The Absolute Truth

[ecco]

The following quote with my emphasis...

In this case no, as I said before Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l baha, and Shoghi Effendi are related as grandfather, father and son. They are intimate in their life, literate, and kept diaries.

kept diaries - Have you ever posted notes from their diaries? How do you know they were written contemporaneously?

What court of law accepts hearsay evidence? What court of law accepts word-for-word third-hand accounts of detailed conversations?

Backup and reread my posts, and you will find this does not reflect what I wrote. Please respond to may posts as written.

OK. I did back up. I did re-read your posts. You referenced diaries. You also failed to address the lack of evidence that the "diaries" were written contemporaneously.

Written records are not hearsay third hand accounts.

Some written records are indeed hearsay...

• Mary tells Bill she overheard Ed recount the murder of the dog. Bill writes it down.
• Bill's "written records" are hearsay since Bill was not a firsthand witness to the killing of the dog nor of Ed's recounting of the incident.

The "written records" of Ballulahs conversations are hearsay because there is no evidence (actually, there are no indications) that anyone recorded them or if they had been recorded, how the recordings found their way to Shogi Effendi. You don't even make this claim. You just refer to vague things like diaries passed down from father to son. Utter Rubbish.

Lion: We don't have to look behind the curtain, Dorothy. We know he is an real wizard because he told us he was a real wizard.

 

[ecco]

The "best" primary source is not necessarily a good source. You also gloss over the problem of how the very private conversations were recorded with word for word accurately.

No problem at all. Baha'u'llah simply relayed the details of the conversation to Abdu'l baha, and Abdu'l baha relayed the conversation to Shoghi Effendi, and likely written down by all concerned. .

So you believe and expect rational people to believe, that Balullah had a 30-minute meeting a high-level Government official. Following the meeting, he met with Abdu'l baha, and relayed, accurately and in precise word for word detail the "minutes of the meeting". Years later, Abdu'l baha accurately and in precise word for word detail relayed the conversation to Shoghi Effendi, who likely wrote it all down.

You have just described an example of a written record being hearsay. You have also just shown how nonsensical your scenario really is. Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you believe and expect rational people to believe, that Balullah had a 30-minute meeting a high-level Government official. Following the meeting, he met with Abdu'l baha, and relayed, accurately and in precise word for word detail the "minutes of the meeting". Years later, Abdu'l baha accurately and in precise word for word detail relayed the conversation to Shoghi Effendi, who likely wrote it all down.

The meeting was very important, and very well could have been recorded in writing by Baha'u'llah and relayed to Abdu'l baha, and no. the above requires extreme biased assumptions on your part to try an force your awkward argument. I do not expect you nor anyone else necessarily to 'believe' whatever. Nonetheless it is a plausible scenario.

You have just described an example of a written record being hearsay. You have also just shown how nonsensical your scenario really is. Thank you.

No a written record by Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l baha would not be hearsay. It is a plausible scenario.

 

[shunyadragon]

The following quote with my emphasis...





OK. I did back up. I did re-read your posts. You referenced diaries. You also failed to address the lack of evidence that the "diaries" were written contemporaneously.







Some written records are indeed hearsay...

• Mary tells Bill she overheard Ed recount the murder of the dog. Bill writes it down.
• Bill's "written records" are hearsay since Bill was not a firsthand witness to the killing of the dog nor of Ed's recounting of the incident.

The "written records" of Ballulahs conversations are hearsay because there is no evidence (actually, there are no indications) that anyone recorded them or if they had been recorded, how the recordings found their way to Shogi Effendi. You don't even make this claim. You just refer to vague things like diaries passed down from father to son. Utter Rubbish.

Lion: We don't have to look behind the curtain, Dorothy. We know he is an real wizard because he told us he was a real wizard.

Actually no, Baha'u'llah would a first person party to the conversation that he would relay to Abdu'l Baha likely in writing, because it was an important meeting, and it would not be hearsay of what someone over heard and relayed to another.

