position is based on a lack of understanding on the part of those who disagree. Perhaps it's you who lacks understanding?

I understand my beliefs are fallible and that I could be misunderstanding the truth, which is why I'm willing to be convinced by the truth.

Do you have a truth that you'd like to try and convince me is true? If not then there really is no reason to continue this discussion.

 

[Chriliman]

No...I'm correct in saying that your logic is flawed (if you were using any sort of logic to begin with, which I doubt). You have a tendency of saying that you are using "logic" when all you're really doing is making empty claims.

You said that we ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives...then you said that the fact that we do so somehow "points" to the existence of a god. You never explained why...that's the flaw in your "logic".

Without explaining why one claim leads to the other claim...you just end up with two empty claims. They are baseless, groundless, and without merit.

Now, your first claim...that we ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives...I'll give you. It appears to be true. I do it...I've known others that do it...it's a reasonable assumption.

Your second claim...that because we ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives, indicates the existence of a god...doesn't follow the first claim. What's the connection? I have a meaningful, purposeful life that has nothing to do with any god whatsoever. I know that people do believe that god has a purpose or meaning for their life...but that doesn't indicate the existence of a god. I don't see how it could. They, like you, may want it to indicate the existence of a god...but wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. You've said this yourself.

So, in summary, until you can explain why the fact that people ascribe meaning and purpose to their lives somehow indicates the existence of a god...your logic remains flawed. It's simply an empty claim, a bare assertion, a belief that lacks any reasoning behind it.

This entire response is not based on what I said. I asked the question of why it is important to investigate truth claims? I believe it's because we are meant to want to know the truth. The reason I believe this is because there is no other explanation as to why it's important to investigate truth claims.

I then stated that many on these forums say we should not ascribe such meaning to ourselves because the implications of such thinking points to a higher power that gives us purpose and that purpose is to find truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand my beliefs are fallible and that I could be misunderstanding the truth, which is why I'm willing to be convinced by the truth.

Do you have a truth that you'd like to try and convince me is true? If not then there really is no reason to continue this discussion.

And if the truth is that your theological commitments are wrong?

 

[Chriliman]

And if the truth is that your theological commitments are wrong?

Again, I consider sound reason to be evidence of truth. You have no reasons for the above question, other than your own personal desire for my theological commitments to be false.

I've comprehended many reasons that people have for not believing in God. I've also comprehended many reasons for why people do believe in God. I find the reasons to believe to be more convincing evidence of truth. I also have my own reasons for believing that are very personal.

What this means is that you'd have to be God in order to convince me God does not exist. Are you God? If not then your efforts are futile.

Understand, this is nothing against your abilities to debate