Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
What is the truth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John 1720" data-source="post: 71151931" data-attributes="member: 323755"><p><span style="color: #0000b3">Dear Freodin,</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"> You seem to making these unending self-proclaimed accusations that I do not understand you but I see your assertions are clearly out of context. May I suggest that the postulates I have proposed may be much clearer to independent review than to you. I'm content to leave them as they are and for the independent readers on the forum to assess them for themselves. I would also suggest to you that the conversation is going nowhere because you persist and nit over statements I made twisting the meaning into something that it is not. I am sorry if this offends you but I've no wish or obligation to keep explaining myself to someone who believes they alone are the judge and jury of the debate. If you believe you have made a reasoned approach and I believe I have made a reasoned debate then the posts can speak for themselves. I will continue to state and believe that Truth defines Reality and not the other way around. I would further postulate that reality is multifaceted according to the perspective of the observer. The Truth and whether one follows the truth or not is causal to one's reality. All this is premised on the condition that we truly exist. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)"> I would agree that Christians can speak of God as the ultimate Reality but we can also state He is the ultimate Truth as well. </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"> That said I believe the larger issue that conflates the debate between the philosophical position between Reality and Truth is at its heart the atheist worldview vs the Christian or Theist worldview.</span></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">[MEDIA=youtube]NtLtvFwvBYw[/MEDIA]</li> </ul><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">FYI - I did not state that "Atheistic belief directly contradicts a scientific principle" The correct context here is that Atheism makes assumptions against a principle of life after death, which Christian have heralded in the claims of our eternal reality. (e.g. We believe our mortal bodies will undergo a physical transformation which will provide us a body not unlike the resurrected Christ.) The key word above is "principal"; the principal with respect to atheistic beliefs, does not have a natural precedent to support their analogy where a Christianity does. Nobody made explicit claims that the law of conservation of both energy/matter contained in modern physics proves Christianity, although you may have interpreted it that way. Christian do not only deal with the physical realm but necessarily we believe we are tripartite body. soul and spirit. Obviously there is not a physical model for the soul and spirit but other analogies might be made as I did for transformation. Jesus did that as well. The fact that annihilation does not have physical component that expresses a natural phenomena then is a negative. I'm not saying it negates that postulate but it does indeed make the concept one that is not as strong a postulate then the Christian claim of transformation. That may seem to be a subtle point but<u> using analogiies</u> in order to make a point is something science has done all the time in order to advance itself. I will add this is also something Jesus did as well. He spoke didactically using parables to people all the time. </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">I have definitely heard atheists express the annihilation viewpoint, even although you stated I was way of base. You responded with your own analogy of taking a sledgehammer to a piano stating that as a better example of Athiesm; to which I stated it wasn't. I stated that because basically all the materials to rebuild the piano are still there - there is not even a need for transformation in your example. It would simply be an integration by parts. An expert craftsman could rebuild it by the reuse of the existing materials. God of course would be such a master craftsman, even if one only considers that as a possible hypothesis. So the sledgehammer is really not a relevant analogy since I was speaking about real transformation not a reconstruction. So, in response to your accusation you really did not have a valid correction and my original claim was indeed true in the context that it was given. The Bible's example of transformation is a true transformation which produces a different reality for us than the temporal reality you and I have in this life.</span></p><p> <span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1 Corinthians 15:51-53 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal <em>must</em> put on immortality.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.</li> </ul><p>Let's look at some of your other claims you have lodged against me:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><span style="color: #0000b3">Yes, doesn't it? The atheist position clearly contradicts, and is with odds with, the Christian position of transformation. If it did not we'd hardly be having this debate <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Not that this is a popularity contest but I think statistically the inverse position would be an extreme outlier on the normal curve of Atheistical opinion.