B
Bahman
Guest
Very good example. Apparently those who claim that they have known the objective truth made such a mistake, believing that sun turns around the earth.
Can you provide me with another example?
- Status
Can you provide me with another example?
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
As far as the original question: “Can we say that “God IS” is an objective truth?”
The simple answer is: We can say anything that we want to say but that doesn’t mean that it adds up a a hill of beans.
One of the interesting things about “God IS”, is the “fact”, to me at least, that it says much more than anyone could say, no matter how many words they say it with.
As a matter of fact, didn’t He, Who is referred to as God-Incarnate, say something about “multiplying words”?
The simple answer is: We can say anything that we want to say but that doesn’t mean that it adds up a a hill of beans.
One of the interesting things about “God IS”, is the “fact”, to me at least, that it says much more than anyone could say, no matter how many words they say it with.
As a matter of fact, didn’t He, Who is referred to as God-Incarnate, say something about “multiplying words”?
T
TheSecondMile
Guest
I was using the word caused loosely, not meaning efficient cause. Obviously, something cannot be the efficient cause if itself because then it would have to be prior to itself.
Of course God is love because God is a trinity. As you say, love is not an attribute of God but is God’s very being. Hatred and evil are a lack of being, privations in other words.
Yes, God is beyond our full comprehension, mysterious in other words, but we can still use reason to come to know him better, which is in no way “puffs ourselves up and puffs down God.” Faith seeks understanding. The use of reason to understand God can help us to know him better.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Sure. I can see about 150 things which exist in my room. These are objective truths in reality. And just because you can’t see them does not mean they do not exist. In the same way, just because you can’t see God, does not mean he does not exist.
Linus2nd
S
seagal
Guest
Actually, no. Not everyone has to believe something for it to be true. As an example, there are people who do not believe that man landed on the moon, that it was all a big conspiracy, and will provide you with all kinds of “evidence” to prove their case. And how about the whole concept of global warming? You have people in both camps vehemently arguing their side and showing their evidence. One group is right, but there is no consensus which one it is.
B
Bahman
Guest
It has to be universal.
S
seagal
Guest
It has to be universally true, it doesn’t have to be universally believed.
B
Bahman
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It has to be universal in the sense that the truth of it would be available to any possible knowers. However, that does not guarantee all potential knowers will accept the truth of it. There may be other factors, such as current understanding, perspective, bias or motivation that keep some from acknowledging or accepting the truth.
Universal does not entail universally accepted. The critical feature is whether the knowers CAN know or accept as known – for whatever reason – the truth of a thing.
B
Bahman
Guest
It has to universal in respect to thoughts and feelings, when you are women/men of minds and hearts.
S
seagal
Guest
And I say again, absolute (or objective) truth doesn’t have to be universally believed in order to be an absolute truth.
B
Bahman
Guest
So you have to look at reality with one eye. What you believe deals with different aspect of reality than what you know.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What does this – “universal in respect to thoughts and feelings” – even mean?
“In respect to” could mean almost anything or nothing at all.
Roughly translated it could mean “pertains to” or “has something vaguely to do with;” both of which are so imprecise as to entail that universal has some “undefined or unstated relationship with” thoughts and feelings, which gets us precisely nowhere.
B
Bahman
Guest
In respect to=in relation to. That is what I meant.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Now, we have reached agreement. They are truths to you, which I respect, they are not facts.
John
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
Are you saying a thing cannot be a fact unless you know about it? I think you are falling in to the same behaviour as Linus.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Oh, I don’t know.
“The sky is blue,” would seem a clear statement of fact but, also, very much open for discussion, since the sky isn’t really “blue.”
Most facts are taken to “signify” something about the real world, much of which depends upon the current state of certainty - which always carries with it at least some discussion as to veracity.
Gravity may be a “fact” in the sense you mean, but the theories about what gravity is and why it works the way it does are far from being closed to discussion.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Wouldn’t that better describe Bahman’s shtick rather than Linus’?
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
Bahman is like the homeless drunk man who has many theories both strange and wonderful.
I don’t blame him.
Linus acts like he cannot possible be wrong; so he should know better. I blame him when he is wrong.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Well, strange at least.
uch: Oh I can be wrong - but not often I hope. So where did I go wrong this time?Pax
Linus2nd
- Status