Is there a one answer ?

[Sabour]

Exactly!

We can't agree on something existing or not unless we agree on what it is that we're proving to exist. Apples, oranges, dogs, normal things in our world are easy because we can touch them, and they have much better evidentiary existence by their sheer nature. In other words, cats, horses, trees, and so on are defined by what exists. God on the other hand is a definition of something we don't understand or can touch/see/feel. And in some cases, some people have experience of God, but they have different experiences. So which experience is right? I don't know.

Sitting down and study them would be one way, but unfortunately, we're very stubborn people. LOL! We tend not to give up our views of God so easily. One person says this, the other says that, and they won't bend to each other.

(I think that was Descartes' view.)

When I suggested that solution I didn't mean for the whole world because I will always find a billion people saying No I know best. I am not discussing an understanding for All the World, you will always find people saying that red is not red, it is blue.


Do you find that as an excuse as to why other people would not try to understand these concepts and find the true answer?

 

[Ouroboros]

When I suggested that solution I didn't mean for the whole world because I will always find a billion people saying No I know best. I am not discussing an understanding for All the World, you will always find people saying that red is not red, it is blue.

But wasn't the question in the beginning of the thread in regards to a total and absolute answer for the whole world? Or are you just asking if we, you and me and the people on this forum, can just agree to one answer, without caring about what the rest of the world thinks?

Do you find that as an excuse as to why other people would not try to understand these concepts and find the true answer?

Sometimes, probably.

By the way, I just remembered a label, "ignostic." Ignostic is kind'a like a hardcore agnostic, hehe. It's the view that our theological concepts of God are just all over the place and not coherent enough to ever show us if there is such a god or not, so basically, it's kind of being agnostic based on "the god-word is so messed up and we can't agree of what we're supposed to think of it, so there, we don't know, and can't know." Somethin' like that. I'm sure any any hardcore ignostic out there can set me straight.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not a debate about my nickname, but I guess my nickname is on the line.

Is there a one answer to the questions in hand?

Like we may see things differently, which is having different perspectives, but does that affect reality?

Like if we say there is X but people perceive it as Y or Z, it is still X.

So the answer to what is that, is this is X, regardless if you saw it as Y or Z.

In that sense I would say that there is a one "true" answer to every question. There is a fact. Other answers away from that fact would be called different perceptions and they are wrong if they don't match the fact.

It will of course depend on the matter. For mathematics and the natural sciences (geology, physics, chemistry) answers are usually very objective indeed. For ethics, despite common opinions, I maintain that they are ultimately very objective as well. But religious beliefs can stray quite apart from objectivity, particularly when matters of beliefs about deities become relevant.

 

[Ultimatum]

You might want to put your pants back on, your sarcasm is showing.

Sarcasm? It's the truth, my friend. Whether or not you wish to receive fact is up to you..

 

[DawudTalut]

Different powers struggling over resources causing strife and mayhem, at the detriment of those under their charge. Sounds like the Gods to me.

Peace be on you.....If you please add few more words to your statement they shall not sound like God.
"Different powers struggling over resources causing strife and mayhem, at the detriment of those under their charge." add " yet the conditions within these powers (apparently powerful countries) are not so good, large budget deficits, failed foreign adventures, insecure borders, weakness in Euro zone, job lost due to chinese policies etc......"

 

[viole]

Is there a one answer to the questions in hand?

Let's analyze this logically.

Whether there is one answer or not to the questions at hand, is itself a an answer to a question at hand.

So, if the answer is yes, the next question "what is it?" cannot be answered since we exhausted the number of answers we can give. Unless you are happy with that single "yes" and with the fact that all other questions cannot have any answer without contradicting the original "yes".

And if the answer is "no", then this cannot be the only answer without a logical contradiction.

Therefore, there are at least two answers to the questions at hand.

I propose you change your nickname. On logical grounds.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sabour]

But wasn't the question in the beginning of the thread in regards to a total and absolute answer for the whole world? Or are you just asking if we, you and me and the people on this forum, can just agree to one answer, without caring about what the rest of the world thinks?

By saying for the whole world, I didn't mean in the aspect of accepting it as the true answer, I meant in the aspect that it is true, forget that point however, I think we've discussed it.
I wasn't suggesting that we should sit and decide on a one perception, but of course I won't mind having a discussion about it. However saying that this should be done by all the members is impossible because not all members are interested in the first place.

Sometimes, probably.

