Is it possible to have a dialogue about "the Truth"

[flowperson]

Thanks Paladin. Ahhh yes...hardwiring is a term I fully understand.

Yes, each is entitled to their personal beliefs, and also deserving of respect for believing it/them, whether or not others internally judge the beliefs not to be suitable for them to follow.

G-d bless diversity !

flow....

 

[cyberpi]

I can speak for 9 out of 10 Truths...
1 The truth, what little I was born with.
2 The truth my parents gave me.
3 The truth the school required me to learn.
4 The truth I happen acrossed when I picked up a book.
5 The truth I paid for... if there is such a thing.
6 The truth I suspect someone withheld from me.
7 The truth I think that I have, but don't.
8 The truth I have had, but never realize.
9 The truth that I place judgement with.
and... oh shoot, I ran out so fast.
10, The truth which I may never have the time, space, capability, or inclination to find and see.

One of the points I attempted to make was to defend the integrity of the position which says: "I am right - you are wrong".

You mean like Jesus (pbuh) did? Absolutely! But the rest of your post speaks for condemning... where I think 'Faith' and 'Law' are the real topics that you are seeking. It is very tempting for me to talk about Islam here, the religion of Truth, but I think the correct word to study and nail between religions is "FAITH"... or 'do by your will and not my own'. Since the majority on this thread claim to be Christian I'd like to point out a few bible verses. I have to go away for a few weeks and can't go too far, but:

I will state, with the mindset of loving God (swt) and people more than one self, and not to be a hypocrit (disclaimer, my derived opinion and words):
When people do NOT judge with what truth they can see, or judge with what truth they can NOT see, they plant evil seeds and nurture them.
When people judge with what they can see, and do NOT judge with what they can NOT see, then they might plant things that bear fruit for people.

To follow Christianity though means to follow not my opinion, nor your opinion, but to follow the teaching of Christ (pbuh).

What I was trying to say with Newton essentially was:
Matthew 10:30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Luke 12:7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Luke 21:18 But not a hair of your head will perish.

For judging right and wrong, try a search of the bible for "viper" and "rebuke". Like Matthew 3:7, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 23:33, Luke 3:7... Jesus (pbuh) not only judged and rebuked, but according to the bible he wasn't exactly 'polite' about it. He gave a number of generalizations against a group of people, which today some people would have a brain aneurysm over... while a lasting problem is that people do that blindly. But notice: Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him."

John 2:13-17 is even an example of some "zeal" with judgement... the most that is written about Jesus (pbuh).

Censorship, or condemning anyone's truth: The parable of the weeds sticks with me. I am not a fan of censorship. Look to the many parables about Faith and Law to jointly deal with the weeds that condemn plants. But I reserve the right to plant my seeds next to those who will call them weeds and I request them to plant their seeds. We shall learn the 'Truth' by its fruits.

Regarding this 'one Truth' notion. I see one physical medium that has both truth and spirit in it. Truth can be measured, the information in spirit can not. But for God (swt) I imagine it is ALL truth, and there are more mediums that he has made, as described in a number of religions. As I stated with this post though, since I only see a very small portion of what truth is available, and I have no way to measure what has been condemned to spirit, then there are many truths. I also witness how one person's truth can be another person's Spirit. Like in Matthew 18:16 "But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." It is not necessarily that people want to be a false witness, but I have not met in person anyone who claims to see, hear, and know all the truth.

 

[Quahom1]

Actually no... Einstein and others showed in the last century that Newton was also wrong with his second law of motion, although it is a fair approximation at low velocity.

To also answer your question: No. With Newton's third law of motion I was describing the dynamics of the physical world. Every action is recorded. No action and reaction are equal. No action or reaction are repeatable. No action or reaction are reversible. I am sure that having written those laws that God (swt) can break or rewrite them, but I am speaking for physical laws, which the flesh follows.

I am speaking of this physical world. The reason I bring it up is simple: The tree of knowledge reveals that we are naked and clothed in skin. Every bit of measurable science has revealed that truth... that every action is being recorded. The truth is malleable but the act of changing it is recorded and that recording is not malleable.

