Hi Japle,

Sounds to me that you are well educated and in my opinion there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

In my humble opinion however everything that you know, and I mean everything, is knowledge that is not nessesarily correct and valid as a man or woman might understand it, or even a scientist or mathmetician who has given their all in the life-long study of it, and be able to correctly interpet it into usable wisdom and make it available as law and truth about spiritual matters.

In my opinion and by these means it cannot be done with even maginal success..

I personally have seen several not unlike yourself utillize exhaustive means of stored information through exhaustive study and searching like I believe that you are doing here, in order to get at what I also believe that where you are trying to go with this peticular course of action and questions about essentially is the Bible, and what It says about God, and who He is, and what He's done up to date, is this in the incorruptible sense, true or not?

Study awhile on the differences of corruption and incorruption if you will as it pertains to a matter of searching for incorruptible truth from a corruptible mean and source.

I have never seen the truth about God or His word accomplished by this process.

Unless in my opinion it can be examined in such a way as you are utillizing now, by this approach; only if there is a authority( Holy Spirit), as  the basis and means to discipher this information and understand it as correct, is only according to way God sees fit for a person to understand it, at a peticular time of His choosing, in the spiritual realm for what it says to that person through the Spirit, oftentimes outside of the literal physical translation of whatever is being studied and translated, under His scrutiny, and in a state of spiritual unity with Him,(The Teacher), for clarification and validity of the facts by this method, and by the process of this method only.

Please read the sentence above again, and give this statement some attentive thought please!.  

I'm sorry but I do not see you making much headway either now or in the future using this method of worldly head-knowledge to uncover something which is totally of a spiritual scope and nature.

I believe you continue like this approach you are using, then you, will have even less in the way of real understanding and peace that you even have now, if you persue this topic in this manner, and I also believe that this approach will only lead down a path to more misunderstanding, confusion and unwanted frustration.

I am certainly no authority or expert in these matters of Godly spiritual wisdom which is perfect in It's origin, versus man's worldly knowledge, this mostly brought about in and through the realm of man's science and research which contains error,nor do I wish to be for reasons that I truly wish were obvious to all!

In my humble opinion,

SAE

SAE,  I have a hard time following your very long sentences, but when you say,

I have to agree.  Actually, I'm not sure exactly what process you're talking about, but it doesn't matter.  The truth about God or His word isn't something that's discoverable through any process at all.  

Of course, that's my opinion, based on my position that such a "truth" doesn't exist.  

So what is real and what is the truth can be two completely different things ?

If you walk by faith and not by sight like the Bible says then at times it could certainly appear that way.

Sorry about the long sentences, my wife is also starting to get in my case about that.

But still it is my hope that you might receive the same gift of discernment that many Christians have, in which I believe will lead a man or woman into all truth, even some of the things that most all of us find unpleasant, and help us realize who we really are.

In my opinion, truth and reality are the same thing.  Lots of “new age” types talk about “my reality” and “your reality”, but that’s just an attempt to make everything nice and soft and easy to deal with.  If they used the word “perception” instead, I’d have no problem with it.  

Perception is not reality.  Here’s an example.

A biker walks into a bar in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.  He sits at the bar, orders a beer and says to the guy on the next stool, “I’m from California.  I’m looking for some cool places to ride.  Are you from Coeur d”Alene”?

The guy shakes his head.  

The biker tries again, “Where are you from”?  Without looking up, the guy says, “Asshole”!

The biker sets down his beer and punches the guy in the face, knocking him off his stool.  

Perception:  The guy called the biker an asshole.

Reality:  The guy told the biker where he was from; Athol.  It’s a small town north of Coeur d”Alene.  

Gotta be careful what you say around bikers!!

Were you offended by something I stated Japle?

Truth is subjective.

What is truth is no different than what is reality.

Reality is nothing more than a collective perception.

To use someone's example:

Your hand is on the door nob. This this the truth because you perceive that it is and others that view you also perceive that it is. Therefore it is the truth. But we still do not know for sure that your hand is on the door nob.

