Many truths?

[brendan0]

Hello, I am having a discussion with a nonbeliever. He is saying it is possible for many truths to exist, that don’t contradict one another, I agree. But surely since there is an ultimate truth, these sub-truths are related, and do build up to another truth, on and on like a pyramid. Would I be correct in saying that many truths, are building up to an ultimate truth, that is God? Here is what he says…

*"The fundamental flaw in your understanding of this concept is an issue of cardinality. There are many objects (an abstraction of a subject that is equatable, comparable and query-able), and there are many truths, however the relationship of objects and truths is always 1:1. Contradiction is therefore not a possibility.

Furthermore, the objects and truths exist in a set that is rhizomic in nature. As such, your assertion that a pyramid (or any sort of hierarchy) could be built is also an impossibility."*

I would appreciate your help, thanks.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Hello, I am having a discussion with a nonbeliever. He is saying it is possible for many truths to exist, that don’t contradict one another.

He needs to demonstrate this and not just arbitrarily state it. In this case, the benefit of assumption does not apply when common sense says otherwise, he need to carries the burden of proof.

 

[empther]

Yes, there are many truths.

What’s the problem?

 

[brendan0]

Yes, there are many truths.

What’s the problem?

Well, he doesn’t believe in an absolute truth. But surely if there are many truths, they must relate in some way to God, who is truth. If God is the source of all truth, wouldn’t these many truths be part of this hierarchy?

 

[empther]

Well, he doesn’t believe in an absolute truth. But surely if there are many truths, they must relate in some way to God, who is truth. If God is the source of all truth, wouldn’t these many truths be part of this hierarchy?

God is truth, as he is omnicient,
and all truths are related to God as he is the creator and sustainer of the universe through his knowledge of truth which is infinite and therefore is the Son of God.

Nevertherless,
things exist that are not God, and these things change.

Are there seven billion people in the world? Yes, but it wasn’t always true, and won’t be true in the future when there are more.

I see no benefit in building a pyramid of truths other than to recogize the truth of God’s existence is more important then the true number of nails in an old barn… There is God, and there are the things of this world, and both should be known.

 

[hannajomar]

You could ask him, “is it true that there are many truths?”

 

[Sam_777]

God is truth, as he is omnicient,
and all truths are related to God as he is the creator and sustainer of the universe through his knowledge of truth which is infinite and therefore is the Son of God.

Nevertherless,
things exist that are not God, and these things change.

Are there seven billion people in the world? Yes, but it wasn’t always true, and won’t be true in the future when there are more.

I see no benefit in building a pyramid of truths other than to recogize the truth of God’s existence is more important then the true number of nails in an old barn… There is God, and there are the things of this world, and both should be known.

 

[Gaber]

Hello, I am having a discussion with a nonbeliever. He is saying it is possible for many truths to exist, that don’t contradict one another, I agree. But surely since there is an ultimate truth, these sub-truths are related, and do build up to another truth, on and on like a pyramid. Would I be correct in saying that many truths, are building up to an ultimate truth, that is God? Here is what he says…

*"The fundamental flaw in your understanding of this concept is an issue of cardinality. There are many objects (an abstraction of a subject that is equatable, comparable and query-able), and there are many truths, however the relationship of objects and truths is always 1:1. Contradiction is therefore not a possibility.

Furthermore, the objects and truths exist in a set that is rhizomic in nature. As such, your assertion that a pyramid (or any sort of hierarchy) could be built is also an impossibility."*

I would appreciate your help, thanks.

A non-beleiver in what?

A a Catholic, it is likely that you beleive in objectivity. That is a primary error, as while there is commonality and consensus, there is no such thing as objectivity, just as there is no actual thing as time. it is all relaitve to perspective and assumption. Logically, things may be realtively true given accepting a premise. But how Real is the premise? Unless it is the incomprehensible by mind Allness of God, you have parts and therefore realtive truth.

To assume a pyramidic structure of reality in the sense of building up to Truth is questionable, as was the tower of Babel. If anything, Truth as Fact ought be the Star reasoned put form, not up to. After all, anything used by a mortal mind as a bulding block is prone to pass, and quickly. So what can be used as solid ground?

Book learning is just that. You can intellectually “know” things, and even “know” the Bible and dogma. But that is not expereintial knowledge and is in the cataegory of belief. And that works until something better is found. And that might, for some, be the method of self inquiry. Until then there is faith and teleology.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well, the idea of ‘absolute truth’ is actually a metaphor. ‘Truth’, in its normal, conversational sense, pertains to a relationship between a proposition and a reality. Now, ‘absolute truth’ is not a proposition (summed up in the “I am the Truth”).

So, ‘absolute truth’ is of a different category- kind of like a Truth which is not in words, or Enlightenment, or something. Therefore, it is truth in a different, metaphoric sense.

 

[empther]

Well, the idea of ‘absolute truth’ is actually a metaphor.

:dts:
　
Definition of METAPHOR
1
: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly**:** figurative language — compare simile
2
: an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol

‘Truth’, in its normal, conversational sense, pertains to a relationship between a proposition and a reality. Now, ‘absolute truth’ is not a proposition (summed up in the “I am the Truth”).

So, ‘absolute truth’ is of a different category- kind of like a Truth which is not in words, or Enlightenment, or something. Therefore, it is truth in a different, metaphoric sense.

:dts:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

however the relationship of objects and truths is always 1:1. Contradiction is therefore not a possibility.

That doesn’t sound like something I would agree with. However in discussions like these I would first nail down what is meant by “truth.” Used in your discussion does it mean more than just propositions that are evaluated as true?