Under the Theories of relativity not pertaining to quantum physics (and the fact that I am looking at Einstein's theories as I write this post), I'd like proof to point out specifically where Einstein disproved or even argued against Newton's second law. I would also like proof showing where if true, the change occurs at a higher velocity. And at what velocity is special relativity considered to intercede, thus negating general relativity and Newton's second law?

You have taken a "known" physical law, and attempted to discredit it in order to prove your point on "truth" even at its most objective point (observation of consistent results to support the theory, repeatatively). I wish to see the evidence to support the case in point, to the contrary.

v/r

Q

 

[cyberpi]

Under the Theories of relativity not pertaining to quantum physics (and the fact that I am looking at Einstein's theories as I write this post), I'd like proof to point out specifically where Einstein disproved or even argued against Newton's second law. I would also like proof showing where if true, the change occurs at a higher velocity. And at what velocity is special relativity considered to intercede, thus negating general relativity and Newton's second law?

You have taken a "known" physical law, and attempted to discredit it in order to prove your point on "truth" even at its most objective point (observation of consistent results to support the theory, repeatatively). I wish to see the evidence to support the case in point, to the contrary.

v/r

Q

2nd Newton classical law motion. You brought it up in error, not me.
With the results of experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein postulated:
1. Absolute uniform motion can not be detected.
2. The speed of light is independent of the source.
From this it follows (I will not repeat the math for you) that it is not the momentum (m*v) and kinetic energy ((1/2)*m*v^2) that is conserved in an observable inertial reference frame, but it is the relativistic momentum and relativistic kinetic energy. The relativistic momentum is:
P = m*v / sqrt (1- (v/c)^2) where m = mass, v = velocity, c = speed of light. The extra factor is velocity dependent, and falls out as the ratio v/c approaches zero. Thus classical Newton 2nd law is an approximation that gets better the closer to zero speed. Alternatively it is viewed that the rest mass increases with velocity. Either way, sum F = dP/dt has an extra velocity dependent factor and is not equal to m*a. The sum F = m*a is an approximation.

As for my point on "truth" with Newton's 3rd law, it is NOT the 3rd law that proves anything. I simply stated that the first part is wrongly worded. The reason is that an action and reaction imply doing work with a time varying dynamic force. In the application or removal of even a static force on a nearly immovable object, there is always work performed that can not be recovered. In the application of accelerating an object in a frictionless environment there is work performed accelerating the mass. That is why I say that action and reaction are NOT equal. For an imaginary frictionless harmonic oscillator it might seem like energy can simply alternate back and forth between action and reaction, but the application of a potential energy to start the oscillator and the removal of a potential energy to stop it necessitates that work is performed somewhere... energy is minimally lost in transients across the power switch.

I will only provide a simplified proof outline for you on the storage of every action, which has to be applied to many different cases. I am simply restating the laws of thermodynamics in a different way and applying it to all classical and modern physics. There is energy. Energy is always conserved. There is free potential energy which may be used to perform work. The remainder is energy which can no longer be used to perform work. When any action is taken and work performed, potential energy is consumed and something is produced as a result... call it spent energy. Or, entropy, heat, or diverging particle momentums. It is the position, momentum, and state of the spent energy that encodes every action. Once that information is created, it can not be destroyed. If it could be destroyed then we would be able to take advantage of it and reclaim it as potential energy to use all over again. No such dice. Nobody has been able to produce a positive free-energy producing experiment, which necessarily would have to consume the spent energy to produce free potential energy. Note, in chemistry Gibbs free energy is used... or particle physics, 'neg-entropy' is used to state this direction of action and reaction.

All measurements are also a process of using a little bit of potential energy. When light reflects off an object energy is spent. When light is absorbed in the eye energy is spent. Any brain activity requires energy. Any biological action requires energy. There is no computer, machine, living thing, or physical process that does not require energy to perform work and a method of disposing of the spent energy. That spent energy is encoded with information... that information can be used to perfectly recreate the history in exact, precise detail. Someone who could see the location of all energy without having to measure it could read history... real history... like an open book. The information is physically there.