If one million people viewed your hand and all agreed that it is on the door knob, then that must be the truth. But what if one million viewed your hand and half said it is on the door knob, but the other half said it is on the door? What is the truth?

If it goes the other way and one million say your hand is on the door, but you believe your hand is on the knob, then what is the truth?

I dont follow your analogy, i dont see what it has to do with the truth.

I disagree
either your hand is on the door knob or it isnt.  truth isnt about opinion.

And not nessesarily about perception through human senses either.

Not that I recall.  Why do you ask?

I don't know.

Probably something about the story about the local and the biker guy.

Just wondering though, are you a college graduate if you don't mind me asking?

Thanks

SAE

Are you a biker or a local?

Yeah, I've got a couple of BAs, which did me not good at all during my 28 year military career, and a Masters that I got so I could get promoted.  
Never used the Masters, either.

Most of my education comes from reading SciFi while drinking German beer.

Sorry for the delay in my response.

In my example your hand is either on the door or the door knob, but which is it? What is the truth? We can only determine the truth after perceiving the hand and door. If enough perceive that the hand is on the knob, then it is the truth.

I didn't say truth was based on opinion. By definition, there is no correct or incorrect opinion. Truth is based on perception. If we all perceive the hand on the knob, then it is, in reality on the knob, therefore the truth is that it is on the knob.

Nice try.

Not.



                 

So are you saying truth cannot exist without perception? It doesn'r make sense.. Just because I can't perceive doesn't change that fact that something is or is not.
Don

This is what stage magicians hope you'll think.  But was the woman really sawed in half?  Did the elephant really disappear?  How did that quarter get in your ear, anyway?  
Just because you perceive it doesn't make it true.  Our senses fool us every day.  

You can fool all of the people some of the time.  That's usually enough.

One of my favorites, this video clip is about "Truth" revealed through the "Lies" of those who oppose Truth in Christ.
 

Reality is what is, not what is perceived. Try this little experiment on a trusting and willing subject: Get a strike anywhere match and an ice cube. Have the subject close their eyes tightly or blindfold them. Strike the match, making sure that they hear the strike and smell the smoke. Then tell them your going to touch the match to their arm ever so briefly. But, instead of touching them with the match, touch them with the ice cube. The vast majority of people will jump and say OUCH! Why? It's not because of reality (you touched them with an ice cube, which doesn't hurt), but because of perception (they perceived that you were touching them with the match). Understand this: Perception ≠ Reality. Your perception may be close to reality, but generally speaking there is far more to any given situation than what we perceive. Reality is not defined by perception.

You say you believe in truth. Do you believe in absolute truth? I'm betting you don't. I'm here to tell you that the statement "There is no such thing as absolute truth" is a self contained logical fallacy. Think about it. By making that statement, you are making a claim of absolute truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth. It contradicts itself.

To recap, or Cliff's Notes for the lazy:

1. Perception ≠ Reality
2.There is absolute truth.

The truth is what it is.  It is either true and can be substantiated as such or it is a lie.  Truth is not subjective it either did happen or it did not. A lie is a lie and can not be proven to be true nothing more nothing less.

partly true



just because something can't be substantiated doesn't meant it isn't true.



Gallileo was right, he just wasn't able to prove it.    Just because the science of the time couldn't substantiate it, didn't make it false.   "It  still moves"



Truth is not subjective, but anything people witness is interpreted subjectively.  Lets say a black man attacks a white woman.   Some will see it as a random crime, some will see it as a hate crime and it will depend on a mixture of the other facts of the case and their own preconceptions.
 

"Truth" is absolute, as a concept.  But I've never seen a "truth" that wasn't a qualified truth.  Every truth I've seen has restrictions, point of view, or conditions.  As such, absolute truth has very little use to me.  OTOH, some truths are SO broadly qualified that they might as well be absolute.

Please expound on this. I've got a hunch that what you're calling truth isn't the same thing I'm calling truth...