 

[shunyadragon]

A basis for your religious beliefs is the Truth of Ballulah and what follows. And yet, when pinned down, you say you "do not know exactly". More accurately, except for beliefs like "the information was passed on", you really don't even have a reasonable explanation.

Bottom line, you believe despite the lack of any evidence because you want to believe.

Bottom line your aggressive biased open opposition to all theism, and name calling 'clowns' and 'rabid theist' priori rejects and disbelieves all possible explanations to justify your agenda against theism.

 

[sojourner]

Interesting. In my experience is is a very, very poor indication of truth. In fact, it is barely better than a wild guess.

So, for example, I am a mathematician. I find that most people have an intuition that is very unlikely to agree with actual, mathematical truth. And this is even true of those who are professional mathematicians (although they are better in intuition that a lay person).

In a similar way, I have studied a fair amount of physics. I have found that intuition is usually only poorly correlated with truth in that subject. So, for example, the behavior of rotating bodies (which is entirely classical) tends to be counter to the intuition of most people.

What I have learned is that intuition is good for telling us what sorts of things to look for, but its ability to judge truth is very, very poor across a wide variety of subjects. Far, far better is a skepticism requiring testability and actual observations to back up a claim. And even that isn't perfect.

I suppose it depends on the application. Can mathematics, for example tell someone how someone else is feeling, or why they are carrying the emotional baggage they’re carrying? I know intuitive who can do that with a great amount of accuracy.

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose it depends on the application. Can mathematics, for example tell someone how someone else is feeling, or why they are carrying the emotional baggage they’re carrying? I know intuitive who can do that with a great amount of accuracy.

Yes, intuition is very good at that. In fact, it seems to be evolved to be good at exactly that sort of social determination.

But social situations are a very, very small part of reality and truth. One we get away from the human species, or even more so off our planet, our intuitions are very poor guides to truth.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

The absolute truth is in the religions. Everyone has access to the religions. So the absolute truth is wide open. But still people refuse to listen.

But then the absolute truth must be a myriad of contradictory conceptions and doctrines, because the religions war among themselves over doctrine and truth even unto death. That is precisely why we refuse to listen. Religions if they had the absolute truth could not possibly disagree and fight against each other for the truth could they? This to me appears that they absolutely do not have the truth, absolutely or relatively.....

 

[sojourner]

Yes, intuition is very good at that. In fact, it seems to be evolved to be good at exactly that sort of social determination.

But social situations are a very, very small part of reality and truth. One we get away from the human species, or even more so off our planet, our intuitions are very poor guides to truth.

I think intuition can also be effective with the natural world. For example, I know people who are extremely intuitive with animals and even plants.

 

[sojourner]

But then the absolute truth must be a myriad of contradictory conceptions and doctrines, because the religions war among themselves over doctrine and truth even unto death. That is precisely why we refuse to listen. Religions if they had the absolute truth could not possibly disagree and fight against each other for the truth could they? This to me appears that they absolutely do not have the truth, absolutely or relatively.....

Truth is larger than anyone’s ability to grasp all of it. Each has a unique perspective of a bit of truth. We shouldn’t fight about who is right. Instead we should collaborate in order to gain a larger picture of the whole. I think religions have a great grasp of truth — some more so than others.

 

[night912]

If you were 100% certain that you knew the absolute truth, about God, the creation of the universe, what happens after death, etc...

Would you feel that any action necessary to get this truth out to the rest of the world would be justified?

No, I wouldn't. Reason being, I believe reality is more important than truth. Some actions and their consequences are not worth telling the truth.

 

[Nakosis]

No, I wouldn't. Reason being, I believe reality is more important than truth. Some actions and their consequences are not worth telling the truth.

What do you see the difference between truth and reality as?

 

[ecco]

You genuinely take an aggressive hostile stance toward ALL theists, as in name calling them 'rabid theists.' Something like the shotgun approach load with salt to dialogue.

Please show where I used the phrase "rabid theists". Alternatively, ethically, you can retract your assertion.

Bottom line your aggressive biased open opposition to all theism, and name calling 'clowns' and 'rabid theist' priori rejects and disbelieves all possible explanations to justify your agenda against theism.

