Originally posted by twhitehead What would it even mean to 'posses' a truth? I guess you could name your cat 'truth', but even then, I suspect that cats posses us not the other way around.
If you mean 'know the truth about something' then surely you contradicted yourself by first stating that you did think you know the truth about something.
If you mean know the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you are coming dangerously close to 42.
I was reluctant to say 'absolute' or whole truth, in case Fetchmyjunk happened upon this thread.
Originally posted by sonship [b] Where do we go from there? You are convinced you have the truth, but I match your conviction. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen this boast before. i don't think I have seen it demonstrated.
I don't think you can match the conviction of a Christian. The know ...[text shortened]... restless churning of the sea. There was no rest.
There is rest in receiving Christ as Lord.[/b]
If God exists, the conviction of a Christian may indeed be greater than that of an atheist. However, if God does not exist (and from my viewpoint he doesn't) then it is merely the conviction of one human being against another. On that level, I am happy to demonstrate that I match the conviction of any theist.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I was reluctant to say 'absolute' or whole truth, in case Fetchmyjunk happened upon this thread.
I would argue that knowing the 'whole truth' would result in a paradox. You would need to know the whole state of the universe, thus requiring a larger brain than the universe. Then you would need to know the state of your own brain, requiring a brain larger than your brain - oops.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke We entertain opposite 'truths'. It is a truth for you that God exists. It's a truth for me that he doesn't.
Where do we go from there? You are convinced you have the truth, but I match your conviction. All we have is our own understanding of truth, based on information that has persuaded us either way.
So yes, truth is truth, but there is no wa ...[text shortened]... e of us has glimpsed it. (And I say 'glimpse' as I'm pretty certain neither of us possesses it).
If I believe there's a worm in an apple and you believe there isn't, it's not possible for both of our beliefs to be true at the same time. Either there is a worm in the apple or there isn't. Either you are right or I am. We can't both be right.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, not logical. Truth cannot sensibly be said to be 'not truth' whilst simultaneously not also being said to be 'truth'. So at a minimum truth is truth - which is a tautology. More accurately you could have said truth is truth or truth and not truth.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk If I believe there's a worm in an apple and you believe there isn't, it's not possible for both of our beliefs to be true at the same time. Either there is a worm in the apple or there isn't. Either you are right or I am. We can't both be right.
I didn't say both were right. I said we each had our own understanding of truth.
There may be a worm in the apple, there might not be, but unless the worm shows itself who knows.
08 Jul '16 15:07
Either Truth is Truth...
Back to Top