I believe that truth is absolute. Opinions come into play when the truth is unknown. In those situations, the truth is still absolute. If the truth about something is unknown and we resort to opinions, it doesn't change the fact that the truth is still the truth.

This, of course, is just my opinion so the real answer to this question is unknown to me. Absolute? Subjective? One of those answers is absolutely the truth.

WOW! This is like a scene out of "The Matrix"!  

What I mean is that there is no "fact" that I am aware of that doesn't have SOME kind of qualifier on it, no matter how broad.  For example, you could say "The sky is blue" is "truth<" but the qaulifier would be that we are talking about the planet Earth, and that we're talking about it's apparent color when viewed with the perception spectrum that human beings use.  The sky would, for example, look very different to species who cannot see in the visible blue spectrum, or who COULD see in the ultraviolet.

Every "true" fact has a context.  The context MIGHT be broad enough to be effectively absolute, but the context is there never-the-less

If I say that "murder is evil" would you say that has to be in context to be true? For sake of this discussion, neither self-defense nor capital punishment are murder.

If I say that "theft is morally wrong" would you say that it has to be in context to be true?

IMO truth is relative.  Nothing is absolute.  For instance, most people would say that gravitational pull is 9.8 meters per second squared.  That is true but only on Earth.

You assert that what you are saying is truth.
You assert that what you are saying is absolute ("Nothing is absolute.")
You are making a claim of absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

Do you not see the logical fallacy?

If you make a claim of absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, the claim contradicts itself. It should be obvious that a true statement cannot contradict itself.

Therefore...

Since it is untrue that there are no absolute truths, there must be absolute truths.

Do you currently reside in the state of Kansas? If so, is that truth not absolute?
(I know, silly example but...)
I think that anything that can be put into a "relative" box is not "truth". I'm not sure what it is, but I don't consider it to be "truth".

If you are a Bible-believing, born again Christian, and desire to know the truth as proclaimed in God's Word, then The Truth Project [Focus on the Family], should be for you. You can see a preview of the presentation on the web at The Truth Project.Org. It is a life changing experience. I don't have the vocabulary to express how wonderful this program is. I'll let "awesome" suffice!
 The project is on DVD and done in one hour sessions. The entire program takes 13 sessions. It is EXTREMELY RELEVANT to today's times.

                        [John 18:37]

The irony that the author of John's Gospel was showing us is that The Truth was right in front of Pilate's face when he said it and he didn't see it.

Jesus Christ is The Truth and it is absolute.  End of story.

um...... yes...... although it is hard to argue with your well thought out and written analysis

I've been to magic shows and although the act makes it look like she was sawed in half, does anyone really perceive that she was? We know it is an allusion. Nobody rushed the stage to save the poor woman when I was there. We all enjoy it, but all of our senses and knowledge led us to perceive that it is not real, and therefore, as my example above, the vast majority of people perceive that she is not actually sawed in half and therefore, the truth is that she wasn't.

How do you prove truth? We examine, study, perform tests..... and after all of it, we form our perception of what is going on. If we all agree, then it is the truth. If we do not all agree then it is controversy.

nice try, but.....no

You example is suggesting that our senses can be fooled on an individual basis. I agree. The individual perception of the person is that it burned.

But if you have 1000 people observing your little experiment, the collective perception will clearly be that the person is not burned. "The truth is she was not burned!"

My point is the collective perception dictates truth, not one individual.

Thanks for the cliffs notes by the way

ETA: When did I say I believe in truth? Anyway..... labeling my opinion that truth is relative as me expressing an "absolute truth" is too much of a stretch - but nice try.

You've made three claims:

Logically, you have two choices –– a. you assert that your claims are true, or b. you assert that your claims are false. If you assert that your claims are true, you are making claims of absolute truth. If you assert that your claims are false, we're done here. Oh, and if you decide "those are just my opinions," we're done in that case, too. Opinions are fine to have, but they're 100% useless when discussing logic and truth.

