path to truth

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Of course we disagree.

So why don't you simply answer my question and educate me as regards your unjustified belief on the existence of "absolute truth", instead of keeping up deflecting?

In the meantime, I have not the slightest problem to reply to your questions although they have nothing to do with my approach. So I will tell you how is someth ...[text shortened]... enow theory of reality. I do not suggest that it is a part of some kind of "absolute truth".
😵

Absolute truth is what? Isn't it just simply truth, because what is less than truthful isn't
really true is it? You are in a universe surrounded by space, energy, and matter in time,
and it all is, what it is, what it was, and will be. Even before man arrived, pick your
beginning story about man that would still remain the truth of it. Now what isn't truth, what
isn't reality, our thoughts and beliefs which have to be modified at the drop of a hat when
we are confronted with something we have not seen or thought of before.

When are focus is on us, we miss the rest, we have difficulty wrapping our minds around
the notion that we are not the truth tellers, we like being able to declare good from evil,
we like thinking this is the way it is, and that is that. It is our sinful nature, which again
puts all the focus on us to the point we miss a lot of things. We want what we want, and
we will declare what is good and evil.

The way you explain reality is being worked out right in front of you in politics? Those on
the right look at the left and see all the faults, those on the left look at the right and see all
the faults, but the truth is they all have faults. Yet some will condemn those on the left for
the things they do, and those on the left condemn the right for those things they do. It is
so sad seeing this play out, it has some people doing very bad things, because very bad
things were done before to those they identify with. So on judgment day in my opinion
one of the things that is going to happen, we will see all of our deeds in the light of truth,
which will reveal all of our faults, nothing will remain hidden.

When we judged, we acknowledge what we say is truth, so when someone says these
people did this to those of my kind, now we are going to do this to those of your kind.
They will be condemn not by those that did evil too, but by those of their own kind who
will say, if you knew this was bad when they did it to us, why did you do it to others?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
There are so many things that had to be just right for that to possible, including being able
to synthesize organic from inorganic which is just one of the last things that need to
happen. Being one of the last means there was so much more required before that, if we
just limited falsification to only that point in a mountain of requirements we do the topic a
disservice.

You call this belief in abiogenesis blind faith?

There is not any "belief" on abiogenesis. Abiogeneseis is herenow considered a viable theory of reality. That's all😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Speaking to you I think reminds me of talking to Mormons when I first became a Christian.
I spent a couple of frustrating hours with them, we were talking about the same subject,
even using the same words, and it was frustrating because we were not saying the same
thing. it is not much different with your use of the words truth and reality. You always
...[text shortened]... e is remains beyond me and
everyone else. So I give you my opinion not the age of the universe.

Neither reflexive awareness, nor internal cognitive aspects, nor any external objects can be established by any means and in any way as possesing their characteristics intrinsically. Truth lacks of inherent existence. You are not aware of this, OK, no problem; I understand what you say is your own personal truth, which you mistakenly acknowledge as "absolute" instead of purely subjective, relative, conventional and strictly mind-depended😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You mean it doesn't matter if we can validate the results as being accurate and true? I'm
not talking about getting the same results each time the thing is used, but knowing if those
results mean what we say they do? Unless, it doesn't matter what they mean, it only
matters what we say, because what we say and think is more true than the 'reality'
or 'truth' of what actually is?

I mean strictly what I told you again and again as regards this issue. The method is validated as accurate herenow.

However, if you are aware of a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that proves the method is not accurate, kindly please offer the link so that I can evaluate it😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Absolute truth is what? Isn't it just simply truth, because what is less than truthful isn't
really true is it? You are in a universe surrounded by space, energy, and matter in time,
and it all is, what it is, what it was, and will be. Even before man arrived, pick your
beginning story about man that would still remain the truth of it. Now what isn't tr ...[text shortened]... ind who
will say, if you knew this was bad when they did it to us, why did you do it to others?

Kindly please leave our ...sinful nature aside. We human beings have no "sinful" nature. Our nature is the nature of our mind. We are capable to do whatever our mind can enable us to do according to our volition; also, we are capable to avoid doing whatever our mind enables us to avoid to do in accordance to our will.