 

[Qoeleth]

:dts:
　
Definition of METAPHOR
1
: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly**:** figurative language — compare simile
2
: an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol

:dts:

It is a metaphor. The ‘normal’ definition of truth is correspondence between a statement a reality. Jesus is called “Absolute Truth”. It is a metaphor.

The Bible is full of metaphors. At least, this is the Catholic tradition. Are you really sure you are a Catholic?

 

[empther]

It is a metaphor. The ‘normal’ definition of truth is correspondence between a statement a reality. Jesus is called “Absolute Truth”. It is a metaphor.

Since Jesus really is ‘absolute truth’, the phrase is not a metaphor. It’s not a symbol for, or substitute for, what he is. It really is what he is.

You always try to use big words to sound intellectual, but you misuse them.

The Bible is full of metaphors. At least, this is the Catholic tradition. Are you really sure you are a Catholic?

I been going to our local St. Joseph’s Catholic Church for 60 years. How about you?

 

[Spirithound]

What does “rhizomic” mean?

 

[TarkanAttila]

What does “rhizomic” mean?

Rhizome. Noun. definition: A horizontal, usually underground stem that often sends out roots and shoots from its nodes. Also called rootstalk, rootstock.

I think what Brendan’s atheist friend is trying to say is that he’s smarter than everyone else because he can make up fancy-sounding words without them having any relevance to the discussion.

however the relationship of objects and truths is always 1:1

I would like to see him define truth, and define objects, and them demonstrate this proposition.

Then I would like him to demonstrate how this is at all relevant to your proposition. It sounds like a big, stinky red herring.

For, simply because there might be a 1:1 ratio for truths and objects (which I completely doubt) does not mean they are arranged in such a way that one is not the ultimate truth, or the ultimate object, which holds all the rest together. That is, unless he can demonstrate otherwise, it is also perfectly plausible to believe that, without God (the Absolute Truth), no other truth could exist.

Tell me, have you been talking to him on the Richard Dawkins forums?

 

[fred_conty]

Hello, I am having a discussion with a nonbeliever. He is saying it is possible for many truths to exist, that don’t contradict one another, I agree. But surely since there is an ultimate truth, these sub-truths are related, and do build up to another truth, on and on like a pyramid. Would I be correct in saying that many truths, are building up to an ultimate truth, that is God? Here is what he says…

*"The fundamental flaw in your understanding of this concept is an issue of cardinality. There are many objects (an abstraction of a subject that is equatable, comparable and query-able), and there are many truths, however the relationship of objects and truths is always 1:1. Contradiction is therefore not a possibility.

Furthermore, the objects and truths exist in a set that is rhizomic in nature. As such, your assertion that a pyramid (or any sort of hierarchy) could be built is also an impossibility."*

I would appreciate your help, thanks.

I would try to help if I knew what he said.

 

[brendan0]

I asked him to demonstrate, this was his reply…

“The set (operating in a domain of -∞, ∞], much like the universe we inhabit) contains abstract objects (and their associated truths) that are casually interconnected, with none of the object chains possessing a start point or an end point. This can be illustrated by the fact that any given conversation that follows a complete (Turing-esque) progression of questions will inevitably overlap and repeat on itself. This decentralisation makes the implementation of a hierarchical structure impossible, for common sense reasons.”

Maybe my idea of a truth pyramid is wrong, but where does God come into all these different truths? Surely they must relate to eachother in someway?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I asked him to demonstrate, this was his reply…

Sounds like your friend has a background in math or computer science. Did the two of you ever nail down a definition for truth? It is possible you two ate talking about different concepts.

 

[JDaniel]

What does “rhizomic” mean?

SH:

That it spreads out like St. Augustine grass, linearly across a flat surface, for example.

In my humble opinion, I think there is One Transcendental Truth, i.e., God, from which all other truths obtain their ground. Besides that a “truth” is correspondent with its objectum, it must also be a futurum exactum (future perfect). A Truth cannot be true now, then be false later (unless it is purposely designed to be a short-term truth, e.g., “Your money will earn interest a 2.02% per annum, but that’s subject to change.” (And will change, in the future.)

But, an eternal truth is a Truth now (or from the past) that will remain true indefinitely. For example, that I wrote this post today, 12/19/2012, at about 1:00 PM, and posted it on Catholic Answers Forum, will be as true a thousand years from now as it is today. In fact, it will be as true when all of us are gone, having slipped into frozen stillness, as it is today. Thus, Truth finds its grounding not merely in a correspondence, but also in its eternality.

But, everything we know is finite - except God, and spiritual life. So, it cannot be the finite things of the world that ground the Truth, it must be something else. (Dialectic) This question is precisely the reason why cosmologists have had to run to theories like ‘multiple universes’, and ‘infinite past universes’. But, you see, such answers fail to satisfy. “By means of [the allegory of the cave], Plato intends to present the world of ideas as the true reality and the material world as a mere image of reality.” (Rationality and Faith in God, sec. I, pp, 619, delivered 6 December 2004 at the Hochschule für Philosophie in Munich.)

Is this “reality?” This chain of causes and effects, of motion and stillness, of coming to be and passing away? Do we find God solely at the beginning and solely as the beginner? I don’t think so. I think that God is the ground and cause of the entire chain and every one of its links. We know that “God is within everything.” Some call that “within,” Nothingness, others call it “God.” He is the “within” of all things. He causes positive “mass,” and negative mass. He causes “motion,” and stillness. He causes “understanding,” and unintelligibility. What we perceive is only this hologram of reality.

God bless,
jd