Something new

Originally posted by twhitehead
I guess it was more of a rant than anything else. You may not have been self contradictory. You did however use the word truth in a totally non-standard manner without first informing anyone that you had redefined it. I find that can really confuse a debate/discussion as nobody knows what anyone is talking about anymore. For example, suppose I say "You ar ...[text shortened]... tility for me so it is not my personal truth". But you wouldn't take it that way would you?

I understand but that was not what I was doing. Obviously anything we state here is a personal view that we believe to be true for others as well. When you say "there is no god" you actually mean "in my opinion there is no god and I also think there is no god for you also KM" We all know that's what you mean. It's the same with me. If I say "a truth worth knowing (in regards to God) has to have some personal usefulness to it " then that's my opinion and there is nothing self contradictory about it. Quirine however said something that was seen by the both of us as self contradictory.

You see when I refer to personal utility it is because for me that is a signifier of truth. I am surprised that you have a problem witrh this because it's quite pragmatic and scientific really. If someone said they had discovered a new energy form that was actually useless and had no application it would lead you to doubt their findings. For me if someone talks about a God that has no personal use or doesn't change anything then it leads me to doubt if the God they talk about really exists.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I say "a truth worth knowing (in regards to God) has to have some personal usefulness to it " then that's my opinion and there is nothing self contradictory about it.

But that was not what you were saying. You were saying something along the lines of "if it has no personal usefulness for me then it is not the truth" and you repeat that ludicrous claim later in this post.

You see when I refer to personal utility it is because for me that is a signifier of truth. I am surprised that you have a problem witrh this because it's quite pragmatic and scientific really.
No, it is not scientific at all.

If someone said they had discovered a new energy form that was actually useless and had no application it would lead you to doubt their findings. For me if someone talks about a God that has no personal use or doesn't change anything then it leads me to doubt if the God they talk about really exists.
Essentially you are saying that if you don't know what something is used for then it cant exist. I guess that for you out 99.99999999999% of the universe does not exist. Surely you can see how your concept of truth cannot possibly be universal and must be just as relative as Quirines? Or are you saying that the only things that exist or are true are those that have personal utility for every human being ever?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether you are sure or not, your claim is still self contradictory. It is logically impossible for truth to not be universal because if it isn't, then that is a universal truth.

I don't know if it is logically impossible.
What I mean is suppose there are 2 realities. In reality1 A is true/the truth and B not true/not the truth. In reality2 B is true/the truth and A not true/not the truth.
To me this situation is possible.
For example (don't know if it is a good one but what the heck) someone (lets say V) gets killed by lets say K. Person 1 says that K is a killer, person 2 says K is not a killer. Suppose person 1 thinks life ends when the body is dead and person 2 thinks life is for eternity, meaning in this case that there is no kill since V still lives (somewhere, as a soul, or whatever).
Then we have that truth in reality1 (created by person1) differs from truth in reality2 (created by person2)
I realise now that in fact I'm saying that truth is dependent on reality.

Originally posted by Quirine
I don't know if it is logically impossible.

I am uncomfortable with the way you are using the words truth and reality. You seem to use them in different senses at different times.
However it still remains a logical requirement that there must be at least one universal truth. At best, some truths may differ but not all truths.

As for your use of reality to mean "what someone believes is the case", I find it hard to believe that you have really thought that one through.

Originally posted by josephw
Now this makes sense to me. Even though I don't believe in evolution.
If evolution is true I'll find out sooner or later.

I think my problem with evolution has been that I equate it with atheism. Some here have said evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not.

I'm hard headed and stubborn, but I'm not closed minded. Well, maybe a little.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are many, many christians who accept evolution. They see it as simply being the method that god chose to employ in his design.

However, on the other hand, evolution does tend to undermine religious belief in that it is perfectly capable of functioning without a god at all.

The fact is that evolution is a done deal. The only viable question is whether god guides the process, or whether it just goes along of its own accord. Or if you're a deist, you could argue that god started it all up but then took no further hand in it.

Originally posted by Quirine
I don't know if it is logically impossible.
What I mean is suppose there are 2 realities. In reality1 A is true/the truth and B not true/not the truth. In reality2 B is true/the truth and A not true/not the truth.
To me this situation is possible.
For example (don't know if it is a good one but what the heck) someone (lets say V) gets killed by lets say K ...[text shortened]... reated by person2)
I realise now that in fact I'm saying that truth is dependent on reality.