 

[Quahom1]

Quod Erat Demonstradum

"That which was demonstrated..." the phrase is incomplete... (Is to be self evident, perhaps)? Or is the use of Latin a way of showing some kind of superior knowledge? Knowledge of a dead language (yet not quite dead), is interesting, but then, that is exactly with the Catholic church did up until the 1960s. Then it grew up.

v/r

Q

 

[cyberpi]

Quod Erat Demonstradum

Well... I will share something:
In early 1995 I was talking with a guy who was Christian and had an independent study group he was trying to 'convert' me to. We got off on the subject about earthquakes... he was telling me about end of times and an increasing number of earthquakes. Back in early 1995 we had 486 computers on Win 3.1 at best, and did not have this awesome SEARCH capability to find verses. So a week later he found the verse in a bible and stopped by to show me. I let him in, we sat down, he opened his bible, he read the verse, and within about 10 seconds we had a short > 5.0 earthquake, the strongest reported for that region in 30 years, and my first ever. Based on timing alone I'd place the odds at over 10 million, because it is a very rare event that I have anyone opening a bible in front of me let alone to that verse. We both thought it was fun actually and my wife and I certainly listened to this other couple a little more, but it didn't convert me to any of his beliefs nor did I really have much to do with him. Most Christians here would call him a cult leader... he brought a gun into our home and was telling me how I had to protect myself and family. That was pretty much the last we saw of him. I wouldn't read into the timely or untimely earthquake though... maybe just a warning for me to get my act together. Don't read beyond it.

The guy did say though that he had 'coincidences' like this in his life... which I confess that I doubted at the time. But I too in my life now have seen a number of statistically viable things. Realize, I am an engineer who has studied communication theory and information theory... I am not a mystic but I see the value of information content in a coincidence. I am NOT saying God (swt) produced an earthquake, but he could have guided many people to a situation like that where he knew there would be one. I know me and this other guy are nobody special. I know that I have sinned, nothing to be in trouble with the law, but a couple of sins I'd like to forget. The thing is, and this is my message here... I can't prove it or demonstrate anything. I can't repeat it. Something from the spirit is NOT a measurable thing. You don't know who caused it and you are ultimately left to assume that it was God (swt). I do not think ANYONE can measure anything from the spirit. At best you can see it in the coincidences, and I simply have not established how best to communicate with that. But you can invent reasons to deny it, or overlook it. I recommend NOT doing that.

To set my scientific definition of truth and spirit a little more: If you take a secret recipe and write it down on paper, all the information for what you did is recorded in the heat produced in your muscles and your brain, and it leaves in the water vapor that you breath out and evaporate. So now you have the paper with a truth on it, which you can measure with any light... but the recording of what you did is also in the spirit and can not be measured. That is a fact known to science because there is energy and energy is conserved. There is potential energy and used energy. The used energy is encoded with information that is no longer of use to you, which I call spirit. The only way I can measure potential energy is to use a small portion of it. The only way I can measure the used energy is to put it into storage buckets of known thermal and entropic capacity, but there is no way by scientific measurement to reproduce the truth from the information in the spent energy.

If you rip up and burn the piece of paper, committing the secret recipe to ashes (spirit)... the secret recipe may be lost from truth forever, but there is still a copy in your brain, and all the information is still there in the ashes and emitted radiation to perfectly record the entire lifetime of that piece of paper. A typical scientist or engineer will probably deny this because it is not taught in school, but it is a known quality of energy as I explained. When you do work, any type of work on anything, the evidence of what you did, and exactly how you did it, is being saved. It is being saved by the energy that is consumed, and the produced waste heat or entropy. There has been no scientific measured way to go back... to produce energy out of entropy. While every action and every state in time is being saved, there is no way to see it. That goes for computers too... there is no computer, machine, living thing or physical process that does not need energy input and a way to release the entropy or heat.

So my point is, if anyone is looking for a measurable truth you might be looking in the wrong place. When you see a person in flesh, measuring them is really still a matter of interaction and the person revealing themselves and producing something for you to measure and know them by. The prophets maybe had this form of a relationship with God (swt). I don't know if there are people alive today who have that relationship with God (swt) or not, but based on personal experience I am convinced that guiding events are very real.

