Invitation to atheists

[methinkshe]

Interesting concept, Systemstrike - "truth is limited to the person trying to find it."

My daughter who is mentally retarded (learning difficulties if you want to be PC) has no concept of countries and continents and seas in between. As far as she is concerned, the sea is the wet stuff at the end of the sand where we go for a picnic in summer. There is no such place as America or Australia or lands that exist across an expanse of ocean in her understanding. Are you trying to tell me that truth is limited to a mentally handicapped girl's comprehension? America doesn't exist. Australia doesn't exist, because truth is limited by her (the person) trying to find it. Get real!

Ruth

I'm talking about personal truth. To her, there is no America. Period. That is where truth ends for her. No matter what we think, or what we know, the truth is (for her) that America doesn't exist. In all reality, it could just run in circles....

So, if I believe the world is flat, and I don't know any better; then (to me) the world is flat. Unfortunately, we humans are trapped in this limited space called our brain.

Again, we are back to an individual's perception of truth. Firstly we have to establish that there is a truth regardless of what anyone perceives. Whether or not my daughter accepts the existence of America, in no way alters the fact that America does in fact/reality truly exist. Once we accept that, in spite of our individual perceptions, there is a truth concerning all existence and all events, then we can move on to debating how truth can be known. And truth is always and only concerned with actual existence and actual events. For instance, this universe either came into existence via no external input - i.e., a self-generating big-bang and then a consolidation of matter into planets and stars, and from there to self-generating life-forms on the planet earth. Or, the universe was created by an external agency such as God or, something else entirely. The point is, not all of these scenarios can be true because they are mutually exclusive, but we know that there IS a true explanation of how the universe and earth and humanitiy came to exist, because we are here - it's called FACT - a train of existence and events that actually happened. All other explanations are necessarily false. Thus, truth is an actual train of existence and events that comprises the history of the universe. Alongside this is an infinite potential for falsehoods.

Just start with two simple opposing statements:

a) There is a God

b) There is not a God

If one of these is true, the other must be false and all else that is predicated on the false statement is necessarily also false.

Assume for the sake of argument that statement a) is true and that there is a God. Now take two further opposing statements.

c) There is a God and He created the universe and all that is in it.

d) There is a God but He did NOT create the universe and all that is in it.

Again, if one is true, the other must be false. And all else predicated on the false statement is also necessarily false even though it may on occasions co-incide with truth, because it is predicated on a false antecedent.

And so on and so on.

Thus truth is a very narrow thread that runs through an infinite potential for lies. To use an analogy, it is the single stone-set pathway through an infinitely large forest. Deviate just once from the pathway that is truth and you are on a dirt-track in a forest of lies. And even though a deviation into the forest may on occasions result in criss-crossing and back-tracking and accidentally co-inciding with the truth path, because such a dirt-track comes from the wrong direction (i.e. is predicated on false antecedents) and is heading in the wrong direction, it is no more than an accidental stumble upon the pathway of truth, that fails to lead to more truth but quickly returns to a dirt-track of falsehood.

Can you agree thus far?

Ruth

Not exactly and here's why:

There are certain truths that will probably never be revealed. Questions like "Is there a God?", "Does God have a pre-destined plan for each one of us?", and "Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?" will probably never be answered objectively. We will never be able to say that we know which is absolutely true and prove it. So with that said, I believe that one can only have a strong foundation is their own beliefs.

So yes, there is a narrow, objective path called "truth", but some of those truths will never be proven, so it stills leaves you with a personal choice.

That's the whole point: if we acknowledge that there IS an objective truth that comprises the factual history of all existence and events, and that this truth exists whether we know it or not, then we can begin to examine how truth can be known. So many people to whom I speak seem to think that the existence of truth is dependent on their perception of it. Which, of course, is where the concept of relative truth comes from. I believe it is a fatal error to believe that truth in any way depends upon the perceiver. Events occur in one specific way, and one specific way only, whether or not they are perceived by an observer. It is erroneous to suggest that by believing a different version of events than what actually occurred, that such belief somehow equates to a personal truth, as though by believing an incorrect version of events has the power to actually change the event and thus render it a true account. Thus the existence of truth concerning all existence and all events is not dependent on proof, or on perception. Truth exists independently. As to how truth is known, it can only fully be known by an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient observer who sees all and knows all. Any observer who is limited by time and knowledge is dependent upon truth being revealed by an eternal, omnsicient, omnipresent observer. Any attempts by time-and-knowledge-limited humanity to discover truth through their own efforts, via evidence or any other means, are subject to the unavoidable potential for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. All that can be hoped for is an approximation of truth which in reality isn't truth at all, since the very meaning of the word disallows approximations. So, as humans we either accept that we can never be certain about anything, and therefore that we must always be groping for truth and never finding it for certain, or we allow that there could be an omniscient, omnipresent observer who knows all, and who has the ability and desire to reveal truth to limited humanity, and then set out to look for such a Being. Has such a Being ever made Himself known to humanity and if so, how, and who is He?