I see that you were unable to show where I used the phrase "rabid theists". I also see you failed to retract your slanderous assertion.

Instead of manning up and doing the ethically correct thing, you double down and also accuse me of "name-calling" by using the term "clowns" to refer to religious leaders.

You can see from the following quoted post that it was not me that used that term. It was a Christian who believes that it's OK to refer to some Christian leaders as "clowns"...

Your enlistment of the rantings of a religious clown don’t change that.

It is obvious that you can't keep track of who says what.
It is obvious that you can't keep track of what I said.
It is obvious that you are too lazy to look back and check before making unwarranted assertions.
It is obvious that you aren't ethical enough to admit you grievous errors.

 

[shunyadragon]

​

​

I see that you were unable to show where I used the phrase "rabid theists". I also see you failed to retract your slanderous assertion.

Instead of manning up and doing the ethically correct thing, you double down and also accuse me of "name-calling" by using the term "clowns" to refer to religious leaders.

You can see from the following quoted post that it was not me that used that term. It was a Christian who believes that it's OK to refer to some Christian leaders as "clowns"...

​

It is obvious that you can't keep track of who says what.
It is obvious that you can't keep track of what I said.
It is obvious that you are too lazy to look back and check before making unwarranted assertions.
It is obvious that you aren't ethical enough to admit you grievous errors.

I have kept track, and you are splitting self defined frog hairs to justify your anti-theist agenda. I believe I have abundantly documented this.

 

[night912]

other

What do you see the difference between truth and reality as?

Telling someone the truth they get angry and go on a killing spree(reality).

If I tell someone the truth and they don't believe me, I won't force them to believe me nor would I punish them if they don't.(reality).

 

[Nakosis]

Telling someone the truth they get angry and go on a killing spree(reality).

If I tell someone the truth and they don't believe me, I won't force them to believe me nor would I punish them if they don't.(reality).

Seems like you are saying that truth is a causal force of reality. Truth or a belief in truth causes reality.

 

[ecco]

I have kept track, and you are splitting self defined frog hairs to justify your anti-theist agenda. I believe I have abundantly documented this.

No. You haven't.

I see that you were unable to show where I used the phrase "rabid theists". I also see you failed to retract your slanderous assertion.

Instead of manning up and doing the ethically correct thing, you double down and also accuse me of "name-calling" by using the term "clowns" to refer to religious leaders.

You can see from the following quoted post that it was not me that used that term. It was a Christian who believes that it's OK to refer to some Christian leaders as "clowns"...

It is obvious that you can't keep track of who says what.
It is obvious that you can't keep track of what I said.
It is obvious that you are too lazy to look back and check before making unwarranted assertions.
It is obvious that you aren't ethical enough to admit you grievous errors.

You didn't even see where it was someone else who used the term clowns. Do you really think your continued evasions do anything to enhance your credibility or your reputation?

 

[night912]

Seems like you are saying that truth is a causal force of reality. Truth or a belief in truth causes reality.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply talking about people and what happens in reality. Telling the truth to someone doesn't always go the way you think it would go. So all I'm saying is that it's not justified to do whatever necessary in order for people to know the truth. I don't believe it's justified to force the truth onto someone if they refuse to believe it.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One's understanding is incorrect, G-d has revealed his attributes in Quran and these are also reflected in the Universe.

As is the claim of every religion, church, sect, and belief system concerning their scripture, but it is abundantly obvious that they all are conflicting and contradictory in their literal and interpretation of the ancient scripture.

Please prove that from Quran to support one's point of view.
Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One's understanding is incorrect, G-d has revealed his attributes in Quran and these are also reflected in the Universe.


Please prove that from Quran to support one's point of view.
Regards

The Quran does not prove anything. Actually neither does science. Proof outside logic and math is a fool's quest, and logic and math do not prove 'Truth.'. The many diverse conflicting, and contradictory interpretations of the Torah, Tanakh, Bible and the Quran fail to provide any consistent accurate description of the nature of our universe. Science does this consistently by the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.