 

[Quahom1]

2nd Newton classical law motion. You brought it up in error, not me.
With the results of experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein postulated:
1. Absolute uniform motion can not be detected.
2. The speed of light is independent of the source.
From this it follows (I will not repeat the math for you) that it is not the momentum (m*v) and kinetic energy ((1/2)*m*v^2) that is conserved in an observable inertial reference frame, but it is the relativistic momentum and relativistic kinetic energy. The relativistic momentum is:
P = m*v / sqrt (1- (v/c)^2) where m = mass, v = velocity, c = speed of light. The extra factor is velocity dependent, and falls out as the ratio v/c approaches zero. Thus classical Newton 2nd law is an approximation that gets better the closer to zero speed. Alternatively it is viewed that the rest mass increases with velocity. Either way, sum F = dP/dt has an extra velocity dependent factor and is not equal to m*a. The sum F = m*a is an approximation.

As for my point on "truth" with Newton's 3rd law, it is NOT the 3rd law that proves anything. I simply stated that the first part is wrongly worded. The reason is that an action and reaction imply doing work with a time varying dynamic force. In the application or removal of even a static force on a nearly immovable object, there is always work performed that can not be recovered. In the application of accelerating an object in a frictionless environment there is work performed accelerating the mass. That is why I say that action and reaction are NOT equal. For an imaginary frictionless harmonic oscillator it might seem like energy can simply alternate back and forth between action and reaction, but the application of a potential energy to start the oscillator and the removal of a potential energy to stop it necessitates that work is performed somewhere... energy is minimally lost in transients across the power switch.

I will only provide a simplified proof outline for you on the storage of every action, which has to be applied to many different cases. I am simply restating the laws of thermodynamics in a different way and applying it to all classical and modern physics. There is energy. Energy is always conserved. There is free potential energy which may be used to perform work. The remainder is energy which can no longer be used to perform work. When any action is taken and work performed, potential energy is consumed and something is produced as a result... call it spent energy. Or, entropy, heat, or diverging particle momentums. It is the position, momentum, and state of the spent energy that encodes every action. Once that information is created, it can not be destroyed. If it could be destroyed then we would be able to take advantage of it and reclaim it as potential energy to use all over again. No such dice. Nobody has been able to produce a positive free-energy producing experiment, which necessarily would have to consume the spent energy to produce free potential energy. Note, in chemistry Gibbs free energy is used... or particle physics, 'neg-entropy' is used to state this direction of action and reaction.

All measurements are also a process of using a little bit of potential energy. When light reflects off an object energy is spent. When light is absorbed in the eye energy is spent. Any brain activity requires energy. Any biological action requires energy. There is no computer, machine, living thing, or physical process that does not require energy to perform work and a method of disposing of the spent energy. That spent energy is encoded with information... that information can be used to perfectly recreate the history in exact, precise detail. Someone who could see the location of all energy without having to measure it could read history... real history... like an open book. The information is physically there.

First off, you have no idea what you are talking about, because you have never applied the laws "consciously" to your own life. UNLESS, you have been hit by a car, or have hit a car, or a body, or been the body, or a miriad other ways to test the theory. If so, I stand corrected.

The second law of motion according to Newton has nothing to do with light/energy, as light/energy is not matter, (unless you consider photons matter, but even then photons have no mass, hence not subject to general relativity rules...only quantum rules). Apples and Oranges here.

In the general field of relativity, Newton's law is intact. Even Einstein stated that in quantum physics (or special laws of relativety), all bets are off. He did not have all the answers, and was extremely puzzled by issues.

Please, you aren't talking to a kindergartener...and you aren't baffling me with your "brilliance". I deal with this stuff every day, and have for a quarter century...that is truth, base on historical records...

v/r

Q

 

[cyberpi]

First off, you have no idea what you are talking about, because you have never applied the laws "consciously" to your own life. UNLESS, you have been hit by a car, or have hit a car, or a body, or been the body, or a miriad other ways to test the theory. If so, I stand corrected.

The second law of motion according to Newton has nothing to do with light/energy, as light/energy is not matter, (unless you consider photons matter, but even then photons have no mass, hence not subject to general relativity rules...only quantum rules). Apples and Oranges here.