Ruth

[systemstrike_7]

Interesting concept, Systemstrike - "truth is limited to the person trying to find it."

My daughter who is mentally retarded (learning difficulties if you want to be PC) has no concept of countries and continents and seas in between. As far as she is concerned, the sea is the wet stuff at the end of the sand where we go for a picnic in summer. There is no such place as America or Australia or lands that exist across an expanse of ocean in her understanding. Are you trying to tell me that truth is limited to a mentally handicapped girl's comprehension? America doesn't exist. Australia doesn't exist, because truth is limited by her (the person) trying to find it. Get real!

Ruth

I'm talking about personal truth. To her, there is no America. Period. That is where truth ends for her. No matter what we think, or what we know, the truth is (for her) that America doesn't exist. In all reality, it could just run in circles....

So, if I believe the world is flat, and I don't know any better; then (to me) the world is flat. Unfortunately, we humans are trapped in this limited space called our brain.

Again, we are back to an individual's perception of truth. Firstly we have to establish that there is a truth regardless of what anyone perceives. Whether or not my daughter accepts the existence of America, in no way alters the fact that America does in fact/reality truly exist. Once we accept that, in spite of our individual perceptions, there is a truth concerning all existence and all events, then we can move on to debating how truth can be known. And truth is always and only concerned with actual existence and actual events. For instance, this universe either came into existence via no external input - i.e., a self-generating big-bang and then a consolidation of matter into planets and stars, and from there to self-generating life-forms on the planet earth. Or, the universe was created by an external agency such as God or, something else entirely. The point is, not all of these scenarios can be true because they are mutually exclusive, but we know that there IS a true explanation of how the universe and earth and humanitiy came to exist, because we are here - it's called FACT - a train of existence and events that actually happened. All other explanations are necessarily false. Thus, truth is an actual train of existence and events that comprises the history of the universe. Alongside this is an infinite potential for falsehoods.

Just start with two simple opposing statements:

a) There is a God

b) There is not a God

If one of these is true, the other must be false and all else that is predicated on the false statement is necessarily also false.

Assume for the sake of argument that statement a) is true and that there is a God. Now take two further opposing statements.

c) There is a God and He created the universe and all that is in it.

d) There is a God but He did NOT create the universe and all that is in it.

Again, if one is true, the other must be false. And all else predicated on the false statement is also necessarily false even though it may on occasions co-incide with truth, because it is predicated on a false antecedent.

And so on and so on.

Thus truth is a very narrow thread that runs through an infinite potential for lies. To use an analogy, it is the single stone-set pathway through an infinitely large forest. Deviate just once from the pathway that is truth and you are on a dirt-track in a forest of lies. And even though a deviation into the forest may on occasions result in criss-crossing and back-tracking and accidentally co-inciding with the truth path, because such a dirt-track comes from the wrong direction (i.e. is predicated on false antecedents) and is heading in the wrong direction, it is no more than an accidental stumble upon the pathway of truth, that fails to lead to more truth but quickly returns to a dirt-track of falsehood.

Can you agree thus far?

Ruth

Not exactly and here's why:

There are certain truths that will probably never be revealed. Questions like "Is there a God?", "Does God have a pre-destined plan for each one of us?", and "Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?" will probably never be answered objectively. We will never be able to say that we know which is absolutely true and prove it. So with that said, I believe that one can only have a strong foundation is their own beliefs.

So yes, there is a narrow, objective path called "truth", but some of those truths will never be proven, so it stills leaves you with a personal choice.

