There Is No God Higher Than Truth?

[Sunstone]

What, if anything, does the proposition "There is no God higher than truth" mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with the proposition? Why?

Can God do something that contradicts reason, such as create both an immovable object and an unstoppable force that meet? Or, create an object that is at once blue and colorless? Or, create a garden gnome gnapper that is not a loathsome criminal?

If God claimed to have created the universe in six days, would that make it true that the universe was created in six days even if all the available evidence contradicted that the universe had originated in just six days? That is, would God create a universe in which there was a profound contradiction between evidence and truth?

If God created a universe in which there is a profound disconnect between evidence and truth, does that imply:

1) That God is insane or irrational?

2) Or, that human insanity is rational?

3) Or, that we should not try criminal rabble rousers in a court of law because no evidence of their rabble rousing could be conclusive since God created a profound disconnect between evidence and truth?

 

[Willamena]

What, if anything, does the proposition "There is no God higher than truth" mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with the proposition? Why?

It means that someone has idolized truth. All it does is elevate truth to some "highest value" category. God is unknown/unknowable, though he "speaks" truth through divination.

Can God do something that contradicts reason, such as create both an immovable object and an unstoppable force that meet? Or, create an object that is at once blue and colorless? Or, create a garden gnome gnapper that is not a loathsome criminal?

No. God cannot do something that contradicts reason without also failing to make sense.
(If people want a god who is a failure, that's their business.)

If God claimed to have created the universe in six days, would that make it true that the universe was created in six days even if all the available evidence contradicted that the universe had originated in just six days? That is, would God create a universe in which there was a profound contradiction between evidence and truth?

When god "speaks," through divination, it cannot contradict evidence, because the nature of the message is true. To answer your question, though, if there is a profound contradiction between evidence and truth, then chances are there was no "speaking" on god's part (no divination involved).

If God created a universe in which there is a profound disconnect between evidence and truth, does that imply:
1) That God is insane or irrational?
2) Or, that human insanity is rational?
3) Or, that we should not try criminal rabble rousers in a court of law because no evidence of their rabble rousing could be conclusive since God created a profound disconnect between evidence and truth?

2.

 

[YmirGF]

So-called "truth" is relative and god is technically an "invisible friend" or fanciful idea construct.

*Hands Phil another Prozac*

 

[Sunstone]

So-called "truth" is relative and god is technically an "invisible friend" or fanciful idea construct.

Very well, but how is that related to the OP?

 

[YmirGF]

Very well, but how is that related to the OP?

*sighs loudly*

I know it is a lot to ask here on RF, but one could just think about it... for a few years.

What, if anything, does the proposition "There is no God higher than truth" mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with the proposition? Why?

I think that it is one of those phrases that sounds wise but doesn’t really mean anything as so-called truth is relative to the beholder. Uncle Phil’s truth is not the gnarled YmirGF’s sense of truth, etc… I fail to grasp how “god” enters into the equation unless it is just a literary device to set some imagined limit.

Can God do something that contradicts reason, such as create both an immovable object and an unstoppable force that meet? Or, create an object that is at once blue and colorless? Or, create a garden gnome gnapper that is not a loathsome criminal?

In practice, “god” does not go against the rules of science. I would not be so foolish as to claim what “god” can or cannot do. I’ll leave that to those who insist they know the mind of their “invisible friend”. I might ask, does the garden gnome gnapper view themselves as being loathsome? Is it perhaps not simple value judgment of the part of the “gnapee”.

If God claimed to have created the universe in six days, would that make it true that the universe was created in six days even if all the available evidence contradicted that the universe had originated in just six days? That is, would God create a universe in which there was a profound contradiction between evidence and truth?

I do not subscribe to this nonsense so I am unable to give a reply to this question. We have it by the slimmest accounts that these were in fact the alleged words of “god”. It does however sound more like the musings of an addled ancestor who did not have a very good grasp of reality. It does make for an entertaining story however.

If God created a universe in which there is a profound disconnect between evidence and truth, does that imply:

1) That God is insane or irrational?

2) Or, that human insanity is rational?

3) Or, that we should not try criminal rabble rousers in a court of law because no evidence of their rabble rousing could be conclusive since God created a profound disconnect between evidence and truth?

The question presupposes that such a god has been accurately portrayed. I would suggest that that vision of “god” has very little to do with reality.

Sadly, the vast majority of human animals do not treat their acceptance of “evidence” as seriously as does a court of law or your average scientist. No doubt that is why they are so accepting of the relatively lame, stunted visions of “god” that they settled have for.

 

[Sunstone]

*sighs loudly*

I know it is a lot to ask here on RF, but one could just think about it... for a few years.

charming

I think that it is one of those phrases that sounds wise but doesn’t really mean anything as so-called truth is relative to the beholder. Uncle Phil’s truth is not the gnarled YmirGF’s sense of truth, etc…

These statements are so vauge and ambiguous as to be practically meaningless. For instance: Would you go so far with your relativism as to assert that 2+2=4 could be a truth for Paul but not a truth for Sally? Again, is the foundation of your relativism anything more substantial than a recognition that people vary in what they think is true? That is, are you equating a variance in what people think is true with a variance in what is indeed true? Lastly, what role does the fact of intersubjective verifiability play in your relativism? These are some of the dozen or so questions I have about your vauge and ambiguous statements.

I fail to grasp how “god” enters into the equation unless it is just a literary device to set some imagined limit.

Some people assert God can do anything, even if what God does is contrary to truth.

