We Must ALL Agree (part 1)

[tGette]

Though Divinely inspired, I have decided to begin a series of threads.
I do not know when the next will come, but my basis for all this hangs on this quote from:

**John 17:17-23
**

Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

Regardless of your beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), etc. this verse is a summary of my goal. I want us to be one!

For this to be possible…we must agree…

Now…this forum and the world is flooded with differing beliefs on everything. And all I see is a run around of arguments and debates.

So I figure we need to start at the very basics and begin on topics where we know we can agree and let that be our foundation. So then we can build from there and, God Willing, gradually agree on more subjects and more specific, detailed subjects.

**So, let us start off simple:

Do we agree that truth is truth?
We will get nowhere if we do not agree on this.

Basically: Do we(you) believe truth is absolute?
(If you believe that truth is relative, then debates are kind of pointless, no?)

In summation, for us ever to agree, we must first agree that there is a truth to be found.
**

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Do we agree that truth is truth?

Basically: Do we(you) believe truth is absolute?

In summation, for us ever to agree, we must first agree that there is a truth to be found.

Yes, truth is truth and it is absolute and it is findable, or receivable.

 

[Rawb]

Yes, truth is truth and it is absolute and it is findable, or receivable

A key point, and yes, I believe Truth is absolute, and knowable.

 

[Rawb]

Yet multidimensional and seemingly paradoxical

How so? I generally find it to be very black and white. Describing something as ‘partly true’ implies that there is a closer ‘truth’ that is definitive, therefore ‘black’ to the contrary (and therefor false) ‘white’. Saying something is seemingly a paradox says it is not, and therefor truth can be understood, with a little study, to be totally in one direction and, despite what it may ‘seem’, is not relativistic or contrary to itself or other truths in any way.

 

[Americanrevert]

**

So, let us start off simple:

Do we agree that truth is truth?
We will get nowhere if we do not agree on this.

Basically: Do we(you) believe truth is absolute?
(If you believe that truth is relative, then debates are kind of pointless, no?)

In summation, for us ever to agree, we must first agree that there is a truth to be found.

Yes, truth is truth if it is proven and found truthful.*.

americanrevert**

 

[reen12]

So, let us start off simple:

Do we agree that truth is truth?

One must first define terms.

Truth is that which conforms with reality.

People hold different views, because they
have different takes on what constitutes
reality = ‘the truth.’

For example: I hold the following to be realities:

-Jesus of Nazareth was not a God/man.
-man is born in innocence
-there is no such thing as original sin - an ontological sin -
a sin in man’s very being, ‘inherited’ from Adam

Another individual might hold that a deity exists,
because of the complexity and beauty of creation.
For that individual, Deity exists and is Creator
conforms to reality = this is ‘true.’

Still others may accept various scriptures as
expressing theological realities.

Jesus of Nazareth said a staggering thing:
He did not say I ‘have’ the truth. He said
I am the truth.

Does his claim conform to reality?

How one replies to this, determines if one
is a Christian or a non-Christian.

So the first step would be to find a* definition*
of truth - that is agreed upon, by those taking
part in the discussion.

My definition?

Truth is that which conforms with reality. :tiphat:

reen12

 

[Rawb]

Yes, but absolute truth can only be conveyed through actions. Using words will fail you, because not everyone has the same vocabulary, among other reasons.

That sounds like a weasel’s argument out of debate. Words have different meanings, so define your words. If two people speak the same language then they can be made to understand in what context the words they are using are being used.

Actions can mean different things in different cultures as well, so your argument is flawed.

Catholics believe you can come to know and realize certain truths free of faith. It’s called Natural reasoning. As you claim you are Catholic, you must agree that one can know absolute truth by natural reasoning alone, and that man then owe’s his allegiance to that truth, by the definition of it being truth. Also, as you are claiming to be Catholic, you must agree that truth often is absolute despite the ways in which people may explain it. There are certain things that are intrinsically evil. Knowing that, we find that there must be absolute truth because we can absolutely, truthfully say that those things are evil. Whether or not we use words or actions to explain and define this is irrelevent because the fact remains that there is an absolute truth there.

Truth is that which conforms with reality

But that doesn’t work because of your point that reality can be percieved differently, and thus what conforms with reality can be different, and there logically can be only one truth.

For example. You place an egg under a bowl. You believe there is an egg under that bowl, and that conforms to your reality, so you say it is true. I haven’t seen you put the egg under the bowl, I have no evidence of it, so I percieve that there is no egg under the bowl and that conforms to my reality of a lack of evidence.

Does my truth stand? Even though I don’t beleive the egg is there, isn’t it still there? So obviously the truth can exist outside of what someone’s reality confirmations are.

 

[Valke2]

If we are talking about absolute truth as it applies to a Divine Presence that transends time and space. That is infinite. Then it is not possible for physical, finite beings, to fully comprehend such an absolute truth.

 

[Little_Katie]

How so? I generally find it to be very black and white. Describing something as ‘partly true’ implies that there is a closer ‘truth’ that is definitive, therefore ‘black’ to the contrary (and therefor false) ‘white’. Saying something is seemingly a paradox says it is not, and therefor truth can be understood, with a little study, to be totally in one direction and, despite what it may ‘seem’, is not relativistic or contrary to itself or other truths in any way.

I completely agree with this. If there is an absolute truth, then it will have NO shades of gray.