That's the whole point: if we acknowledge that there IS an objective truth that comprises the factual history of all existence and events, and that this truth exists whether we know it or not, then we can begin to examine how truth can be known. So many people to whom I speak seem to think that the existence of truth is dependent on their perception of it. Which, of course, is where the concept of relative truth comes from. I believe it is a fatal error to believe that truth in any way depends upon the perceiver. Events occur in one specific way, and one specific way only, whether or not they are perceived by an observer. It is erroneous to suggest that by believing a different version of events than what actually occurred, that such belief somehow equates to a personal truth, as though by believing an incorrect version of events has the power to actually change the event and thus render it a true account. Thus the existence of truth concerning all existence and all events is not dependent on proof, or on perception. Truth exists independently. As to how truth is known, it can only fully be known by an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient observer who sees all and knows all. Any observer who is limited by time and knowledge is dependent upon truth being revealed by an eternal, omnsicient, omnipresent observer. Any attempts by time-and-knowledge-limited humanity to discover truth through their own efforts, via evidence or any other means, are subject to the unavoidable potential for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. All that can be hoped for is an approximation of truth which in reality isn't truth at all, since the very meaning of the word disallows approximations. So, as humans we either accept that we can never be certain about anything, and therefore that we must always be groping for truth and never finding it for certain, or we allow that there could be an omniscient, omnipresent observer who knows all, and who has the ability and desire to reveal truth to limited humanity, and then set out to look for such a Being. Has such a Being ever made Himself known to humanity and if so, how, and who is He?

Ruth

Well, if you haven't noticed, we are obviously on two different planes here. You seem to be dwelling on the truth of EVENTS, which I have not once disagreed with you. I'm speaking of truths that concern things outside of our physical perception. You speak of things such as, the existence of the Sun, which as a collective group of human beings, we can all see and feel together. But when speaking of things we can neither see nor feel collectively, such as God, universal truth becomes irrelavent. The only truth that one can rely on is a revealed personal truth. Evidences that one finds in their own heart, revealed to them by God Himself can be our only sense of truth.

But yes, I concede to you that God must either exist or not exist, regardless of our personal beliefs. But what I am arguing is that we shall never find the proof of His existence collectively. Only in our hearts will we be able to trust in the existence of The Almighty.

With that said, I will be so bold as to suggest something else. This argument we are having will only end in circles. So I will concede that our views shall forever coincide, while at the same time we shall never agree (it makes sense in my head).

But I have enjoyed our debate and it has left me thinking, which will lead me to further search out what the truth is about truth (and now I'm confusing myself ).

system

[methinkshe]

Interesting concept, Systemstrike - "truth is limited to the person trying to find it."

My daughter who is mentally retarded (learning difficulties if you want to be PC) has no concept of countries and continents and seas in between. As far as she is concerned, the sea is the wet stuff at the end of the sand where we go for a picnic in summer. There is no such place as America or Australia or lands that exist across an expanse of ocean in her understanding. Are you trying to tell me that truth is limited to a mentally handicapped girl's comprehension? America doesn't exist. Australia doesn't exist, because truth is limited by her (the person) trying to find it. Get real!

Ruth

I'm talking about personal truth. To her, there is no America. Period. That is where truth ends for her. No matter what we think, or what we know, the truth is (for her) that America doesn't exist. In all reality, it could just run in circles....

So, if I believe the world is flat, and I don't know any better; then (to me) the world is flat. Unfortunately, we humans are trapped in this limited space called our brain.

Again, we are back to an individual's perception of truth. Firstly we have to establish that there is a truth regardless of what anyone perceives. Whether or not my daughter accepts the existence of America, in no way alters the fact that America does in fact/reality truly exist. Once we accept that, in spite of our individual perceptions, there is a truth concerning all existence and all events, then we can move on to debating how truth can be known. And truth is always and only concerned with actual existence and actual events. For instance, this universe either came into existence via no external input - i.e., a self-generating big-bang and then a consolidation of matter into planets and stars, and from there to self-generating life-forms on the planet earth. Or, the universe was created by an external agency such as God or, something else entirely. The point is, not all of these scenarios can be true because they are mutually exclusive, but we know that there IS a true explanation of how the universe and earth and humanitiy came to exist, because we are here - it's called FACT - a train of existence and events that actually happened. All other explanations are necessarily false. Thus, truth is an actual train of existence and events that comprises the history of the universe. Alongside this is an infinite potential for falsehoods.

Just start with two simple opposing statements:

a) There is a God

b) There is not a God

If one of these is true, the other must be false and all else that is predicated on the false statement is necessarily also false.

Assume for the sake of argument that statement a) is true and that there is a God. Now take two further opposing statements.

c) There is a God and He created the universe and all that is in it.

d) There is a God but He did NOT create the universe and all that is in it.

