The Truth behind the Truth

[Rpatino]

Hello, my name is Richard Patiño. I am a Venezuelan living in Connecticut and a person deeply interested in the Catholic faith, theological reflection, and dialogue about the values of the Gospel in everyday life.
I am passionate about writing and sharing ideas that integrate the spiritual, philosophical, and social dimensions of the human person. I have currently developed a literary work titled Lázaro del Roble: Verdad, Vida y Amor, in which I explore themes related to personal formation, the absence of values, and the search for meaning from a Christian perspective.
I am here with the desire to learn, share, and grow through respectful exchange with other members of the forum.
Fraternal greetings in Christ.

 

[Rpatino]

What Is Truth?
What is truth? What is it made of? Does it have an origin, an age, or a beginning?
Is truth something that changes, or is it absolute and unchanging?
And what about life? What is its substance? Can it be divided, or does it remain whole? Does it accept composition, or is it something indivisible at its core?
Why is it important to ask these questions? And even more what happens when we begin to find answers?
When Jesus Christ said, “I am the truth and the life,” what did He truly mean? Was He speaking metaphorically, or revealing something essential about the nature of reality itself?
When Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?”, was he asking a philosophical questionor standing before the very answer without recognizing it?
Who can truly answer these questions? Science, philosophy, theology or something beyond all three?
And if one day you come to understand what truth is… what will you do with it?
I would like to share with you my thoughts and ideas about truth, life, and love, and I would love for you to share your opinions with me as well.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Welcome to the forum. I look forward to your good contributions.

 

[vz71]

What Is Truth?
What is truth? What is it made of? Does it have an origin, an age, or a beginning?
Is truth something that changes, or is it absolute and unchanging?

Just something a little lightweight to think about...
I don't know if I am qualified to even approach the questions. But if you care to narrow the field a little...

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Rpatino]

Just something a little lightweight to think about...
I don't know if I am qualified to even approach the questions. But if you care to narrow the field a little...

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you so much for the warm welcome! I really appreciate it. I’ll be sharing my perspective on the topic with you soon, and I’d love to hear some of your opinions beforehand.

 

[Rpatino]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his monumental work Summa Theologica, teaches that the chain of causes we observe in the world points toward what he calls the First Efficient Cause. Nothing can give itself existence, for every effect must proceed from a cause. If this chain of causality were infinite, nothing would have come into being. Therefore, he concludes that there must exist a First Cause, uncaused and eternal, from whom all things receive their existence.
This First Cause is God. St. Thomas further teaches that God is absolutely simple and pure, admitting no division or composition. He is not made of parts, nor is He subject to change. Rather, God is pure being itself—subsistent and perfect—simple in His essence and the source of all that exists.
This conclusion emerges from the discernment of St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking directly and strictly about God. But could there be any other reality that may be subjected to the same discernment and analytical procedure, and arrive at the same result?
I share this reflection so that, by applying the same discernment, we might attempt to explore and find answers to the questions initially posed regarding truth and life.
I would greatly appreciate knowing the opinions of the participants in this forum regarding the ideas I have shared here.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his monumental work Summa Theologica, teaches that the chain of causes we observe in the world points toward what he calls the First Efficient Cause. Nothing can give itself existence, for every effect must proceed from a cause. If this chain of causality were infinite, nothing would have come into being. Therefore, he concludes that there must exist a First Cause, uncaused and eternal, from whom all things receive their existence.
This First Cause is God. St. Thomas further teaches that God is absolutely simple and pure, admitting no division or composition. He is not made of parts, nor is He subject to change. Rather, God is pure being itself—subsistent and perfect—simple in His essence and the source of all that exists.
This conclusion emerges from the discernment of St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking directly and strictly about God. But could there be any other reality that may be subjected to the same discernment and analytical procedure, and arrive at the same result?
I share this reflection so that, by applying the same discernment, we might attempt to explore and find answers to the questions initially posed regarding truth and life.
I would greatly appreciate knowing the opinions of the participants in this forum regarding the ideas I have shared here.

Sounds like you've got it all pretty much down pat. Good stuff. Keep it up.

 

[Rpatino]

Sounds like you've got it all pretty much down pat. Good stuff. Keep it up.

Yes, I do have a fairly solid understanding of the topic. However, my main question and intention are to explore how important it is for a Catholic Christian to engage with these fundamental questions about truth, life, and love, and to get a sense of the level of interest and participation among Catholics in developing this topic.
For me, this has been something deeply revealing and impactful. It has led me to a more profound knowledge of God, and as a result, it has made me admire and love Him even more than I already did.