Do you understand or don't you understand that all we have at the level of all kinds of the manifestations we aware of, is:
1. Visual awareness
2. Auditory awareness
3. Olfactory consciousness
4. Gustatory consciousness
5. Tactile conscousness
6. Mental awareness

The respective locus of origin is the following:
1. Visual system
2. Auditory system
3. Olfactive system
4. Gustatory system
5. Tactile system
6. Cognitive system

which supports the following:

1. Visibles (shape, color)
2. Sound
3. Smell
4. Taste
5. Touch
6. Mental constituents

Do you understand that this is exactly and strictly how whatever we perceive is manifested, and thus exists, in the realm of our sensory activity and cognitive awareness?
Any of the six types of cognitive awareness at the column of manifestation arises strictly in dependence upon a corresponding element of the other two columns. These constitutive parts, which construct collectively the psycho-physical continuum that you associate with all the elements (and with all the mental objects you falsely define as "absolutely true" amongst else), exist strictly as part of interdependently arising phenomena. Your table is real, but, since it lacks of inherent existence/ substance due to the fact that it exists solely in the context of a specific causal field and in the context of specific relations that obtain between your sensory systems and their domains of activity, it has nothing to do with any sort of "absolute truth". The objects you touch are real, but they are not a part of any kind of "absolute truth" because they exist strictly in the context of a specific causal field and in the context of specific relations that obtain between your sensory systems and their domains of activity. You can comment about their existence solely because you are aware of their existence. All you have, and all anybody has, is merely real or imaginary products of depended arising. "Absolute truth" of any kind is nowhere to be found.
That's all😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
There is not any "belief" on abiogenesis. Abiogeneseis is herenow considered a viable theory of reality. That's all😵

So it is a factual event, true, part of reality according to you?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Neither reflexive awareness, nor internal cognitive aspects, nor any external objects can be established by any means and in any way as possesing their characteristics intrinsically. Truth lacks of inherent existence. You are not aware of this, OK, no problem; I understand what you say is your own personal truth, which you mistakenly acknowledge as "absolute" instead of purely subjective, relative, conventional and strictly mind-depended😵

We disagree, but I'm tired of repeating myself

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So it is a factual event, true, part of reality according to you?

According to me, it is a part of a viable herenow theory of reality, as I told you again and again😵

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
If someone says
I do not know how the universe came into being
I do not know how the universe is "fine tuned"
I do not know how life started
I do not know how man evolved
I do not know ANYTHING

Is that proof of a god?

Kellyjay will not reply I reckon, but perhaps I am wrong😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
We disagree, but I'm tired of repeating myself

Of course we disagree!

I know you are tired of repeating yourself, Kellyjay. However, I am not tired of reading again and again your irrelevant to my specific questions repetitions, and in addition I am not tired of seeing you keeping up twisting and turning in order to avoid to demonstrate a single one "truth" which is, according to you, eternal, "objective" the way you mean it, and a part of the so called "absolute truth". I am aware of the fact that you behave this way because you have a single one agenda: to "defend" by any means your religious blind beliefs. I understand.

Back on track: I told you that truth is under any circumstances and at any level of perception relative because is strictly depended on specific ever-changing causal fields and also on the way the bodymind of the sentients beings that perceive it is hard-wired to the Physical World; there is not other kind of "truth" available to us, for which we can comment.

If you think this is not the case, kindly please demonstrate an eternal, absolute and "objective" truth, and explain in detail:

How and by what means is not depended on an ever-changing causal field;

How and by what means can it be perceived by a sentient being absolutely in no dependence to her bodymind;

How can it be evaluated as "absolute truth" in strict separation from the purely subjective evaluation of the mind of the sentient being that conceives it and evaluates it as such;

How can it ever be eternal, since nothing in Kosmos is eternal;
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Kindly please leave our ...sinful nature aside. We human beings have no "sinful" nature. Our nature is the nature of our mind. We are capable to do whatever our mind can enable us to do according to our volition; also, we are capable to avoid doing whatever our mind enables us to avoid to do in accordance to our will.

Do you understand or don't you ...[text shortened]... products of depended arising. "Absolute truth" of any kind is nowhere to be found.
That's all😵

You are absolutely sure about that, truthfully?

You have no issues demanding I couch all of my answers in such a way they fit the pretty
picture you seem to see when looking at all things, let it be viable according to methods
you accept. You go on and on taking about your mind nature, and an opposing view to
yours comes up I get told please leave that out.

I think we have gone on as far as we can. Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You are absolutely sure about that, truthfully?

You have no issues demanding I couch all of my answers in such a way they fit the pretty
picture you seem to see when looking at all things, let it be viable according to methods
you accept. You go on and on taking about your mind nature, and an opposing view to
yours comes up I get told please leave that out.

I think we have gone on as far as we can. Thank you for your time.

Yes I am absolutely sure about that, keeping always in mind I may well be wrong, and this is the reason why I am asking you to debunk my view on the basis of verified facts and evidence but not on the basis of religious beliefs of any kind. It seems you cannot do such a thing. I am also absolutely sure that until now you are unable to address what exactly I keep up telling you.

I do not talk strictly about "the nature of my mind". I keep up describing again and again the exact way the mind of us human beings conceives whatever we happen to evaluate as "reality", but instead of proving on the basis of scientific facts and evidence that the specific process I describe is untenable, you are preaching the Good News. Oh well.