If you assert that your claim is true, you still fail to address the substance of my example. For example, what if we went many steps farther than your example of 1000 people. Let's have a football stadium full of people –– tens of thousands. Let's perform the same experiment with the willing participant, but behind curtains and with a microphone so the audience can hear what's happening. No one can see what happened. What do the tens of thousands of people believe? The audience would hear the explanation ("I'm going to touch this match to your arm") and would hear the "OUCH!" The collective perception would be that the participant had been burned. And you claim that perception is the truth?

What about people who are falsely accused and convicted of crimes? They know they didn't do it. Everyone else (judge, jury, community) believes –– perceives –– that they did. Does that mean they're guilty after all?

What about a magic show? The collective perception of the audience is that people are sawn in half and miraculously put back together, scarves turn into doves, items disappear, items levitate. Does the collective audience perception that mean those things actually happened?

My position, and the position of formal logic, is that it does not matter what one person, a thousand people, or a million people perceive. For that matter it does not matter if every single human alive perceived the same thing. If the perception was incorrect, it's still incorrect. Truth is what it is. See also: Relativist Fallacy

If that were true, there would be no truth.  The truth is, you can't get all of us to agree on anything.  

How someone feels about something or how they perceive it has no bearing on whether it's true.  

Of course, if you want to say that millions of Atheists believe all religions are simply mythology, therefore no religion represents truth, I won't argue with you!  

I assert that what I say is my opinion as I see it.  Not that it is absolute truth.  Thus, this was a waste of time.

The context is your moral code, of course.... it's not rocket science.  You may BELIEVE your moral code is absolute, but that is your BELIEF.  You cannot establish it objectively.

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would willingly and knowingly hold an opinion that doesn't square with logic and reality.

by using the word murder, you are putting it in context.  Substitute killing for murder and ask "Is killing evil?"  It depends on the context, as your next sentence clearly spells out.    And that depends on your moral views as  well.  There are many who do not believe self defense or capital punishment are moral.  



As I said above, truth is absolute, but our ability to perceive that truth is limited.    What we are left with is our interpretation of that truth, which isn't quite the same thing.
 

you are correct that my claim is that "truth is subjective". No matter how hard you try, you cannot turn my claim into a statement by me of "absolute truth". My claim itself acknowledges that what is the truth may vary between people.

you football stadium example also fails. If the subject was concealed and people only heard what was happening, then there would not  be a collective perception as to what really happened. You and I both know that a good portion of the people there would question "why won't they let us see?" "Somethings not right here" and "oh, this is BS". The net result would be that a significant percentage of people would perceive that it is a trick and that she was not burned. The truth would be in controversy. Therefore we do not know the truth - we have no true collective perception.

I already covered the magic show example - read above.

You say that "truth is what it is" - I say prove it. How you ask? We develop a collective perception as a group and it becomes the truth.

you just made my argument for me.

"If that were true, there would be no truth" Exactly my point - there is no absolute truth, only relative truth

"The truth is, you can't get all of us to agree on anything." You support my point again. However, I never said that "all of us" have to agree to determine what is the truth, I said that there has to be a collective perception to determine truth. Back to my prior example, if a million people perceive that my hand is on the knob, but one person says that it is not, then the collective perception rules and "the truth is his hand is on the knob!"

"How someone feels about something or how they perceive it has no bearing on whether it's true." - I never said how someone "feels" about something matters at all. Feeling cannot be true or false. However, how someone (collectively) perceives something does determine its truth.

I disagree. You would need a qualifier for this example. "how someone (collectively) perceives something does determine its truth TO THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL." Meaning - truth is relative, at least to this specific individual.
My argument is simple. If there is a single, sovereign, all powerful God, truth can be what He makes it. And how He makes it IS THRUTH, regardless of how something is perceived. And it also means He can make it relative to some and absolute to others.

What a can of worms this has turned out to be eh?  
Love it!  Don

false





the truth is out there, regardless of our inability to agree





we could all agree the moon is made of green cheese and call it truth, but it doesn't change what the moon is really made of.





Absolute truth exists, our ability to perceive that truth is in question.





I don't believe in God, but my disbelief has no bearing on his existence or non-existence.