 

[vz71]

This conclusion emerges from the discernment of St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking directly and strictly about God. But could there be any other reality that may be subjected to the same discernment and analytical procedure, and arrive at the same result?

If I understand the question right, you are asking if it is possible to utilize the prime mover argument for God and not arrive at God?
Just offhand, I would think not.

However, my main question and intention are to explore how important it is for a Catholic Christian to engage with these fundamental questions about truth, life, and love, and to get a sense of the level of interest and participation among Catholics in developing this topic.

Not very important for a lot of Christians.
I am sure we can all relate to that one or two in our daily life that seem to have a blind faith in God.
The deeper questions and proofs of God simply do not apply. They have their faith, and the rest is irrelevant.

My wife is one of those especially aggravating individuals. She says she has a personal experience of God, and therefore has no use for some philosophical proof of his existence. I cannot argue the truth that she is faithful and knows / loves God. But she requires no deeper philosophy then her own experience.

So while my boys and I are going over the meatier philosophical proofs (and loving every minute); she thinks it all as pointless as God simply is as an axiom for her.
"Big deal...you spent hours to prove something that needs no proof." She says. "Do you really need to philosophically prove a hammer exists when someone is hitting you with it?"

I am reminded of St Thomas Aquinas realizing all of his writings were as straw to the reality.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If I understand the question right, you are asking if it is possible to utilize the prime mover argument for God and not arrive at God?
Just offhand, I would think not.

Arguendo, you could just say that everything has always existed and was not created, or rather, we cannot prove that it was created. I don't take that approach, but that is what some Asian philosophies would tell you, or rather, they might not try to explain it in the first place.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Not very important for a lot of Christians.
I am sure we can all relate to that one or two in our daily life that seem to have a blind faith in God.
The deeper questions and proofs of God simply do not apply. They have their faith, and the rest is irrelevant.

My wife is one of those especially aggravating individuals. She says she has a personal experience of God, and therefore has no use for some philosophical proof of his existence. I cannot argue the truth that she is faithful and knows / loves God. But she requires no deeper philosophy then her own experience.

So while my boys and I are going over the meatier philosophical proofs (and loving every minute); she thinks it all as pointless as God simply is as an axiom for her.
"Big deal...you spent hours to prove something that needs no proof." She says. "Do you really need to philosophically prove a hammer exists when someone is hitting you with it?"

I am reminded of St Thomas Aquinas realizing all of his writings were as straw to the reality.

The philosophical proofs are very helpful, especially to those whose faith is weak, such as myself. It may "feel" purer and more trusting of God just to have faith and not seek to have any proofs, but everyone is different.

Personal experiences mean a lot to those who have them, but not everyone has them. I myself have, on a handful of occasions, but many do not.

There are also natural-law arguments for morality, indeed, I have found that the last seven of the Ten Commandments are basically natural law. Case in point, I was on my way home today in the car, and I saw a woman on the jogging trail who appeared to be in distress. I turned around and went back to see about her, and he was okay, she was just taking a rest by sitting on the trail. I don't need a religion or a lawgiver to tell me that stopping to see about her was the right thing to do. That is why I am puzzled by people who say they would have no sense of right and wrong, nothing to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do, if they didn't have religious moral teachings. For one thing, if everyone just ran amok and did whatever they had an urge to do, the world would go to rot in a great big hurry. Even some animals rush to help other creatures in distress, though to be fair, other animals see this and simply devour the creature.

 

[Rpatino]

If I understand the question right, you are asking if it is possible to utilize the prime mover argument for God and not arrive at God?
Just offhand, I would think not.


Not very important for a lot of Christians.
I am sure we can all relate to that one or two in our daily life that seem to have a blind faith in God.
The deeper questions and proofs of God simply do not apply. They have their faith, and the rest is irrelevant.

My wife is one of those especially aggravating individuals. She says she has a personal experience of God, and therefore has no use for some philosophical proof of his existence. I cannot argue the truth that she is faithful and knows / loves God. But she requires no deeper philosophy then her own experience.

So while my boys and I are going over the meatier philosophical proofs (and loving every minute); she thinks it all as pointless as God simply is as an axiom for her.
"Big deal...you spent hours to prove something that needs no proof." She says. "Do you really need to philosophically prove a hammer exists when someone is hitting you with it?"

I am reminded of St Thomas Aquinas realizing all of his writings were as straw to the reality.

Ialso want to say that I truly admire the way your wife lives her faith. It seems to me a very pure kind of faith—one that doesn’t rely on arguments to be strong and steadfast.

