What is the truth?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

And what if the velocity of light is not the fastest measure? What if something moves faster then light?

Oh yes, absolutely.
I am in the process of disproving Gravitational waves too.
I am almost certain that Gravity is instantaneous.
Still got to actually write the article though.

*watch this space*

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

In 21 century, the age of information, you can find the proof to any theory on the Internet. You can find any type of information there. The question is how do you navigate through the amount of bull*** and find the truth?

How do you know what to believe in this dump?

Another method which can sometimes work is to detect emotional dissonance in the source.
If the person is cynical and overbearing then they almost always are full of contradictions.

Also, if an article tries to use too many quotes and references, instead of well-reasoned argument
this is certainly a parrot just repeating unthinkingly.

Too much use of math which has not been boiled down to a simple straight-line equation
is also a sign of incomplete analysis.

Another way to detect ideas that have not been thought through is when the same idea is used
by numerous sources without any of them actually giving a reason why such an idea is forthcoming.

Also beware the inhuman claim to absolute certainty that does not tolerate disagreement.
A good theorist always welcomes disagreement, however faulty, as a means to improve
the teaching of the said ideas.

People that use the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a way of trying to degrade another's argument
are normally people that are either prone to be conspirators, or are easily dupe into following the herd.

Nice thread, btw.

 

[viole]

Does Dr. L.E.J. Brower think that his/her disagreement is true?
If so,
then the Dr does agree even when he/she tries not to agree.

He does not believe , together with others, that the law of the third excluded is necessarily true. So, (X or ~X) is not necessarily true. In your case, "either there is truth" or "there is no truth" is not necessariliy true. By the way, if it were, you would not need any further complication: you would have your true statement right there.

Unless you are able to construct something that is either truth or not truth., at least in principle. The problem, of course, is that you need to first define what we mean with "truth", and that sets you right back to square one.

That does not mean I agree with him (I do not), but things are more subtle than they seem, and I honestly would not know how to prove him wrong without begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

"either there is truth" or "there is no truth" is not necessariliy true.

But this is still a claim of truth that he makes, so when it is claimed...

The problem, of course, is that you need to first define what we mean with "truth", and that sets you right back to square one.

...he has already assumed a type of truth exists, which is why there is no need for a definition as regards this topic.
If there was not a working definition in his mind, he would not be able to construct the sentence which agrees with the basic
original principle that truth exists. Even if he refuses to see the logic in it for reasons of ego.

You see, any claim 'truth does not exist' is itself self-defeating because it itself is a claim to be true.

 

[DawudTalut]

Sometimes it is hard to track the story to a source. Take religions, for example.

Then we use other methods, like what that religion teaches about God and people, our own inner light, effects etc......for example.

 

[viole]

But this is still a claim of truth that he makes, so when it is claimed...

...he has already assumed a type of truth exists, which is why there is no need for a definition as regards this topic.
If there was not a working definition in his mind, he would not be able to construct the sentence which agrees with the basic
original principle that truth exists. Even if he refuses to see the logic in it for reasons of ego.

You see, any claim 'truth does not exist' is itself self-defeating because it itself is a claim to be true.

Could be a claim of truth, but does not answer the question "what is true". At least in terms everybody accepts.

Because that is what the OP asked: what is truth? Not whether truth exists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Ana.J,
Of course, the truth about what.
All important truth is recorded in the Bible, just as Jesus said in a prayer at John 17:17.

I am looking for good midget porn.
Please reveal where in the Bible I can find that.

Thank you.

 

[kaoticprofit]

In 21 century, the age of information, you can find the proof to any theory on the Internet. You can find any type of information there. The question is how do you navigate through the amount of bull*** and find the truth?

How do you know what to believe in this dump?

I call the internet age the mis-information age. It has caused countless people to be misled. To give you some ideas how to decipher BIBLICAL truth, we must acquire a hermeneutic which has been called "the science of interpretation." I look at it more as a sensible method of interpretation. Many Christians don't even know what a hermeneutic is, and some just don't care. People think they can acquire truth regardless. It's actually not a big deal at all. Here are a few 'virtues' of mine...