I thank you for your time too, Kellyjay😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Yes I am absolutely sure about that, keeping always in mind I may well be wrong, and this is the reason why I am asking you to debunk my view on the basis of verified facts and evidence but not on the basis of religious beliefs of any kind. It seems you cannot do such a thing. I am also absolutely sure that until now you are unable to address what exac ...[text shortened]... ntenable, you are preaching the Good News. Oh well.

I thank you for your time too, Kellyjay😵

You can point to one place in our discussion where I brought up sin, that has not been what I have been arguing about, or asking you to see. If there are more I don’t recall them.

You are doing exactly what I have been trying to show you over and over. You only see what you want the way you want to see it, truth and reality conform to your prescribed filters and if someone or something doesn’t than they are not a viable source to be taken seriously. I have been arguing reality and truth do not depend on our beliefs, opinions. worldviews, or even has to be considered by us to be reality.

You have your mind, may it take you where you want to go, and accomplish all you can. After that what comes, will come, I wish you no ill will.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You can point to one place in our discussion where I brought up sin, that has not been what I have been arguing about, or asking you to see. If there are more I don’t recall them.

You are doing exactly what I have been trying to show you over and over. You only see what you want the way you want to see it, truth and reality conform to your prescribed fi ...[text shortened]... ant to go, and accomplish all you can. After that what comes, will come, I wish you no ill will.

Edit: “You can point to one place in our discussion where I brought up sin, that has not been what I have been arguing about, or asking you to see. If there are more I don’t recall them.”


I can point too many places in our discussion where you expand on your perception of G-d and your religious beliefs instead of addressing my points in the context of the OP.
When I am talking about the specific way our mind perceives and deciphers whatever we happen to be aware of during our interaction with the Physical World, and when I am talking about our sensemaking mechanism, all I get from you is irrelevant assumptions and a distortion of whatever I say. Why is that?
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You can point to one place in our discussion where I brought up sin, that has not been what I have been arguing about, or asking you to see. If there are more I don’t recall them.

You are doing exactly what I have been trying to show you over and over. You only see what you want the way you want to see it, truth and reality conform to your prescribed fi ...[text shortened]... ant to go, and accomplish all you can. After that what comes, will come, I wish you no ill will.

Edit: "You are... ...us to be reality."


No, I do not do what you say. I never said that you, or whoever, must see this issue according to my personal evaluation of what is “truth” and what is “reality”.

On the contrary, I described in detail the exact causal field, the exact mental apparatus and the specific means we are using in order to activate our purely subjective sensemaking mechanism, on whose our personal beliefs about “truth” and reality” are strictly grounded, arguing that, as a consequence, each sentient being is establishing a purely subjective truth, whose nature is neither “eternal”, nor “absolute” or “objective” or existent as if it had a non-depended to our evaluation ontological substance.
Well, you never showed that my description is false.

Then I explained you in detail that all these purely subjective truths of each sentient being about the reality of the Physical World that surrounds us all, are grounded on the Single One Ever-Changing Reality, which is by force partly conceived by each sentient being and, for this reason, is transcendental, as I repeated ad nauseam; and after all that jazz, you conclude once more I believe that reality and truth depend on my beliefs, although this is simply not what I say –and you know it.
For I told you repeatedly that, under any circumstances and at any level of perception, truth is by force relative because is strictly depended on specific ever-changing causal fields and also on the way the bodymind of the sentients beings that perceive it is hard-wired to the Physical World; I told you there is no other kind of "truth" available to us, for which we can comment. Consequently, you know I argue that what I say is grounded on the fact that no sentient being herenow is able to perceive and decipher holistically the Single One Ever-Changing Reality.
Well, you never provided the specific reasons why the above string of thoughts is not tenable.

How you do respond? Instead of debunking this quite clear and simple conclusion of mine, which I hold strictly provisionally as is the case with all the conclusions of mine, your monotonous response is: “I have been arguing reality and truth do not depend on our beliefs, opinions, worldviews, or even has to be considered by us to be reality”. I hear what you repeat alright, but you avoid to explain the reason why you hold this untenable belief. Why is that?

So, since you believe that reality and truth are fully separated from your own bodymind and that their meaning to you is not strictly grounded on your purely subjective sensemaking mechanism, kindly please explain how and by what means other than your own bodymind and your purely subjective sensemaking mechanism did you manage to have a clue and comment about the nature of a purely transcendental reality and truth?
Could you kindly please substantiate this belief of yours by means of justified facts and evidence, leaving for a moment aside your agenda to defend your religion, since Christianity, as all the religions, has not the slightest need to be defended due to the fact that it is grounded strictly on Faith –a fact that I do not question at all?

Kindly please feel free to reply not, if you wish so.
Be well.
😵