</span></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><span style="color: #0000b3">My analogy is not false, rather it is based on a principle that cn be seen in natural law. I never said my belief is that we would be explicitly transformed in the same manner as contained in the Law of the conservation of matter and energy. You have tried to spin it that way, perhaps either by not understanding the context or by hyperbole to suit your narrative</span></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><span style="color: #0000b3">I never said it was, in fact I clearly stated it was something different according to the Bible many times over. It would be silly for a Christian to presuppose all there is out there is the physical world or that spiritual things are subject to a temporal physical universe. However just as Christ said behold the lilies of the field or the sparrow there are many things in nature that mimic the supernatural mysteries of God. It's fair to use analogies and stating I made this claim the two are directly related is the height of hyperbole.</span></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><span style="color: #0000b3">Context, context, context! If you misunderstand something or feel I didn't explain properly you could have simply used email instead of poisoning the well of good conversational dynamics.</span></li> </ol><p><span style="color: #0000b3">MORE, MORE and MORE responses to what you see as problematic:</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>MY Responses:</strong></span></p><p>1 and 2:</p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">If you recall the context, I stated that the "Reality" of "God alone" was a special case but that I was clearly speaking in my preceding post on Reality with respect to the case of Creation - which is in context with "our reality". Surely you can see the difference. Of course in speaking of God alone we can assume He is the ultimate reality as well as the ultimate Truth but God did not leave things this way, else we would not be having this conversation; for both you and I exist within the mutual reality that we are temporal living human beings. Using my context it is the Truth of God that defines Reality and not vice versa. My claim that Reality is "the quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence." was not my definition but the standard definition: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)"><a href="https://www.wordnik.com/words/reality" target="_blank">reality - definition and meaning</a></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">3. Your postulate not mine</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">4. You say it is truth but what you have postulated is merely a guess. You are expressing a truism when you stated "in reality there is no such thing as truth". Make up your mind.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">5 and 6: </span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">No that is my truth. My reality is I am a temporal living human being. That reality can change at anytime but I believe that God's truth is recorded in the Bible which states and promises that He will transform my reality from a temporal one to an everlasting one.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">7. I think 3 & 4 are your statements so how can that be right?</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">8. Two realities can coexist according to the Word of God. There is the judgment by which the Truth will judge each of us according to the righteousness of God and separate out those going to the reality of perdition and those who know the reality of truly belonging to Christ. These realities are as real, perhaps moreso because they are everlasting, than our present temporal realities of physical life and death.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">9. That is what I postulated as being a truth claim yes. A judgment is true if and only if its predicate corresponds to its object (i.e., to the object referred to by the subject term of the judgment. The existence of God is either a true or it is not. Our personal opinion is not going to change whether this is truth or not. Your search for evidence may or may not convince you so we can either reject or acknowledge the claim. However claims about the existence of God, as well as the non-existence of God are equally objective as they are rooted in the object under consideration: Either God exists or He does not. We are on equal ground objectively.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">10. I did define truth to you and you even commented on the fact that I stated it was not much different than how Plato defined it. </span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">Plato’s known ideas on truth reflect the view that he held that absolute truth existed. While also claiming he did not know whether or not people would ever be able to discern absolute truth he does imply that God must be a first cause and a self-moved mover otherwise there will be an infinite regression with respect to the causes of causes.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">As I stated Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; in the flesh incarnate. Being the Word of God from eternity The Gospel of John tells us He was from the eternal not just within the domain of time.</span></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: #000000">In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">- John 1:1-5</span></li> </ul><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">God therefore is the ultimate Truth, which defines all truth - in fact all truth is God's truth - He is the source of all Truth, as well as love and all that exists. According to His goodness He has given us free will to choose. We have the choice to turn </span></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: #000000">Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,</span></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: #000000">Deuteronomy 30:19-20 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, <em>that</em> I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He <em>is</em> your life and the length of your days</span></li> </ul><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">11. I have no idea what you are talking about. It is incoherent to me.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">12 & 13</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 179)">You claim this but honestly I don't see it.