In the general field of relativity, Newton's law is intact. Even Einstein stated that in quantum physics (or special laws of relativety), all bets are off. He did not have all the answers, and was extremely puzzled by issues.

Please, you aren't talking to a kindergartener...and you aren't baffling me with your "brilliance". I deal with this stuff every day, and have for a quarter century...that is truth, base on historical records...

v/r

Q

I have no interest to baffle you and can provide some references for you to study if you like. Perhaps I need a frame of reference to speak your language. What is your education and vocation?

 

[lunamoth]

You're on a similar page with me, I think. These are the sorts of issues I want to hear people's ideas about:

OK, here goes.

(1) what do we mean when we say something is "the Truth"?

As a result of some of the conversations I've had here at CR over the past couple of years, I've come to the idea that the 'truth' is that which I trust. For example, if we are talking about scientific truth, that would include those things which I can reproducbily measure and 'express' in such as way that is meaningful to others who can then also follow my methods to get the same results. It would also include models and theories that best represent the known facts and are useful, dependable, for making predictions about future outcomes. For scienitfic truth I need to stand on the shoulders of giants, as has been famously said.

For religious truth I am not looking for the answers to 'how' or 'when' but 'why.' I am looking for meaning, something I can trust, a vehicle, that will lead me out of myself and connect me to other people and to the bigger part of the universe, help me heal the disconnect I sense more than feel. Religious truth, 'salvation,' if you will, is very much about us, not me. For religious truth I seek to connect with Something More.

For moral truth I largely look to my own instincts which have been shaped over the years of my life by all my parents taught me, what I have learned personally by experience and through formal education, influenced by my moral religious beliefs and of course by the greater culture I live in.

All of these truths are somewhat relative, they change as we learn more, as I learn more, experience more, but for the most part they stay on track. They are all truth to me because I trust them to 1) help me understand the phycial universe 2) help me understand my place in the physical and metaphysical universe, and 3) help me function well and compassionately in the society in which I live.

I actually do believe there is an ultimate and absolute Truth to which all these other fluctuating truths point, but I equate this with God and so it would never meet the criteria we would need for discussion as given here. Like sailboats tacking into the wind, I think all my little 't' truths move toward the big 'T' Truth.

(2) how do we determine the content of "the Truth"?

Going by what I said above, it would depend upon our objective and we'd find out empirically if we could trust the content to take us closer to that objective.

(3) can we dialogue and explore "the Truth" together? (I like the way you put it - disinguishing dialogue from "debate").

I think it is possible, but very difficult. It's difficult because we (feel like we) risk losing our hold on a vehicle we trust if we acknowledge there may be other trustworthy vehicles.

That's more than enough for now--it's late!

luna

 

[Quahom1]

I have no interest to baffle you and can provide some references for you to study if you like. Perhaps I need a frame of reference to speak your language. What is your education and vocation?

I think the moderator "Luna", is trying to tell us to "cool it". But for the record, I am a Criminal Justice and Psychology major, (go figure)
and hold the same in Marine structural engineering. That means I have to use the sea, steam, steel, and physics in order to successfully complete my job. And that is just the "physical part".

v/r

Q

 

[lunamoth]

I think the moderator "Luna", is trying to tell us to "cool it". But for the record, I am a Criminal Justice and Psychology major, (go figure)
and hold the same in Marine structural engineering. That means I have to use the sea, steam, steel, and physics in order to successfully complete my job. And that is just the "physical part".

v/r

Q

Nope, I'm off-duty in this forum. Just trying to answer some of Abogado's questions.

Carry on.

luna

 

[Quahom1]

Nope, I'm off-duty in this forum. Just trying to answer some of Abogado's questions.

Carry on.

luna

By your leave "Ma'am"...