I realise now that in fact I'm saying that truth is dependent on reality.
QUIRINE

Exactly! Either the dead person dies or lives forever but it cannot be both. Even if it is both then that is the ultimate truth(reality).

One thing me and whitey agree on is that God either exists or he doesn't . We both agree that one of is right and one is wrong, we can't both be right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that was not what you were saying. You were saying something along the lines of "if it has no personal usefulness for me then it is not the truth" and you repeat that ludicrous claim later in this post.

[b]You see when I refer to personal utility it is because for me that is a signifier of truth. I am surprised that you have a problem witrh this be ...[text shortened]... ngs that exist or are true are those that have personal utility for every human being ever?

The problem is that you can't understand why personal usefulness has a bearing on truth . You have not made the connection. Truth exists on many levels , intellectual , experiential , emotional , scientific , logical , creative , objective , subjective. Because you respect only the logical and intellectual you don't see how truth can also be experiential. Once experienced , truth becomes more than just a mere belief but it becomes part of you and you become the embodiment of that truth. You no longer have to believe that it's true , you just KNOW that it is the truth because you are experiencing it , like you experience breathing in and out.

This will no doubt just sound like gibberish to you because in our western culture we have forgotten how to think holistically and have over valued the intellect and logic at the expense of the personal.

Try this thought experiment. If I proved to you intellectually and logically that Christianity was 100% true and that God existed but then said to you that despite proving this to you it would make 0% difference to your life and have 0% usefulnress to you , what would you say? My guess is that you would become suspicious about my "proof" and wonder what was going on because logically a God that exists should make a difference to your life ( and anyone else's)

If such a thing happened my "proof" would only work on one level but would fail practically and personally. It would be a worthless piece of nonesense stuck in a book somewhere getting dusty.

Think about it . I bet my mortgage that part of the reason you left the church was because either you saw no need for it and it wasn't working for you , it made no difference to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that was not what you were saying. You were saying something along the lines of "if it has no personal usefulness for me then it is not the truth" and you repeat that ludicrous claim later in this post.

[b]You see when I refer to personal utility it is because for me that is a signifier of truth. I am surprised that you have a problem witrh this be ...[text shortened]... ngs that exist or are true are those that have personal utility for every human being ever?

Or are you saying that the only things that exist or are true are those that have personal utility for every human being ever? whitey---

Nope , but God , by the nature of the proposition , should have an impact on human beings because he falls into that catagory.

A volcano on Neptune that we don't know about could exist without having any impact on me , God should though. If he has no impact on me whatsoever , it is logical that I should doubt what someone says about him because human beings fall into the catagory of things he should affect , neptune's volcanoes are different.

Originally posted by rwingett
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are many, many christians who accept evolution. They see it as simply being the method that god chose to employ in his design.

However, on the other hand, evolution does tend to undermine religious belief in that it is perfectly capable of functioning without a god at all.

The fact is that evolution is ...[text shortened]... you're a deist, you could argue that god started it all up but then took no further hand in it.

Consider this. The Bible says that God rested from all His work on the seventh day. During the 6 days of creation God organised the energy He created into what is. The laws of creation that God employed to create ended after the 6th day. God then instituted the law of conservation Which is in effect until today. Those laws are embodied in the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Science is only able to test it's theories using the law of thermodynamics, hence, the original laws that God used to create are not used to test science's theories. Therefore science cannot explain the origin of the universe.

One other point. If God rested(stopped creating), then why would creation continue to evolve? The inference in the creation account is that God made everything in it's completed state, and then rested.

I'm just throwing this out there. I'm interested in your reply.

Originally posted by josephw
Consider this. The Bible says that God rested from all His work on the seventh day. During the 6 days of creation God organised the energy He created into what is. The laws of creation that God employed to create ended after the 6th day. God then instituted the law of conservation Which is in effect until today. Those laws are embodied in the 1st and 2nd law ...[text shortened]... state, and then rested.

I'm just throwing this out there. I'm interested in your reply.

That's a very complicated explanation for "all work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy."

Originally posted by knightmeister
Once experienced , truth becomes more than just a mere belief but it becomes part of you and you become the embodiment of that truth. You no longer have to believe that it's true , you just KNOW that it is the truth because you are experiencing it , like you experience breathing in and out.