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">I agree we seem to be on a merry go round that is not very merry for either one of us but I already postulated the force behind our angular momentum is that we're asserting force from two very different perspectives (Atheism & Christianity) upon the axis of Truth vs Reality. </span></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">[MEDIA=youtube]_XgYTP0kB7A[/MEDIA]</li> </ul><p><span style="color: #0000b3">I'm quite happy to just agree to disagree here as continuing the discussion does seem rather pointless to me especially given the misrepresentations of the context of my discussion points.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>Cheers to you Freodin</strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John 1720, post: 71151931, member: 323755"] [COLOR=#0000b3]Dear Freodin, You seem to making these unending self-proclaimed accusations that I do not understand you but I see your assertions are clearly out of context. May I suggest that the postulates I have proposed may be much clearer to independent review than to you. I'm content to leave them as they are and for the independent readers on the forum to assess them for themselves. I would also suggest to you that the conversation is going nowhere because you persist and nit over statements I made twisting the meaning into something that it is not. I am sorry if this offends you but I've no wish or obligation to keep explaining myself to someone who believes they alone are the judge and jury of the debate. If you believe you have made a reasoned approach and I believe I have made a reasoned debate then the posts can speak for themselves. I will continue to state and believe that Truth defines Reality and not the other way around. I would further postulate that reality is multifaceted according to the perspective of the observer. The Truth and whether one follows the truth or not is causal to one's reality. All this is premised on the condition that we truly exist. [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 179)] I would agree that Christians can speak of God as the ultimate Reality but we can also state He is the ultimate Truth as well. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3] That said I believe the larger issue that conflates the debate between the philosophical position between Reality and Truth is at its heart the atheist worldview vs the Christian or Theist worldview.[/COLOR] [LIST] [*][MEDIA=youtube]NtLtvFwvBYw[/MEDIA] [/LIST] [COLOR=#0000b3]FYI - I did not state that "Atheistic belief directly contradicts a scientific principle" The correct context here is that Atheism makes assumptions against a principle of life after death, which Christian have heralded in the claims of our eternal reality. (e.g. We believe our mortal bodies will undergo a physical transformation which will provide us a body not unlike the resurrected Christ.) The key word above is "principal"; the principal with respect to atheistic beliefs, does not have a natural precedent to support their analogy where a Christianity does. Nobody made explicit claims that the law of conservation of both energy/matter contained in modern physics proves Christianity, although you may have interpreted it that way. Christian do not only deal with the physical realm but necessarily we believe we are tripartite body. soul and spirit. Obviously there is not a physical model for the soul and spirit but other analogies might be made as I did for transformation. Jesus did that as well. The fact that annihilation does not have physical component that expresses a natural phenomena then is a negative. I'm not saying it negates that postulate but it does indeed make the concept one that is not as strong a postulate then the Christian claim of transformation. That may seem to be a subtle point but[U] using analogiies[/U] in order to make a point is something science has done all the time in order to advance itself. I will add this is also something Jesus did as well. He spoke didactically using parables to people all the time. I have definitely heard atheists express the annihilation viewpoint, even although you stated I was way of base. You responded with your own analogy of taking a sledgehammer to a piano stating that as a better example of Athiesm; to which I stated it wasn't. I stated that because basically all the materials to rebuild the piano are still there - there is not even a need for transformation in your example. It would simply be an integration by parts. An expert craftsman could rebuild it by the reuse of the existing materials. God of course would be such a master craftsman, even if one only considers that as a possible hypothesis. So the sledgehammer is really not a relevant analogy since I was speaking about real transformation not a reconstruction. So, in response to your accusation you really did not have a valid correction and my original claim was indeed true in the context that it was given. The Bible's example of transformation is a true transformation which produces a different reality for us than the temporal reality you and I have in this life. [/COLOR] [LIST] [*]1 Corinthians 15:51-53 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [I]must[/I] put on immortality. [*]1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. [/LIST] Let's look at some of your other claims you have lodged against me: [COLOR=#000000][/COLOR] [LIST=1] [*][COLOR=#0000b3]Yes, doesn't it? The atheist position clearly contradicts, and is with odds with, the Christian position of transformation. If it did not we'd hardly be having this debate :) Not that this is a popularity contest but I think statistically the inverse position would be an extreme outlier on the normal curve of Atheistical opinion.