 

[cyberpi]

I think the moderator "Luna", is trying to tell us to "cool it". But for the record, I am a Criminal Justice and Psychology major, (go figure)
and hold the same in Marine structural engineering. That means I have to use the sea, steam, steel, and physics in order to successfully complete my job. And that is just the "physical part".

v/r
Q

Good for you. I am an electrical and mechancial engineer with a range of academic interests. The 2nd law of motion did not pertain to my discussion, but I concede that for everything at low velocity the 2nd law of motion is accurate enough to be called true. At 120 mph closing speed or 50 m/s the error in momentum is 1 part in 10 million. Relativity is hard for most everyone to understand, and just about as useless unless you design mars rovers or GPS satellites. I found a web page from Stanford that provides some further study information:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

 

[Quahom1]

Good for you. I am an electrical and mechancial engineer with a range of academic interests. The 2nd law of motion did not pertain to my discussion, but I concede that for everything at low velocity the 2nd law of motion is accurate enough to be called true. At 120 mph closing speed or 50 m/s the error in momentum is 1 part in 10 million. Relativity is hard for most everyone to understand, and just about as useless unless you design mars rovers or GPS satellites. I found a web page from Stanford that provides some further study information:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

And I concede that once one steps into Quantum physics, all bets are off. But if we can't even negotiate metric rules and imperial rules, then even the finest machines go places we have no ken to, and we look very very stupid, when we can't find them, or worse, find them destroyed because of stupidity.

Isn't that...the truth?

v/r

Q

 

[Janz]

OK, here goes.

As a result of some of the conversations I've had here at CR over the past couple of years, I've come to the idea that the 'truth' is that which I trust. For example, if we are talking about scientific truth, that would include those things which I can reproducbily measure and 'express' in such as way that is meaningful to others who can then also follow my methods to get the same results. It would also include models and theories that best represent the known facts and are useful, dependable, for making predictions about future outcomes. For scienitfic truth I need to stand on the shoulders of giants, as has been famously said.

For religious truth I am not looking for the answers to 'how' or 'when' but 'why.' I am looking for meaning, something I can trust, a vehicle, that will lead me out of myself and connect me to other people and to the bigger part of the universe, help me heal the disconnect I sense more than feel. Religious truth, 'salvation,' if you will, is very much about us, not me. For religious truth I seek to connect with Something More.

For moral truth I largely look to my own instincts which have been shaped over the years of my life by all my parents taught me, what I have learned personally by experience and through formal education, influenced by my moral religious beliefs and of course by the greater culture I live in.

All of these truths are somewhat relative, they change as we learn more, as I learn more, experience more, but for the most part they stay on track. They are all truth to me because I trust them to 1) help me understand the phycial universe 2) help me understand my place in the physical and metaphysical universe, and 3) help me function well and compassionately in the society in which I live.

I actually do believe there is an ultimate and absolute Truth to which all these other fluctuating truths point, but I equate this with God and so it would never meet the criteria we would need for discussion as given here. Like sailboats tacking into the wind, I think all my little 't' truths move toward the big 'T' Truth.

Going by what I said above, it would depend upon our objective and we'd find out empirically if we could trust the content to take us closer to that objective.
I think it is possible, but very difficult. It's difficult because we (feel like we) risk losing our hold on a vehicle we trust if we acknowledge there may be other trustworthy vehicles.

That's more than enough for now--it's late!

luna

Bravo luna. I agree with all that you have just posted. Instincts, trust, relating to the culture we are living in by doing no harm to others and compassionate understanding.

Is it possible that all our trustworthy vehicles are traveling in the same direction? We meet each other at those intersections of common grace and sometimes we are each driving alone down a one way street.

I want to share this slice of life in an encounter between 2 Christians and one skeptic. Tell me what you think of this:

"Recently we engaged in a friendly debate with a skeptic who said Christianity wasn't true because it was intolerant. Tolerance was the only way to test religious truth. We disagreed, offering to give evidence and reasons why Christianity was true and what he believed was false.

He replied:"That's what I mean. You are wrong because you judge me. Whatever anyone believes is true.

"Be tolerant," we countered. Don't say we are wrong. Stop judging us. Whatever we believe is true."
Realizing that he had been self-contradictory, he tried to recover saying,"Well,its true for you, but not for me."

"Our truth for us is that you don't have truth. So that must be true,because it is our truth. So you are still wrong."

Frustrated, he said: "No you don't understand. If it is true for you, it only applies to you, not anyone else. It's true for you but not for me."

The Christians then say: "It may be true for you that our truth is only true for us, but our truth is that what is true for us is also true for you. So you lose, because that's our truth and you can't apply your truth to us because that' your thruth."