By the way, I just remembered a label, "ignostic." Ignostic is kind'a like a hardcore agnostic, hehe. It's the view that our theological concepts of God are just all over the place and not coherent enough to ever show us if there is such a god or not, so basically, it's kind of being agnostic based on "the god-word is so messed up and we can't agree of what we're supposed to think of it, so there, we don't know, and can't know." Somethin' like that. I'm sure any any hardcore ignostic out there can set me straight.

I learned something new Thank you

 

[Sabour]

It will of course depend on the matter. For mathematics and the natural sciences (geology, physics, chemistry) answers are usually very objective indeed. For ethics, despite common opinions, I maintain that they are ultimately very objective as well. But religious beliefs can stray quite apart from objectivity, particularly when matters of beliefs about deities become relevant.

I think that is the most direct answer to my OP.

Can you further explain the statement I highlighted, especially what you meant by "become relevant"

 

[Sabour]

Let's analyze this logically.

Whether there is one answer or not to the questions at hand, is itself a an answer to a question at hand.

So, if the answer is yes, the next question "what is it?" cannot be answered since we exhausted the number of answers we can give. Unless you are happy with that single "yes" and with the fact that all other questions cannot have any answer without contradicting the original "yes".

And if the answer is "no", then this cannot be the only answer without a logical contradiction.

Therefore, there are at least two answers to the questions at hand.

I propose you change your nickname. On logical grounds.

Ciao

- viole

Viole you didn't convince me

Asking what is it would be another question.

If the answer is no, than it simply means that other question then "Yes or NO" or "True or False" have more than one answer. I think you are giving too much emphasis on words and limiting what I was addressing in the OP.

Let me rephrase my OP, do you think your perception of things changes the reality ?

 

[Ouroboros]

By saying for the whole world, I didn't mean in the aspect of accepting it as the true answer, I meant in the aspect that it is true, forget that point however, I think we've discussed it.
I wasn't suggesting that we should sit and decide on a one perception, but of course I won't mind having a discussion about it. However saying that this should be done by all the members is impossible because not all members are interested in the first place.

Sure.

So we're really discussing just if there is one answer, not if we all (the world) could agree on it? Or should I put it this way, "Is there a one answer, a single, objective answer? Does it exist?" Without really trying to figure out what it would be.

And sure, there probably is, but of course we wouldn't really understand it if it was explained to us.

I learned something new Thank you

You're welcome.

 

[Sabour]

Sure.

So we're really discussing just if there is one answer, not if we all (the world) could agree on it? Or should I put it this way, "Is there a one answer, a single, objective answer? Does it exist?" Without really trying to figure out what it would be.

And sure, there probably is, but of course we wouldn't really understand it if it was explained to us.



You're welcome.

If there is one answer, than I would undoubtedly tell all people to look for it, but I don't think all people would be interested.

My stand is that there are certain questions where one answer exists like the question to what is God. and I believe that all people should try to reach the true answer because it is a responsibility we have,

 

[Ouroboros]

If there is one answer, than I would undoubtedly tell all people to look for it, but I don't think all people would be interested.

True. Not all people would be interested. I've met some people who didn't have a single interest in talking about God or religion.

My stand is that there are certain questions where one answer exists like the question to what is God.

I just don't think anyone really can understand or know the right answers. We can speculate, but we can't reason our way to this knowledge.

and I believe that all people should try to reach the true answer because it is a responsibility we have,

I don't know if I agree on that. Why do we have that responsibility?

 

[Midnight Rain]

It is not a debate about my nickname, but I guess my nickname is on the line.

Is there a one answer to the questions in hand?

Like we may see things differently, which is having different perspectives, but does that affect reality?

Like if we say there is X but people perceive it as Y or Z, it is still X.

So the answer to what is that, is this is X, regardless if you saw it as Y or Z.

In that sense I would say that there is a one "true" answer to every question. There is a fact. Other answers away from that fact would be called different perceptions and they are wrong if they don't match the fact.

I've talked about this in another thread just earlier today.

The "All" or the universal essence that encompasses everything cannot be fully comprehended. However we are also part of this "all". Gods and goddesses of different religions are simply reflections of themselves and of their societies in response to revaluations received. However interpretations of those revelations may be wrong.

 

[allfoak]

Every perspective is correct.
This is why we once had the right to think and speak the way we pleased in America as long as we didn't violate the right of others to do the same.

If any one person's perspective is wrong then i would like to know who has the right to correct it?
If i want to believe the earth is flat then i should be entitled to do so.

 

[Sabour]

True. Not all people would be interested. I've met some people who didn't have a single interest in talking about God or religion.


I just don't think anyone really can understand or know the right answers. We can speculate, but we can't reason our way to this knowledge.


I don't know if I agree on that. Why do we have that responsibility?