In practice, “god” does not go against the rules of science. I would not be so foolish as to claim what “god” can or cannot do. I’ll leave that to those who insist they know the mind of their “invisible friend”.

So, for you, Paul, whether god can or cannot create a substance that is at once blue and colorless first depends on whether one insists they know the mind of their invisible friend?

I might ask, does the garden gnome gnapper view themselves as being loathsome? Is it perhaps not simple value judgment of the part of the “gnapee”.

A close reading of the question might reveal that your response is irrelevant to what was asked.

I do not subscribe to this nonsense so I am unable to give a reply to this question.

It should not be impossible for you to answer the question as a hypothetical, should it?

We have it by the slimmest accounts that these were in fact the alleged words of “god”. It does however sound more like the musings of an addled ancestor who did not have a very good grasp of reality. It does make for an entertaining story however.

Again, a close reading of the question might reveal that your response is irrelevant.

The question presupposes that such a god has been accurately portrayed. I would suggest that that vision of “god” has very little to do with reality.

For the third time: You seem to be distracted by the peculiars of the question from answering the question in any relevant manner.

Sadly, the vast majority of human animals do not treat their acceptance of “evidence” as seriously as does a court of law or your average scientist. No doubt that is why they are so accepting of the relatively lame, stunted visions of “god” that they settled have for.

This again is irrelevant to the question. I'm rather surprised, Paul, that you seem not to have understood the OP.

 

[Sunstone]

It means that someone has idolized truth. All it does is elevate truth to some "highest value" category. God is unknown/unknowable, though he "speaks" truth through divination.

You do not see the statement, "There is no god higher than truth", as implying your answers to the other questions in the OP?

No. God cannot do something that contradicts reason without also failing to make sense.
(If people want a god who is a failure, that's their business.)


When god "speaks," through divination, it cannot contradict evidence, because the nature of the message is true. To answer your question, though, if there is a profound contradiction between evidence and truth, then chances are there was no "speaking" on god's part (no divination involved).

 

[michel]

What, if anything, does the proposition "There is no God higher than truth" mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with the proposition? Why?

Can God do something that contradicts reason, such as create both an immovable object and an unstoppable force that meet? Or, create an object that is at once blue and colorless? Or, create a garden gnome gnapper that is not a loathsome criminal?

If God claimed to have created the universe in six days, would that make it true that the universe was created in six days even if all the available evidence contradicted that the universe had originated in just six days? That is, would God create a universe in which there was a profound contradiction between evidence and truth?

If God created a universe in which there is a profound disconnect between evidence and truth, does that imply:

1) That God is insane or irrational?

2) Or, that human insanity is rational?

3) Or, that we should not try criminal rabble rousers in a court of law because no evidence of their rabble rousing could be conclusive since God created a profound disconnect between evidence and truth?

I disagree with your initial statement; truth is subjective - If I see yellow as being the colour you see and call red, then I am still being true, and so are you, but we are obviously seeing different things.

I don't believe God to be in the least bit irrational; if Nature around us is irrational, then I hope I can achieve irrationality! I don't think it fair to call human "insanity" rational - perhaps "Individual perception" would be etter.

 

[Willamena]

You do not see the statement, "There is no god higher than truth", as implying your answers to the other questions in the OP?

No.

How do you see it "implying"?

 

[Willamena]

I disagree with your initial statement; truth is subjective - If I see yellow as being the colour you see and call red, then I am still being true, and so are you, but we are obviously seeing different things.

Do you believe that the truth you see cannot be seen by others? Take, for example, the truth that an airplane flew into the Twin Towers.

I submit that "truth" is not the thing that is relative in your example. What is relative there is the sense of perception. Whether or not what you see as yellow is seen as red by someone else, it is still true that you see yellow.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

truth is God, God is truth

 

[Sunstone]

truth is God, God is truth

Are you suggesting that scientific truth is God? Or, are you defining truth in a way that is different from how it might be defined in science?

 

[Willamena]

Are you suggesting that scientific truth is God? Or, are you defining truth in a way that is different from how it might be defined in science?

Is it defined differently for science than for other traditions?

 

[Sunstone]

Is it defined differently for science than for other traditions?

Some uses of the word "truth" in religion have little or no resemblance to the use of the word in science.

 

[Hema]

In my beliefs, the Absolute Truth or Brahman is equivalent to God.

 

[Anti-World]

If God claimed to have created the universe in six days, would that make it true that the universe was created in six days even if all the available evidence contradicted that the universe had originated in just six days?

Time is relative.

If I understand your overall question you asking how important truth is but I am wondering to what? Truth should be preserved but not at the expense of life or happiness (In some situations). So, without knowing the situation from which this question is asked, I would say humanities well-being is more important then truth.

Human insanity is possibly more rational than many of the socially acceptable practices in todays world.

 

[Sunstone]

If I understand your overall question you asking how important truth is but I am wondering to what? Truth should be preserved but not at the expense of life or happiness (In some situations). So, without knowing the situation from which this question is asked, I would say humanities well-being is more important then truth.

Could you give an example of a falsehood that preserves human happiness at the expense of truth?

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

Are you suggesting that scientific truth is God? Or, are you defining truth in a way that is different from how it might be defined in science?

all truth is true wearther it be of God or of man, but if it be truthful it is of God always

 

[Isabella Lecour]

There is no God higher than Truth.
Truth is subjective.
God is therefore Subjective.
God must equal Truth
Truth must equal God.
Reality therefore is God.
God therefore is the Universe.
Universe equals Truth.
....
.....
Yep, it could take a whole year to keep this circle going.




Jumping off now.....
Dead Thread Resurrection Project.