1. Use common sense and logic when interpreting.

I think one of the most valuable virtues of ones 'method of interpretation' is simplicity and logic. I've found in the years I've spent trying to figure things out, that the most simple and logical interpretation is usually the correct one. The bible was written in the old days in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, with some Chaldean words, and then translated into Latin. So if you believe in the inspired Word of God like I do, then it's really simple. Inspired means God breathed or God spoke. God spoke to his servants the PROPHETS IN THE LANGUAGE THEY SPOKE, WROTE, AND UNDERSTOOD.

2. Approach the scriptures objectively and without bias. Don't approach them with the mindset that you already have things figured out.
3. Use bible resources like bible dictionary's etc. especially the lexicons and the interlinear....

I was fortunate in the early seventies to have a pastor who took a personal interest in his people. There were about twelve of us who were studying for the ministry under him. We were required to purchase several books to participate. Some of them are...

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with dictionary of Greek and Hebrew words, an Interlinear NT, Bakers Dictionary of Theology, Wuest Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Christian Theology (by Bancroft), Knowing the doctrines of the Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, A topical Bible, Halley's Bible Handbook, a book on Exploring the Old Testament, and New Testament Survey, and last but not least, a book on Manners and Customs in the Bible. Most of these are now available online.

These book are invaluable to any serious student of God's Word. Some of these people have spent their life translating the Word from the original text. We're fortunate to have their work available to us as it gives us much greater insight into the original meaning of the text.

4. Weed out interpretations. Sometimes it's profitable to weed out the interpretations that appear MOST contradictory. There may be 3-4 possible interpretations and cancelling out the ones that conflict with other verses limits the possibilities. Ex. We know that a religion will have something to do with end-time prophecy. There are a few choices. Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity. Weed out the ones that just don't fit and research the rest. Sadly, Christians often tell us the man of sin will come from within the so called "apostate church!" Myself, in my research, ISLAM is the religion of the beast(s).

5. Determine if a passage is literal or figurative. It's usually determined by the context and looking at the passage logically. In other words, if the literal interpretation doesn't make sense, it's usually figurative, and if the passage doesn't make sense figuratively, it's literal.

6. Look at the dates and look at history. This is quite important and serious blunders have made some Christian interpretations debunk the bible! Ex. Daniel chapter 7 was written about 35 years after Daniel's vision of the great statue in chapter 2. Daniel 7 was written in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon. Interpreters tell us that the 'LION' is ancient Babylon.

How can the lion be Babylon when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence for 50 years!

Placing Jesus Christ as the rider of the white horse of Rev. 6:2, and claiming that ancient Babylon is the lion kingdom of Daniel 7, are blunders that could have been avoided by simply looking at dates or realizing that a prophet CANNOT prophesy about a person coming, or a kingdom rising, that already has!

7. Accept the results of your research even when it goes against what you already believe. I've found that Christians just don't care about scriptural evidence, or the lack of it. They fight to support their beliefs even when there's a mountain of scriptural evidence AGAINST what they believe.

About commentaries...

It's OK to look at them but realize that you are observing one persons view which may, or may not, be correct. Most commentators come from their own angle. if one is Trinitarian, that's what you get. If one is pre-trib, that's what you get. If one is SDA, Mormon, or JW...that's what you get. DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!

About Christians....

Christians tend NOT to change their mind and typically adhere to what they already believe. Be willing to change your mind, especially when the evidence is there to do so.

"The greatest impediment Christians have obtaining the Truth is when they think they already have it."

 

[kaoticprofit]

Part of what I love about the internet is that I can read any number of implausible things and make a fast judgment based on how well supported the claim is.
If there are no links I can generally dismiss it easily. If it's important enough to care about I can find out tons of information quite easily.
Tom

How do you know the information you're acquiring is correct? If I believe in something, and give you links that are in agreement, does that prove anything? Some people believe the earth is flat. I can post several links that say the same thing. Does that prove the earth is flat?

 

[Shia Islam]

In 21 century, the age of information, you can find the proof to any theory on the Internet. You can find any type of information there. The question is how do you navigate through the amount of bull*** and find the truth?

