I know from experience that it is absolutely true.
JK –
I’ve read your string of posts very carefully. There’s a
lot I agree with, and a bit that I don’t agree with.
The question asked was, “What is “Objective Truth”” as it had been interpreted by Al (who still has not answered.) The mods deemed it appropriate to move the post to a new split without notifying me.
In your statement above, you are speaking of a
subjective truth, not an
objective truth. It is
your experience, as evidenced when you say, “
I know…” It is
your belief; it is part of
your human awareness. You believe it wholeheartedly, and that is a good thing, but that doesn’t necessarily make it an objective truth. It might be seen as an objective truth at some point, but that is not the case today.
If such a thing were known as an objective truth, or Absolute Truth, then there would be no need or cause for the variety of religions, there would be no atheists or agnostics, and the misery and death that is caused by conflict between religious views, or between religion and science, would end immediately and forever. Wouldn’t that be wonderful!
Here are some of the statements you wrote that I agree with:
jkiernan56:
“God’s existence is not contingent.”
“Your’s and my existence and all of creation IS CONTINGENT on God’s sheer will.”
“You and I and all of creation would not exist if God was not thinking of it … and willing it in existence.”
“God does not need anything or anyone.”
“He could have continued in BEING (Three Persons in One Nature) for all eternity without ever creating anything.”
“It is in the realm of what is possible to God that should He will it … all of creation would no longer exist.”
As you can see, we share a lot of the same understanding. Beyond those words, though, you’ve cloaked your writing in belief, and that’s where we part ways a bit (It’s okay; I’m Absolutely certain that the paths rejoin later.) For many, those personal beliefs clog the clarity of understanding that you hold. It’s like taking a beautiful diamond and slathering mud on it. For you, though, it’s simply your way of framing your understanding, and that’s understandable.
I don’t know where you stand on all of this … but I know in my bones that what I am saying to you is true from my experience of Grace
Again, you’ve had a
subjective experience, and that is quite valuable. I trust that you’ll never forget it. This is the type of experience that shapes lives. You believe it in your bones, and are willing to testify to the entire world.
But, your
personal experience does not make it an objective truth. It’s true for you, and is part of your personal experience.
One more go 'round:
Yes, I agree with you in part … but not in whole.
You are finite - God is not.
You are limited - God is not
You only have a brief glimpse of time, God IS eternally present in all of history - past, present and future.
There are two words that say it all to answer your question about objective truth -
" I AM "
There again, I agree to the extent that ‘we’ can say anything at all. In fact, “I AM” is the one thought that I simply cannot deny, no matter how hard I try. Indeed, everyone will come to the same conclusion – no one can deny their existence, nor the fact that they reason that existence.
You share the same sense of “I AM” that God does. It’s the simple feeling of being. The sense of I Am that you feel inside is the same sense of I Am that I feel inside… and the same as Detales feels, and the same that Oreoracle senses, and everyone else as well. Each of us can doubt our material existence (if we choose), but no one can get around the feeling of being, of I AM.
I was once told by C.J. Date (the father of relational databases) that when examining entity relationships, we look to their attributes in order to distinguish one entity from another. This “blue” ball is clearly different from this “red” ball, and thus we can distinguish one from another. But, when examining these things, if you cannot determine a single difference between one thing and another, then by definition you are talking about the same thing.
If we strip away everything except “I AM” – removing all doctrines, thoughts, dogma, beliefs, words, practices, preferences, and subjective ‘truths’ – then we are talking about the same “I AM” in each and every one of ‘us’, and this is undeniable to those who contemplate “I Am.” (Or, if one prefers, “What am I?”)
I’ve had this same sense of “I am” since I was a child. So have you. Everyone has. We look in the mirror and see an aging body (at least I do!), but that sense of “I am” is timeless, isn’t it? Before I was born, I Am. Before my parents were born, I Am. Before Abraham was, I Am. I Am was never born, never dies, is timeless and eternal, never moves.
So, what is this I AM? That, as we’ve come to agree, is The Mystery. Don’t know, can’t tell, there you have it. Pure Subjectivity (note the “S”) cannot know itself objectively; an eyeball cannot see itself. The reason we can’t speak God’s name is that each utterance becomes just another object, a pointer to this truth. Even saying “I AM” misses the mark, as it’s just another dualistic linguistic pointer to pure Subjectivity.
Perhaps by now you can see that our fundamental position is not in conflict. It’s what we
say about this that makes all the difference. The fact that we say anything at all only obfuscates the understanding of I Am, that simple feeling of being.
Note to mods: This post relates to the OT because, as JK says, “God is not mean.” “Mean” is a label that we humans assign to the notion of God – a thought that overlays the reality of I AM.