What I’m really asking is whether we can apply the concept of the First Mover to something other than God, and from there discover that it ultimately leads us to God.
Even more, I’m wondering if, by following that line of reasoning, we might come to recognize that what we initially considered to be “something else” could, in fact, also point to or participate in what we understand as God.
I also want to say that I truly admire the way your wife lives her faith. It seems to me a very pure kind of faith—one that doesn’t rely on arguments to be strong and steadfast
At the same time, those of us who seek to discover ever deeper truths of the faith do not do so simply in order to believe, but rather to come to know God more deeply. This search expands our capacity to encounter the One we love and leads us into a more intimate relationship with Him. In that sense, our admiration, praise, and worship are enriched by these new insights, which ignite within the soul a deeper desire to glorify Him.
I have already applied this method of reasoning to truth, life, and love in order to explore what they are made of, what composes them, their nature, their origin, and even their “age,” and for me, the results were truly revealing.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Proofs for the existence of God are one other thing that the enemies of religion hate. If people can be brought to believe that "it's all about faith", then the naysayer can come right back and say "well, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so your faith is just between your own two ears, people believe different things". If it can be proven that certain philosophical conclusions are inescapable, then all they can do is murmur something about children having terminal cancer, or the Holocaust, or some reason that there cannot be a God. I suspect that some of them simply don't want there to be a God, maybe because it would require them to change something about their lives. Don't tell me there aren't people like that.

 

[Rpatino]

Proofs for the existence of God are one other thing that the enemies of religion hate. If people can be brought to believe that "it's all about faith", then the naysayer can come right back and say "well, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so your faith is just between your own two ears, people believe different things". If it can be proven that certain philosophical conclusions are inescapable, then all they can do is murmur something about children having terminal cancer, or the Holocaust, or some reason that there cannot be a God. I suspect that some of them simply don't want there to be a God, maybe because it would require them to change something about their lives. Don't tell me there aren't people like that.

I think you’re absolutely right. In fact, I believe there is another way to demonstrate the existence of God beyond the traditional concept of God—that is, by approaching Him through a quasi-scientific, analytical, and logical line of thought, one that could even be, to some extent, verifiable. This is exactly what I want to share, and it’s what is already written in my book, yet no one seems able to see it, appreciate it, or perhaps even understand it.
All of this is explained in a simple and accessible way in my book, yet I’m rarely given credit—probably because I’m not a theologian or an established writer. Still, I’m confident that I could discuss these ideas with even the most eminent theologian or scientist without fear of being disproven or defeated in my arguments.
That’s why I believe forums and communities like this play such an important role for me, because they give me a way to present my ideas to the world.
It’s something that laypeople don’t want to understand, scientists tend to reject, and theologians, so far, have overlooked—if not outright ignored.

 

[vz71]

Arguendo, you could just say that everything has always existed and was not created, or rather, we cannot prove that it was created.

One could. But they quickly run into a couple of problems. For one, everything that we can see indicates a beginning somewhere.

What I’m really asking is whether we can apply the concept of the First Mover to something other than God, and from there discover that it ultimately leads us to God.

I'm not certain it is possible to apply an argument for God to something that is not God.

It seems to me a very pure kind of faith—one that doesn’t rely on arguments to be strong and steadfast

Yeah. But this is also the faith that keeps her attending her Pentecostal church even though she sees theological inconsistencies within their theology.
Sure, she sees incorrect theology at play...but she feels God there.
Sure she can understand what we tell her about the Mass, that the Eucharist is God, that one cannot be closer this side of eternity then to participate in the sacrifice...but she does not feel God at the Mass. So it doesn't matter to her.

At the same time, those of us who seek to discover ever deeper truths of the faith do not do so simply in order to believe, but rather to come to know God more deeply.

Amen.

 

[Rpatino]

One could. But they quickly run into a couple of problems. For one, everything that we can see indicates a beginning somewhere.

I'm not certain it is possible to apply an argument for God to something that is not God.

Yeah. But this is also the faith that keeps her attending her Pentecostal church even though she sees theological inconsistencies within their theology.
Sure, she sees incorrect theology at play...but she feels God there.
Sure she can understand what we tell her about the Mass, that the Eucharist is God, that one cannot be closer this side of eternity then to participate in the sacrifice...but she does not feel God at the Mass. So it doesn't matter to her.

Amen.

Got you, you are right

 

[Rpatino]

I'm going to share part of the chapter from my book the one where I explain how truth is consubstantial with God. I’d like you to analyze it and tell me how you understand it, as well as what impact you think it could have on both Christians and non-Christians.

Lazarus del Roble truth, life, and love.

