Truth

Originally posted by jaywill
I just did informally.

What profit would it be to me to concoct such a thing? I told you that I have heard an argument from Jewish atheists along this line - "I would like to believe in God. Unfortuntely I cannot because the Holocost to me proves that there cannot be a God."

Loosley quoted, a notable saying - " If Altchwitz exists then God does no ...[text shortened]... uch. I find it a very tough and tragic rational for the evangelical Christian to deal with.

Now I am confused.

Instead of defending your claim, you provide evidence and argument against it.

What am I missing? What is your actual stance?

Originally posted by veritas101
Then there is also the possibility that an individual's perception may be blurred and not the evidence itself...

So, in these cases, we may wind up believing something because we think is true, even if it is not really true.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So, in these cases, we may wind up believing something because we think is true, even if it is not really true.

And in most cases we believe a lie, not because we have to but because we want to. We may even convince ourselves that the lie we believe is true. Sad.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So, in these cases, we may wind up believing something because we think is true, even if it is not really true.

Would that not be because of our own distortion of the evidence and not because the evidence is unclear?

Another question is how do you test something to find out if it is true or not?

Originally posted by veritas101
Would that not be because of our own distortion of the evidence and not because the evidence is unclear?

Not necessarily. There may be little evidence even available, for one.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Not necessarily. There may be little evidence even available, for one.

What part of truth if any do you think would have little evidence available?

This is my opinion of truth:

There are two kinds of truths. One global Truth that I spell with a capital T; and one local truth, or individual truth, that I spell with a minor t.

The Truth is absolute, there is only one Truth. And that's final.
The truth on the other hand is many, one of each persion having an opinion of a particular matter.

I know my truth and you know yours, and that's alright. There can coexist two truths, even if they are opposed to eachother. One of them may be the Truth, but not both. Because there is only one Truth.

The special thing about the Truth is that noone know it, even if you stumble on it. Your truth may appear as the Truth in your eyes, but you cannot ever be sure of it. One reason may be that another person also have a truth that he thinks is the Truth. But there is only one Truth so you cannot have the Truth both of you.

I may have the Truth, but its likely not. Rather i may have a truth that is nearer the Truth than before. The more I explore, the more I learn, the more I study I may com close and closer to the Truth, but only asymptotically, I will never reach the Truth. Now I'm nearer the Truth as ever, therefore I feel like I have the Truth, but this is an illution.

Then how do we know when we reached the Truth? Answer: We'll never now. We will never know for sure. Because when we think we have the Truth in our hands, how do we know that our truth cannot be nearer the Truth? We cannot.

So were is the Truth? How kan we know.

The Truth is out there, that's one truth we can always be certain of.

Originally posted by veritas101
What part of truth if any do you think would have little evidence available?

Not much, but that doesn't mean a decision can be avoided.

Some people just go with what worked for them in the past. It doesn't matter to them that their own experience might be an unrepresentative sample.

The bottom line is that 'one's own truth' sounds the same as an opinion to me. Under that interpretation, it makes little sense to say we're not entitled to our own truths.

Originally posted by veritas101
Another question is how do you test something to find out if it is true or not?

It depends on what you're testing.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is my opinion of truth:

There are two kinds of truths. One global Truth that I spell with a capital T; and one local truth, or individual truth, that I spell with a minor t.

The Truth is absolute, there is only one Truth. And that's final.
The truth on the other hand is many, one of each persion having an opinion of a particular matter.

I k ...[text shortened]... ? How kan we know.

The Truth is out there, that's one truth we can always be certain of.

The special thing about the Truth is that noone know it...

So then you are actually not sure that what you have posted is the Truth?

I will never reach the Truth.

Shame. Then why continue searching?

Then how do we know when we reached the Truth? Answer: We'll never now. We will never know for sure. Because when we think we have the Truth in our hands, how do we know that our truth cannot be nearer the Truth? We cannot.

Unless of course it is not the Truth that the Truth cannot be known.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Not much, but that doesn't mean a decision can be avoided.

Some people just go with what worked for them in the past. It doesn't matter to them that their own experience might be an unrepresentative sample.

The bottom line is that 'one's own truth' sounds the same as an opinion to me. Under that interpretation, it makes little sense to say we're not entitled to our own truths.

It doesn't matter to them that their own experience might be an unrepresentative sample.

What do you mean? Is experience just an illusion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am confused.

Instead of defending your claim, you provide evidence and argument against it.

What am I missing? What is your actual stance?

No contradiction.

I elaborated on an exception. That exception is that I know some cases of atheists who said they actually wanted to believe in God.


There are usually exceptions to tendencies.

Most atheists are probably of the sort that C.S. Lewis was before he became a Christian. He said that to suggest that he was searching for God was like suggesting that a mouse was searching for a cat.

Maybe some day you'll read (if you never have) his autobiographical book Surprised By Joy.

Then again maybe you won't or have and care not.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It depends on what you're testing.

Say, propositional truth?

Originally posted by veritas101
[b]It doesn't matter to them that their own experience might be an unrepresentative sample.

What do you mean? Is experience just an illusion?[/b]

Compare an atheist and a theist.

In the atheist's experience, there is no god that talks to her, so she counts that as evidence that there is no god. She believes that those who claim to speak with God are really just taking a part of their internal dialog and calling it "God".

In the theist's experience, he believes God speaks to him, and thus thinks that many of the non-believers are simply willfully ignoring God's attempts to communicate with them.

But who is to say which one is right? One of the two has 'their own truth' that does not reflect reality [either there is a God that talks to people, or there is not].