My problem with your stance is that you are using the word 'truth' in various ways but not making it clear when you have changed it. In your above example is it possible for someone else to experience a conflicting truth? If so is your truth then not an ultimate truth? Is truth the correct word? Can we not simply call it a delusion?

This will no doubt just sound like gibberish to you because in our western culture we have forgotten how to think holistically and have over valued the intellect and logic at the expense of the personal.
I could write an essay on how your whole 'we have forgotten' statement is essentially nonsense as 'we' never knew it in the first place.

Try this thought experiment. If I proved to you intellectually and logically that Christianity was 100% true and that God existed but then said to you that despite proving this to you it would make 0% difference to your life and have 0% usefulnress to you , what would you say? My guess is that you would become suspicious about my "proof" and wonder what was going on because logically a God that exists should make a difference to your life ( and anyone else's)
I would be suspicious of your proof, but not for the reasons you state.

If such a thing happened my "proof" would only work on one level but would fail practically and personally. It would be a worthless piece of nonesense stuck in a book somewhere getting dusty.
But nevertheless true. The problem is you are deciding in advance what the criteria for value is. For example you cannot value an new energy source unless you can use it as such. What if the new energy source leads to a cure for cancer? Will it still remain a non-truth? Would you still doubt its existence? The same applies to God. You are setting a criteria by which his existence should be judged. eg he must love you or he doesn't exist. Even if a malevolent God were to squash you like a pankake and send you to hell you would still be denying his existence because he doesn't fit your chosen 'personal utility' criteria.

Think about it . I bet my mortgage that part of the reason you left the church was because either you saw no need for it and it wasn't working for you , it made no difference to you.
You would loose your mortgage. But then again if you live in the US you probably have already 🙂

Originally posted by kirksey957
That's a very complicated explanation for "all work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy."

God isn't dull, that's why he rested after his work. Then He pronounced everything "very good", and enjoyed what He had made.

Why do you feel the need to make a joke out of it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My problem with your stance is that you are using the word 'truth' in various ways but not making it clear when you have changed it. In your above example is it possible for someone else to experience a conflicting truth? If so is your truth then not an ultimate truth? Is truth the correct word? Can we not simply call it a delusion?

[b]This will no dou ...[text shortened]... your mortgage. But then again if you live in the US you probably have already 🙂

The same applies to God. You are setting a criteria by which his existence should be judged. --whitey--

This is just a truism and you know it. Everyone sets critieria by which they judge if something exists or not. Everyone sets critieria by which they judge if something is false or true. You and me are no different in this respect aprt from the fact we choose different critieria. The fact that I set criteria is a meaningless point because we all do. You cannot name a single scientific experiment that does not set a criteria for falsification.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My problem with your stance is that you are using the word 'truth' in various ways but not making it clear when you have changed it. In your above example is it possible for someone else to experience a conflicting truth? If so is your truth then not an ultimate truth? Is truth the correct word? Can we not simply call it a delusion?

[b]This will no dou ...[text shortened]... your mortgage. But then again if you live in the US you probably have already 🙂

Even if a malevolent God were to squash you like a pankake and send you to hell you would still be denying his existence because he doesn't fit your chosen 'personal utility' criteria. ---whitey---

And if this were true it would make no difference what I denied or believed I would be doomed like all of us. It would be pointless searching for such a god. In any case such a god would be out of step with everything we know about human fulfillment and spirituality (ie love , morality , compassion etc).

All I have said is that such a god is not worth arguing about or exploring in any shape or form and is unlikely to be beneficial to humanity. I do not say that such a god cannot exist only that he's irrelevant in terms of debate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My problem with your stance is that you are using the word 'truth' in various ways but not making it clear when you have changed it. In your above example is it possible for someone else to experience a conflicting truth? If so is your truth then not an ultimate truth? Is truth the correct word? Can we not simply call it a delusion?

[b]This will no dou ...[text shortened]... your mortgage. But then again if you live in the US you probably have already 🙂

I could write an essay on how your whole 'we have forgotten' statement is essentially nonsense as 'we' never knew it in the first place. ----whitey---

I thought you wouldn't get it. You over value the external and objective at the expense of the internal and subjective. You have lost the sense of the balance between the two. The idea that truth could be found via intuition is repugnant to you for this reason.