""Speaking of "what am I," I must confess that sometimes I get a bit philosophical and begin to reflect on those great mysteries of life, for which one almost never has an answer and simply says: "Oh, what a mystery!" What I'm going to share now doesn't necessarily need to be understood; I just do it so you can understand my way of thinking. Sometimes I think it's crazy. But if you understand it, perhaps between your craziness and mine, we can be two lunatics walking through life, believing in truth and honoring it.
I must acknowledge the truth. Referring to the "truth" of what I am, I sometimes stay a little longer reflecting without giving up, until I find certain answers to questions. Like, is what I believe I am, really what I am? In other words, is the concept I have of myself the true perspective? Is that view the truth? At this point, whose truth matters: mine or someone else's?
Then again, maybe we both have part of the truth. So, the idea of "Truth" may be relative, not absolute. If they have part of the truth about who I am, and I have part of the truth about who I think I am, then what we both think about me is not completely true. But is there an absolute truth? And what is truth in itself? To apply it to myself and not have a portion of truth that belongs to someone else (because they see me from a different point), or the portion of truth I have of myself (because I know myself better than anyone else does), I would like to have absolute truth, not partial. Absolute truth, not relative. For that, I must understand what the truth is.
Is Truth an act? Is Truth tangible, palpable even? Does it have substance? Is it subject to time? What is Truth? What is something true? Well, for me, something true is what exists. For example, I'd say something like: "I exist because I am true, and I am true because I exist." So now, we would have to talk about existence, to talk about Truth. If everything that exists is true, the characteristics and the perception of that existing concept are subject to the perception of other created things. This perception is what makes it partial—the perception of created things in relation to the absolute truth of another. Without the absolute truth ceasing to be absolute because someone else cannot perceive it. The absolute truth ceases to be absolute when someone else cannot perceive it. So, in the beginning, whoever created the first thing already existed and had to be true; therefore, truth could not have been created, because if truth were created, whoever created it did not possess truth, because it didn't exist yet. This is how the origin of all things must possess truth, because it possesses existence, and must be the origin of all things, being true before all things. Therefore, truth has always existed before all things.
And if everything I have just said contains something logical and true, then our madness opens the path for those who seek truth outside of truth, by providing a necessary and genuine factor to demonstrate the origin of all things. This people Seek to observe it, explore it, measure it, and understand the truth through its reflection in created things, and although these (created things) contain what is true in them neither defines nor represents it. On the contrary, it is the Truth that defines them, and they only reflect the Truth.
Therefore, those who wish to find the Truth in created things are like the blind groping in the dark outside the Truth, trying to discover what can only be contained within the Truth itself.
If truth is an absolute and existing act, with attributes and qualities that grant the capacity to transfer its own energy and, as a consequence, mass, then I conclude that truth can be represented in equations (equations that can exist or come to exist) that reveal the origin of all things as an axiom of the Absolute. This factor could be expressed with the symbol T = Absolute Truth, or with the symbol Alpha = the Absolute, which doesn’t allow increase, decrease, division, or any mixture within its essence.
I hope one can understand the process in which I am thinking and reaching toward. I'm nothing more than an ordinary worker without the sufficient intellect to delve into things that only philosophers and enlightened minds can, although I am curious and determined– which allows me to keep searching for said truth.
Returning to self-reflection, I am true because I exist, but my reality is a partial reality, and I must find the fullness of my truth, the fullness of who I am; only then can I be happy."""

 

[HomeschoolDad]

One could. But they quickly run into a couple of problems. For one, everything that we can see indicates a beginning somewhere.

I run the risk of getting way out of my wheelhouse here, but it is my understanding that some Asian philosophies simply envision a great chain of being, with no beginning and no end. In such a philosophy, everything has presumably always existed in one form or another, and always will. I have in mind at least some flavors of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I'd better stop at that point, because I simply don't know that much about it.

 

[Rpatino]

I run the risk of getting way out of my wheelhouse here, but it is my understanding that some Asian philosophies simply envision a great chain of being, with no beginning and no end. In such a philosophy, everything has presumably always existed in one form or another, and always will. I have in mind at least some flavors of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I'd better stop at that point, because I simply don't know that much about it.

I invite you to read the section of Lázaro del Roble: Truth, Life, and Love that I just shared in the forum, where it explains why there must necessarily have been a being who created everything. It presents this idea in a methodical, almost scientific way. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on it

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I invite you to read the section of Lázaro del Roble: Truth, Life, and Love that I just shared in the forum, where it explains why there must necessarily have been a being who created everything. It presents this idea in a methodical, almost scientific way. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on it

You are on solid ground, and I agree with you, but not everyone shares that philosophical outlook. Not saying that is a good thing, just stating the fact.