ppp
Well-Known Member
You did not do what I asked.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Truth is not constant.
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
To say something is so, requires a human rule of what conditions apply to say that it is so and an evaluation of it to see if the conditions apply. The problem is that everything is not the same case of that it is so. So in practice you need different evaluations, because all conditions are not the same in the strong sense.
We are playing everything as "everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the same, similar and/or different" for which is always the same, that it is so. That is not possible.
Probable
More like crucified for denying the emperors status, a treasonable offence
And for teaching against roman religions, a treasonable offence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so you believe.....He walked on water
is truth
ppp
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
If you mean that among the set of all existing propositions, that some are true, and some are not true, then I agree. If you mean something else, then you will have to explain what you mean before I can evaluate it.
This is an unclear statement - so I am partially guessing at what you mean to say.
Evaluating the temperature of a rock entails different activities than testing to see if my neighbor is actually a Canadian spy. But that is merely a difference in technique based on situation. In both cases one would still be making the same type of evaluation - an evaluation of causal chains.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
specifically......King of the Jews
He did not make the claim.....the Pharisees did it to Him
in prophecy.....the Son of God.....IS
King of the Jews
Specifically, he taught one god,. His god, to deny the emperor's godhood was treason.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
to be King of the Jews was insurrection
It all adds up to no remission
Thief
Rogue Theologian
TRUTH
btw.....that inscription tacked over His head on the cross
looks like INRI
but it's really....JNRJ
Jesus....nexus rex...Judea
but you might want to check my translation
chinu
chinu
All that YOU wrote above is according to the level of wisdom that YOU have achieved till now.
"Truth" is unchangeable / stable since eternity.
Therefore, its NOT the truth that gets change, its the level of one's wisdom that keep on changing from time to time.
Roguish
Member
You're right.
It was to be expected, of course,
that those who (think they) disagree
will adduce mathematics as an example.
What they do not gather
is that the truths that you speak of,
are perceptions (i.e. interpretations)
of the manifest world
by living, intelligent creatures;
while mathematical truths
are only internally consistent relations between simulacra.
They don't connect with the manifest world.
Mathematics is therefore not wisdom,
nor is any quantitative science.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Not humans necessarily, I would think that any sort of awareness of any type or level would necessarily have to have produced for its some representation of what is "objective reality," and in order to be an observer (i.e. aware) at all simply requires something objective to bear witness to, regardless how misconstrued the ultimate perception is due to any imperfection in the sensing aparatus.
Here's the real takeaway here, I think. In the same vein of logic you are using, nothing even can matter without some objective level existing upon which everything else is based. An awareness wouldn't have anything reliable to be based upon and nothing reliable to process if there weren't some objective substrate in existence as a basis to whatever realm it was that the awareness inhabited. As an example to illustrate - let's say there was some kind of realm made up of nothing but subjectivity. Would ANYTHING in that realm be trustworthy to any sort of degree? Could it be deemed such? Would any two aware beings in this realm ever be able to experience anything that could be relatable to one another or shared as experience? Could such a realm or such beings even exist? Why would I believe that they could when such a thing has only just been formulated as an idea (as far as I know) from my own imagination? Isn't that really as much as I actually know about the subject? That I imagined it all, just now, and have zero clue as to whether or not it is possible? Even if our "reality" isn't the "real one" (thinking on the lines of "The Matrix" here) then in our meager experience, it should follow that SOMETHING must be the objective, "real reality." Again - we have ZERO evidence of any other way that the qualifications for existence can be met. Anything beyond stating that there is some fundamental support structure that exists regardless our actions is mere conjecture. From all indications, "stuff" is out there all the time, and each of us can encounter it and interpret it. Whether or not our interpretations end up the same is irrelevant to its existence.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I get it... and yes, we compartmentalize the universe (or our senses do for us) in order to be able to process and function at all. But the fact remains that there is "something" here/there/everywhere, and we don't have to be there for it to be present and doing its thing. And this even if we're currently part of "The Matrix" - because that only means we're one (or more) levels abstracted from whatever the most base substrate of true "existence" actually is.
With regard to the "math" - let's say you get to the most fundamental portion of the universe, that it all boils down to a "Quintarskit" - which I have just made up to be a singular "particle" (not really) of what makes up a wave of energetic vibration. Whatever it is, it is the most fundamental, and bottom level item, beyond which no further division can be done. There are a grouping of 2 of these quintarskits, and 2 more joint the group... and now there are 4. There is no one to observe it... and 2 isn't called "two," and 4 isn't called "four," but there they are, and if there were somehow an observer presented this exact situation, something of this idea could be formulated. What I am talking about is the situation itself... not the observer... and not the ability to observe. Now... it can be argued further that there is no fundamental level like this... but that is also irrelevant. The "stuff" is out there. That very much seems to be "the truth" if anything is. Whether we can understand what it is (or how to count it) is mostly irrelevant. The reality I am presented with is a reality of some kind, and it is also the same for us all in so many ways that assuming that is "true" certainly requires no huge leap. What does require a such leaps are reports that "something else" is real that not many, or indeed, NO ONE ELSE can experience. And if not a "leap" then it is, at least, worthy of some skeptical investigation before wholesale, unabated acceptance.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Not so sure that truth is not constant,,,rather our perception of what is true can change.