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

 

[Dondi]

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

No, the answer to the OP is "Yes". We can have a dialog about "The Truth", we just won't come to any conclusive agreement about it.

But hopefully, it will push us closer to it.

 

[Paladin]

"That which was demonstrated..." the phrase is incomplete... (Is to be self evident, perhaps)? Or is the use of Latin a way of showing some kind of superior knowledge? Knowledge of a dead language (yet not quite dead), is interesting, but then, that is exactly with the Catholic church did up until the 1960s. Then it grew up.

v/r

Q

Hi Q,

Yes the term was used here to provide a short, though hopefully poigniant response to the previous post. As for showing superior knowledge? I would have to leave that to the more erudite and sometimes verbose members of the forum, as I am just a simple blue collar type.
As an aside though I am impressed with your knowledge of the different levels of "dead" rivaled only perhaps by Billy Crystal in "The Princess Bride"
I think the scene where he revives a member of the band of heroes out to rescue the Princess. " Ok, I can help, he's just a little dead, if he was a lot dead, it would be different" ( or something like that)

Peace
Mark

 

[cyberpi]

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

Faith writes a truth. Imagination writes a lie. For when I place faith in you it is not my beliefs that I follow, but yours.

The truth brings fruit because it is a symmetry... a symmetry between people, a symmetry between a person and the world, or a symmetry between a person and God (swt).

Truth in the world grows by faith and good deeds. The ego kills it.

The logical person measures words. The wise person measures faith.

 

[wil]

Setting aside for the moment whether the truth is "malleable," what are the means by which we might access "the truth"? In other words, by what measure do we determine "the truth" from "not the truth"?

*Quite simply what I know to be true is, and what you speak of that is counter to my truth is not.

What do you think of that?

refering to folks killing each other over others truth getting in the way of their truth, truly is a shame

Imagine, for a second, the dialogue between two people who want to discuss their chosen beliefs, with each desiring to prove the other wrong. What would such a dialogue look like?

does someone need to imagine, on these boards do any of us need to imagine?

Is it possible that they could agree on an objective measure - a common language and method - by which they could discern "the truth"?

Not if that determination means that their truth becomes invalid in the process.

Without that, isn't the dialogue going to just be two people accusing each other of being wrong, with each repeatedly stating their creed or conviction in response to the other doing the same? What would be the product of such a dialogue?

Eventually it appears if they one can't realize that we are allowed to have differing beliefs and be ok with that eventually they tire of beating their head into the wall, back up and discuss topics that don't cause their truth to be stabbed so repeatedly, or they leave for greener pasteurs.

Would it be okay for someone to inflict pain and suffering on your children because of a difference in religious belief over one of these "moral" issues?

no

Where should the line be drawn?

your beliefs end where mine begin, and vice versa

If one's religion says "Kill the infidels!" (and, no, I'm not claiming that any religion makes that demand), is following on that command something we should accept, so we can all stick to our guns that everyone else is wrong?

again, you break the laws of my country, you are judged by those laws. You violate my personal space and you are judged by my laws. Same goes for me.

Can you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs?

I think we all do, each and every day. Seek first to understand, then to be understood, I like that. As well as seek ye first the kingdom of heaven...I like that to. And I believe I can sit down with most anyone, not a crowd of anyones, but one at a time, away from the mob, dialogue can start.

If so, how should we decide where to draw that line? If not, what wouldn't be permissible if done in the name of a religious dogma?

Again, in something rules, if it is the religion in its way, or some tribal system, or a formal government, some sort of established rule is slowly creeping around our planet, and they have thier checks and balances, judges and punishments. Our social mores extend into their boundaries, nor theirs into ours.

I'm not setting up anyone for any argument about who's right or wrong. So please don't misunderstand me. I am asking serious questions about the nature of faith, how we define and determine "the truth," and, in the real world in which we live, what should we do about the inescapable reality that just about every single person has arrived at a different conviction about "the truth" and of what it consists.

This is specifically about discussing perceptions of right and wrong, my truth/reality v. yours.

* please note in this response the tongue must obviously be removed from the cheek...