How do you know what to believe in this dump?

With a good "research methodology", you can overcome the "information overwhelming" problem:
1. Narrow your research question.
2. identify the (search terms).
3. identify and collect your resources.
4. skim through your researches and discard the unsuitable ones.
5.identify some key resources.
6. start reading, analyzing and concluding.
7. if required GOTO step 2 (above)

good luck

 

[Ana.J]

With a good "research methodology", you can overcome the "information overwhelming" problem:
1. Narrow your research question.
2. identify the (search terms).
3. identify and collect your resources.
4. skim through your researches and discard the unsuitable ones.
5.identify some key resources.
6. start reading, analyzing and concluding.
7. if required GOTO step 2 (above)

good luck

How to disregard the unsuitable resources?

 

[Shia Islam]

How to disregard the unsuitable resources?

I did not mean that one should be biased and remove whatever he\she does not like..I only meant to remove the resources which are not very related to the question. Or those which are clear to be written by the biased and unqualified writers..

Also, you have limited time, and unlimited resources..so you need to make good judgement and find out which resources you need to read and which ones will only waste your time..

 

[Ana.J]

Also, you have limited time, and unlimited resources..so you need to make good judgement and find out which resources you need to read and which ones will only waste your time..

Yes, that is the reason I asked your opinion on how can I do this efficiently.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Could be a claim of truth, but does not answer the question "what is true". At least in terms everybody accepts.

Because that is what the OP asked: what is truth? Not whether truth exists.

Ciao

- viole

ok fair enough.

The best way to answer is with an example.
The best example I can think of is Newton's law of gravity which predicted
the existence of the outer planets.
So an idea is true if it can predict future events.
Truth is therefore 'Divination'

 

[viole]

ok fair enough.

The best way to answer is with an example.
The best example I can think of is Newton's law of gravity which predicted
the existence of the outer planets.
So an idea is true if it can predict future events.
Truth is therefore 'Divination'

Shame that Newton's theory is fundamentally wrong. For instance, it cannot predict the procession of Mercury. And its view of space and time are completely wrong.

That does not entail he was an idiot. He probably was the smartest person who ever lived. At least when he was doing physics and math.

It just entails that divination is not a sufficient condition for classifying something as true. You just need a black swan, or the precession of a planet close to the sun, and everything falls apart. The best it can aspire to, in terms of absolute certainty, is to be approximately true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Shame that Newton's theory is fundamentally wrong. For instance, it cannot predict the procession of Mercury. And its view of space and time are completely wrong.

That does not entail he was an idiot. He probably was the smartest person who ever lived. At least when he was doing physics and math.

It just entails that divination is not a sufficient condition for classifying something as true. You just need a black swan, or the precession of a planet close to the sun, and everything falls apart. The best it can aspire to, in terms of absolute certainty, is to be approximately true.

Ciao

- viole

I am pretty certain that you are just repeating things others have told you.
I warrant you have not ever attempted the algorithms for Mercury's orbit.
That is because the tiniest shifts in its orbit have never been precisely quantified due to the complexity
of the many-body-problem.

And yet, Newton's laws are the most accurate laws we have.
No other attempt at any theory is as reliable as Newton's laws of gravity.

And you assume that his view of space and time is wrong for no reason other than
it is the popular dogma of the day to say so. As it is, his view of space is only off by the tiniest fraction,
and his view of time is only incorrect at the 45th decimal place. Planck time gives us a better answer.

If you think that Einstein's theories improved on Newton's theories, then you are doing little more than
repeating popular sophistry. My apologies if that sounds condescending. Learning normally does so.

General Relativity is almost totally illogical. (As is Special Relativity)
See this link for more details.
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/gravitational-waves%2Bgeneral-relativity.htm

But consider the sophistry of the 'black hole' before reading that,
using this simple syllogism:

If time stops at the event horizon of the black hole,
and gravity emitted from the black hole travels at the velocity of light,
then
the black hole could not emit any gravity.

 

[Whiterain]

I hate to be a debbie downer but all the deities and higher powers seem so full of resentment through their suffering and Mans all together.