 

[AnAtheist]

So, let us start off simple:

Do we agree that truth is truth?
We will get nowhere if we do not agree on this.

Basically: Do we(you) believe truth is absolute?
(If you believe that truth is relative, then debates are kind of pointless, no?)

In summation, for us ever to agree, we must first agree that there is a truth to be found.

I don’t. Truth (as a noun) does not exist alone. A statement can be true or false (or indifferent, but let’s stick to binary logic for starters). Thus, if someone says “this is the truth”, it means “this statement (whatever ‘this’ refers to) is true”.
Now, to agree on some “truth”. ie. whether a statement is true or false we need to agree on a method to establish the truth of a statement.
There are several methods to do that, the scientific method, revelations, personal experience etc. Revelations and personal experiences are … well … personal. So they do not necessarily apply to others, they are not objective. The only objective method to establish truth known today is the scientific method.
Period.

 

[Little_Katie]

That doesn’t make sense. The truth doesn’t change based on the method taken to discover it. Based off what you are saying, it sounds more like you mean that if there is a truth we can’t discover what it is… that doesn’t change that it IS there.

 

[AnAtheist]

That doesn’t make sense. The truth doesn’t change based on the method taken to discover it.

Yes, but what method do we trust when different methods come to different results?

Based off what you are saying, it sounds more like you mean that if there is a truth we can’t discover what it is… that doesn’t change that it IS there.

That is not what I meant. Truth is not an entity, truth is a property of statements. Truth without the context of a statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Take “size” for example. Size without an object is meaningless. Is the “The Size” somewhere out there? No, objects have size.

 

[Little_Katie]

I going to be completely honest when I say that I can’t understand a word your saying… maybe I’m just not intelligent enough or maybe it’s because your words wouldn’t make sense anyway.

Either way, I’m going to leave it up to another member to try counter what you said… ha ha:shrug:

 

[ralphinal]

Truth, to me, has two meanings. The first is a statement of fact that cannot be refuted. I am Ralph is the Truth. You can use any means you want, and I am Ralph.

The second is an understanding of situations that, when looked upon by an outside observer, certain things are seen as uniformly one way. Genocide is always wrong is a this kind of truth. It removes any relativism.

When both are present, you get an absolute, objective Truth that cannot be doubted.

 

[rossum]

A key point, and yes, I believe Truth is absolute, and knowable.

I disagree with the “knowable” part. In order to know that an absolute truth is in fact absolute we need an absolute method to determine absolute from relative truth. In order to know that the method we use is absolutely correct (humans can be mistaken) we need a second method to check the first method and so on into an infinite regress.

There may well be an absolute truth, but we can never absolutely know that we have reached it. I tend to think of absolute truth as someting like an asymptote - we can approach extremely close to it be we never quite reach it.

rossum

 

[TriuneUnity]

There may well be an absolute truth, but we can never absolutely know that we have reached it. I tend to think of absolute truth as someting like an asymptote - we can approach extremely close to it be we never quite reach it.

rossum

Though your statements at face value are logical, your signature line if quite appropo here You’ve made an absolute truth claim.

 

[rossum]

Though your statements at face value are logical, your signature line if quite appropo here You’ve made an absolute truth claim.

You are not the first person to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”
The quote also makes the point that since the human languages we use are not themselves absolute, anything we describe using those languages cannot itself be ultimate/absolute.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Is light a particle or a wave?

Light is light. That is the truth.

Is light being light a truth?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Truth (as a noun) does not exist alone.

That is incorrect. God is truth. God is a noun. Truth is a noun.

A statement can be true or false (or indifferent, but let’s stick to binary logic for starters). Thus, if someone says “this is the truth”, it means “this statement (whatever ‘this’ refers to) is true”.

Atheists believe that all “things” are in fact “statements”, but unlike Catholics who believe the same thing but know the “speaker” to be God, they (atheists) claim that all “things” are “statements” of some <insert vague cosmic “machine” here>.

Now, to agree on some “truth”. ie. whether a statement is true or false we need to agree on a method to establish the truth of a statement.

While I do agree with this as to questions of scientific knowledge, it is not applicable as a principle to non-scientific knowledge. The atheist considers “scientific knowledge” as the only valid TYPE of knowledge, while the non-atheist knows better.

The singular “method” available to know the truth of non-scientific items of knowledge is revelation. Since that is a priori “discarded” as inherently invalid by atheists, ANY discussion with atheists about things “non-scientific” is utterly futile (though very illustrative of the inadequacy of atheistic thought processes).

There are several methods to do that, the scientific method, revelations, personal experience etc. Revelations and personal experiences are … well … personal. So they do not necessarily apply to others, they are not objective. The only objective method to establish truth known today is the scientific method.
Period.

That is quite true or “scientific truth”, but avoids the question of there even BEING any truth concerning “non-scientific truth”.

Revealed truth can only be “pointed at” by people for other people, but the actual truth CAN be ascertained by each person from those “hints” from the singular source of that “type of” truth, which is the Church (and less reliably from natural law observation).

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Do we agree that truth is truth?
We will get nowhere if we do not agree on this.

Yes , I agree , no doubt about this !!

Basically: Do we(you) believe truth is absolute?
(If you believe that truth is relative, then debates are kind of pointless, no?)

In summation, for us ever to agree, we must first agree that there is a truth to be found.

There is not even one thruth , there is only the truth !!
Believe me , that’s true

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), september 18, 2008