[/COLOR] [*][COLOR=#0000b3]My analogy is not false, rather it is based on a principle that cn be seen in natural law. I never said my belief is that we would be explicitly transformed in the same manner as contained in the Law of the conservation of matter and energy. You have tried to spin it that way, perhaps either by not understanding the context or by hyperbole to suit your narrative[/COLOR] [*][COLOR=#0000b3]I never said it was, in fact I clearly stated it was something different according to the Bible many times over. It would be silly for a Christian to presuppose all there is out there is the physical world or that spiritual things are subject to a temporal physical universe. However just as Christ said behold the lilies of the field or the sparrow there are many things in nature that mimic the supernatural mysteries of God. It's fair to use analogies and stating I made this claim the two are directly related is the height of hyperbole.[/COLOR] [*][COLOR=#0000b3]Context, context, context! If you misunderstand something or feel I didn't explain properly you could have simply used email instead of poisoning the well of good conversational dynamics.[/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=#0000b3]MORE, MORE and MORE responses to what you see as problematic:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3][B]MY Responses:[/B][/COLOR] 1 and 2: [COLOR=#0000b3]If you recall the context, I stated that the "Reality" of "God alone" was a special case but that I was clearly speaking in my preceding post on Reality with respect to the case of Creation - which is in context with "our reality". Surely you can see the difference. Of course in speaking of God alone we can assume He is the ultimate reality as well as the ultimate Truth but God did not leave things this way, else we would not be having this conversation; for both you and I exist within the mutual reality that we are temporal living human beings. Using my context it is the Truth of God that defines Reality and not vice versa. My claim that Reality is "the quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence." was not my definition but the standard definition: [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 179)][URL="https://www.wordnik.com/words/reality"]reality - definition and meaning[/URL] 3. Your postulate not mine 4. You say it is truth but what you have postulated is merely a guess. You are expressing a truism when you stated "in reality there is no such thing as truth". Make up your mind. 5 and 6: No that is my truth. My reality is I am a temporal living human being. That reality can change at anytime but I believe that God's truth is recorded in the Bible which states and promises that He will transform my reality from a temporal one to an everlasting one. 7. I think 3 & 4 are your statements so how can that be right? 8. Two realities can coexist according to the Word of God. There is the judgment by which the Truth will judge each of us according to the righteousness of God and separate out those going to the reality of perdition and those who know the reality of truly belonging to Christ. These realities are as real, perhaps moreso because they are everlasting, than our present temporal realities of physical life and death. 9. That is what I postulated as being a truth claim yes. A judgment is true if and only if its predicate corresponds to its object (i.e., to the object referred to by the subject term of the judgment. The existence of God is either a true or it is not. Our personal opinion is not going to change whether this is truth or not. Your search for evidence may or may not convince you so we can either reject or acknowledge the claim. However claims about the existence of God, as well as the non-existence of God are equally objective as they are rooted in the object under consideration: Either God exists or He does not. We are on equal ground objectively. 10. I did define truth to you and you even commented on the fact that I stated it was not much different than how Plato defined it. Plato’s known ideas on truth reflect the view that he held that absolute truth existed. While also claiming he did not know whether or not people would ever be able to discern absolute truth he does imply that God must be a first cause and a self-moved mover otherwise there will be an infinite regression with respect to the causes of causes. As I stated Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; in the flesh incarnate. Being the Word of God from eternity The Gospel of John tells us He was from the eternal not just within the domain of time.[/COLOR] [LIST] [*][COLOR=#000000]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 179)]- John 1:1-5[/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 179)]God therefore is the ultimate Truth, which defines all truth - in fact all truth is God's truth - He is the source of all Truth, as well as love and all that exists. According to His goodness He has given us free will to choose. We have the choice to turn [/COLOR] [LIST] [*][COLOR=#000000]Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,[/COLOR] [*][COLOR=#000000]Deuteronomy 30:19-20 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, [I]that[/I] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He [I]is[/I] your life and the length of your days[/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 179)]11. I have no idea what you are talking about. It is incoherent to me. 12 & 13 You claim this but honestly I don't see it.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3]I agree we seem to be on a merry go round that is not very merry for either one of us but I already postulated the force behind our angular momentum is that we're asserting force from two very different perspectives (Atheism & Christianity) upon the axis of Truth vs Reality. [/COLOR] [LIST] [*][MEDIA=youtube]_XgYTP0kB7A[/MEDIA] [/LIST] [COLOR=#0000b3]I'm quite happy to just agree to disagree here as continuing the discussion does seem rather pointless to me especially given the misrepresentations of the context of my discussion points. [B][/B] [B]Cheers to you Freodin[/B] [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
What is the truth?
Top
Bottom