Honestly, the overall concept I have of their efforts is the evaluation of the Mammalian kingdom and Kingdom of Man being evaluated through the eons.

Basically these higher beings observed Earth through its entirety evaluating each plane of life. Mankind has been through numerous extinction events put into dogma's.

These prophets, Gods, Angels were various individuals either for or fighting against our extinction.


That to me makes it all the more incredible.. I wouldn't call them 'extra-terrestrials'.

But what went down on this planet is beyond grotesque. Probably some type of inter-stellar abomination and crime.



Anyway, god speed, weisen up, good luck with your coping devices.

Each and every civilization that has came and gone will devolve into greed and depravity, particularly when they think God is on their side. Gods will manipulate and even lie to the Kings, innocent bystanders are the cost. What they look for is collective consciousness, omnipotence, empathy... Man simply doesn't have these things anymore, it looks like... So they may pick and choose at their discretion, yet there are powers still fighting to prevent the extinction of Mankind, it is extremely sad. But the fact of the matter is the greed, deceit and sadism instilled into the gene-pool is sickening in my observations, people will do the wrong thing nearly every-time, simply put.



Prost

 

[buddhist]

In 21 century, the age of information, you can find the proof to any theory on the Internet. You can find any type of information there. The question is how do you navigate through the amount of bull*** and find the truth?

How do you know what to believe in this dump?

The only truth we can be sure of is that which we know, directly, for ourselves.

 

[Rajina]

In 21 century, the age of information, you can find the proof to any theory on the Internet. You can find any type of information there. The question is how do you navigate through the amount of bull*** and find the truth?

How do you know what to believe in this dump?

I think, the better option is to logout from internet and read books.. Read scriptures of different religions.. Read about different ideologies and use your own brain to find the truth..

 

[viole]

I am pretty certain that you are just repeating things others have told you.
I warrant you have not ever attempted the algorithms for Mercury's orbit.
That is because the tiniest shifts in its orbit have never been precisely quantified due to the complexity
of the many-body-problem.


And yet, Newton's laws are the most accurate laws we have.
No other attempt at any theory is as reliable as Newton's laws of gravity.

Provably wrong. General theory of gravity is much more accurate.

And you assume that his view of space and time is wrong for no reason other than
it is the popular dogma of the day to say so. As it is, his view of space is only off by the tiniest fraction,
and his view of time is only incorrect at the 45th decimal place. Planck time gives us a better answer.

It is not a dogma. It is the result of experiments. Relativity can explain them. Newton cannot. And this is how science operates, usually.

It is as simple as that.

If you think that Einstein's theories improved on Newton's theories, then you are doing little more than
repeating popular sophistry. My apologies if that sounds condescending. Learning normally does so.

Do you know enough about relativity to discuss its alleged flaws with me? I suppose you are an expert in the subject and will have no problem to discuss it, and that you have no problems with differential geometry, tensors analysis and stuff, either. You must be an expert. Who would otherwise be so sure that it is so wrong if he had no clue about it? That would be like me refuting some of the historical tenets of chinese ballet during the Ming era.

I am sorry if that sounds a bit condenscending.

General Relativity is almost totally illogical. (As is Special Relativity)
See this link for more details.
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/gravitational-waves%2Bgeneral-relativity.htm

Lol. An internet link? i can make a case for the flat earth, by posting Internet links.

I want to hear it from you. So, as a warm up. What is illogical about 4dimensional Minkowsky spaces, or pseudo Riemannian metrics?

Do they entail logical inconsistencies that made it through some of the greatest minds of the last 100 years, or do they just hurt your intuition.

What is more likely?

But consider the sophistry of the 'black hole' before reading that,
using this simple syllogism:

If time stops at the event horizon of the black hole,
and gravity emitted from the black hole travels at the velocity of light,
then
the black hole could not emit any gravity.

I seriously hope you are joking. I hope you indulge me if my mind replaces "sophistry" with "what I have no clue about".

But if you are not, I suggest you post this brilliant finding. I promise I will pay you dinner in Stockholm when you collect your Nobel prize.

Ciao

- viole