Okay, @Amanaki , let's continue the dialogue.
Let's first talk about this idea of Wisdom. It seems that you think that wisdom means something like "knowing what THE TRUTH is." But that is not very meaningful, really, is it? I mean, as you yourself have said, there are lots of varieties of truth. It is true that I love my partner. It's also true that he irritates me to death sometimes. But the one thing that you haven't accepted yet is the simplest of all -- that truth is not a thing: truth is a relationship between an idea and its validity. And that is just the start of wisdom.
Let me tell you what I think wisdom is: it is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight. It is associated with attributes such as unbiased judgment, compassion, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence and non-attachment, and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.
In other words, wisdom is not "knowing some ultimate truth thingy," it's a guide for living well.
Now the other thing that you and I don't seem to agree on is the idea of a person -- and in this case, I mean the person that is you, @Amanaki . That is why I asked you questions about being under anaesthetic. I could also have asked you what "YOU" were doing 2 years before you were born, or in 1776, or in 4004 BCE. And the answer to those questions is "nothing," because there was no "YOU" at any of those times. You did not yet exist. And the fact that a general anaesthetic can shut down your brain and make "YOU" disappear completely, so as to be totally unaware of the catastrophic things that are being done to your body should tell you something really important -- that when your brain dies, there will be, once again, sadly, no more "YOU."
The person you imagine yourself to be is a tiny bit of all that you are. You mentioned subconscious, and that is very real -- the subconscious isn't some other entity, it's just the bits of the organism that you are that play a role in the continuation of your existence, but of which you are not consciously aware. Like the growing of your toenails -- can you feel that happening? Do you know about your liver producing bile and emptying into your gall bladder? No -- none of that is the "YOU" you perceive. You are the entity that Descartes was talking about when he wrote "Je pense, donc je suis," (or "I think, therefore I am"). Descartes never went far enough in his thinking, because he never dealt with what it would mean -- TO HIM -- to have died, and to therefore no longer be able to think.
But if it were possible to formulate it, it would have to be something like "I'm not thinking, therefore, I am not." "Je ne pense pas, donc je ne suis pas."
Last edited:
The truth that is reality changes constantly.
Truths that we construct, like math for example are abstract constructs of reality. Since they are not actually tied to reality can remain true in the abstract sense.
Yes, those Iberian navigators were tough guys all right, and their impact on European psychology was significant. Working backwards to the hypothesis that 14th century Basque sailors fishing for cod on the Grand Banks had reached America as Lief had done in the 11th, we get back to Eratosthenes (3rd cent. BCE), who had he been better known might have made the spherical earth a standard European perception.
Two problems with that ─ there are five versions of Jesus in the NT, Paul's and the four gospel writers'; and only Matthew's says not a dot, not a coffee stain, of the Jewish Law would change till all was accomplished. The gnostic-flavored message of the Jesuses of Paul and the author of John , that you could only get to God through an intermediary (Jesus), reminds me of nothing in the Tanakh, and is far more Greek than Hebrew. (The Jesus of Mark, hence of the synoptics, has more the JtB message, Get Ready, the Kingdom is at hand! and endtimes ideas were known in Jewish thought of the day.)
Thin ice, mon brave! The scriptures have changed enormously, the very easy example being God's loss of appetite for slavery. For a tiny further sample, Abraham, Jephthah, David, Jonah and the gospel writers all thought God liked human sacrifice, which at least in my suburb is frowned on these days; I never ask women whether they're menstruating or not before I speak to them; and I cut my hair and shave my beard at will; and as far as I can see witches are suffered to live right up to the highest courts in the land. And so on.
You are making a serious assumption about how Quintarskits interact. It may well be the case that when two are in a group and two more are added, the resulting reaction leaves 5 of them. Or, it may be that each Quintarskit can, under the correct circumstances, produce two of them.
And, of course, you are also making the assumption that there is a fundamental level on which conservation of objects applies. Given that even today's quantum field theories don't have such a conservation law, it is quite possible a fundamental law would not include such.
So, it may well be that it is impossible to have 4 Quintarskits in a group: that the allowed vibratory modes simply don't allow such: either there are three or there are five. In such a case, it may well be that dding two and two gives three 50% of the time and five 50% of the time.