I don't believe that God sent us to this life without the ability to know Him.

As for why we are responsible for that it is because we are here because God wanted us to be here, so there must be a purpose for us. I believe that living a peaceful life can only be done by knowing these aspects.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe that God sent us to this life without the ability to know Him.

That's assuming that God is that way, the way you believe he is. But what if he/she/it is something different?

As for why we are responsible for that it is because we are here because God wanted us to be here, so there must be a purpose for us. I believe that living a peaceful life can only be done by knowing these aspects.

That still only reflects your personal view on what and who God is. We don't know if God wants this or not. If we really had a responsibility to know him, then he should do a better job of providing clear answers for us instead of us having to guess our way.

 

[Sabour]

That's assuming that God is that way, the way you believe he is. But what if he/she/it is something different?



That still only reflects your personal view on what and who God is. We don't know if God wants this or not. If we really had a responsibility to know him, then he should do a better job of providing clear answers for us instead of us having to guess our way.

Logical reflecting about things should give us the key for us as to know where we should look.taking things simply, we only create machines for a purpose. So we must be created for a purpose.

Logically also we should be the ones looking for God and not the other way round.

Aren't these two, at least, possible ?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that is the most direct answer to my OP.

Can you further explain the statement I highlighted, especially what you meant by "become relevant"

Sure. What I said was "But religious beliefs can stray quite apart from objectivity, particularly when matters of beliefs about deities become relevant."

That touches on quite a lot, but for now let's focus on how relevant beliefs about deities are or should be in religion.

My position is that ultimately religion is better off avoiding the concept of deity entirely, except perhaps in consideration to the very real fact that many people have an affinity for it and will believe in God no matter what.

There is little point and considerable harm in attempting to fight that outright, so we have to learn to accept and respect Theism as a necessary part of many people's beliefs.

However, that respect must be balanced with the realization that whatever else God can be, he is by definition not much of an answer. Answers are supposed to be clarifications, and most conceptions of God are at least in part an appeal to trascendental mystery. Far closer to a demand or invitation not to seek answers and explanations than an attempt at providing them.

Circunstantial evidence seems to support that view as well. So many people believe in some variety of a creator God, yet have so little to show for that belief. They often hold sharply divergent beliefs beyond that point, which to me at least sounds more than a bit counter-intuitive. Is it too much to expect God to be reasonably clear on His message? Why would he even allow so many sincere believers to hold such fierce disagreements about His Will so often as he apparently does?

Some people maintain that is very important to know which or even how many Gods "truly" exist. But to me the very fact that there is a real controversy is itself evidence that there is no clear answer. After all, who would choose to ever believe in an untrue God? Yet it is not really possible to reconcile the many conceptions that exist. Either God beliefs are a very personal matter or literally billions of people are somehow very mistaken on the matter despite their own best efforts.

And how many Gods exist is just one, arguably one of the least significant, of the many matters about God that divide believers. And it really matters very little. Nearly anything else is more important. God beliefs have very little significance except to where related to the emotional and existential needs of the (specific) believers themselves. Even wise humans know better than to value fame and recognition over actual purity of motivation, wisdom, loving care for other people. I can only assume that a real God will know much better indeed than to care whether I call him Allah, Kami, Shiva or Krishna, or even whether I believe in him at all.

Ultimately, answers and moral values - and nearly all of religious matters that have any importance beyond a strictly personal sphere - simply don't benefit from referencing god beliefs in any way. One person's God may seem to reward killing other believers, other person's will make it so very clear that slaughter is an offense to the human nature and loving potential of those others. One may reject homosexuals, another may accept physical punishment of children, and there are even claims of support for specific political candidates.

It is just so easy to see that we all have bigger fish to fry. Fighting illiteracy, ensuring minlmal basic living structure for as many people as possible, acknowledging and dealing responsibly with each other's shortcomings and legitimate personal needs, even just attempting to resolve the sad reality that many people suffer terribly from hunger every day. You name it. There is quite a lot for people to care about without having to decide or attempt whether to hold any supernatural beliefs.

And in my sincere opinion, God beliefs are simply not helpful there.

 

[viole]

Viole you didn't convince me

Let me rephrase my OP, do you think your perception of things changes the reality ?

Nope.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

What about the questions about like Does God exist?

For me God both exists as does not exist. I can perceive God only when I perceive myself separate from God. Where there is no separation there is no God to be perceived.

We perceive what we perceive and what we perceive is not "fact". God exists as we perceive God to exist. Perception is our reality but that does not make it fact. The perception of each individual is unique, especially when it comes to God.