Again, if one is true, the other must be false. And all else predicated on the false statement is also necessarily false even though it may on occasions co-incide with truth, because it is predicated on a false antecedent.

And so on and so on.

Thus truth is a very narrow thread that runs through an infinite potential for lies. To use an analogy, it is the single stone-set pathway through an infinitely large forest. Deviate just once from the pathway that is truth and you are on a dirt-track in a forest of lies. And even though a deviation into the forest may on occasions result in criss-crossing and back-tracking and accidentally co-inciding with the truth path, because such a dirt-track comes from the wrong direction (i.e. is predicated on false antecedents) and is heading in the wrong direction, it is no more than an accidental stumble upon the pathway of truth, that fails to lead to more truth but quickly returns to a dirt-track of falsehood.

Can you agree thus far?

Ruth

Not exactly and here's why:

There are certain truths that will probably never be revealed. Questions like "Is there a God?", "Does God have a pre-destined plan for each one of us?", and "Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?" will probably never be answered objectively. We will never be able to say that we know which is absolutely true and prove it. So with that said, I believe that one can only have a strong foundation is their own beliefs.

So yes, there is a narrow, objective path called "truth", but some of those truths will never be proven, so it stills leaves you with a personal choice.

That's the whole point: if we acknowledge that there IS an objective truth that comprises the factual history of all existence and events, and that this truth exists whether we know it or not, then we can begin to examine how truth can be known. So many people to whom I speak seem to think that the existence of truth is dependent on their perception of it. Which, of course, is where the concept of relative truth comes from. I believe it is a fatal error to believe that truth in any way depends upon the perceiver. Events occur in one specific way, and one specific way only, whether or not they are perceived by an observer. It is erroneous to suggest that by believing a different version of events than what actually occurred, that such belief somehow equates to a personal truth, as though by believing an incorrect version of events has the power to actually change the event and thus render it a true account. Thus the existence of truth concerning all existence and all events is not dependent on proof, or on perception. Truth exists independently. As to how truth is known, it can only fully be known by an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient observer who sees all and knows all. Any observer who is limited by time and knowledge is dependent upon truth being revealed by an eternal, omnsicient, omnipresent observer. Any attempts by time-and-knowledge-limited humanity to discover truth through their own efforts, via evidence or any other means, are subject to the unavoidable potential for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. All that can be hoped for is an approximation of truth which in reality isn't truth at all, since the very meaning of the word disallows approximations. So, as humans we either accept that we can never be certain about anything, and therefore that we must always be groping for truth and never finding it for certain, or we allow that there could be an omniscient, omnipresent observer who knows all, and who has the ability and desire to reveal truth to limited humanity, and then set out to look for such a Being. Has such a Being ever made Himself known to humanity and if so, how, and who is He?

Ruth

Well, if you haven't noticed, we are obviously on two different planes here. You seem to be dwelling on the truth of EVENTS, which I have not once disagreed with you. I'm speaking of truths that concern things outside of our physical perception. You speak of things such as, the existence of the Sun, which as a collective group of human beings, we can all see and feel together. But when speaking of things we can neither see nor feel collectively, such as God, universal truth becomes irrelavent. The only truth that one can rely on is a revealed personal truth. Evidences that one finds in their own heart, revealed to them by God Himself can be our only sense of truth.

But yes, I concede to you that God must either exist or not exist, regardless of our personal beliefs. But what I am arguing is that we shall never find the proof of His existence collectively. Only in our hearts will we be able to trust in the existence of The Almighty.

With that said, I will be so bold as to suggest something else. This argument we are having will only end in circles. So I will concede that our views shall forever coincide, while at the same time we shall never agree (it makes sense in my head).

But I have enjoyed our debate and it has left me thinking, which will lead me to further search out what the truth is about truth (and now I'm confusing myself ).

system

Actually, I said existence AND events. And that's my whole point. If no-one, or nothing existed, and if nothing ever happened. there would be nothing to be true to or about. So logically truth is concerned with existence and events. My argument is that whether we perceive truth or not, it still exists as a matter of historical fact in terms of what or whom actually exists or existed and what actually happened/happens. There cannot be a truth about nothing, in other words. Therefore, if an individual seeks to know truth, he must first begin with who or what is (exists) and what has happened. Therefore it takes us back to the beginning of the universe. How did it begin? It happened one specific way, and one way only, however much people like to pontificate and suggest possibilities. And the one way it actually happened is THE TRUTH. All other theories are lies. So where does your individual search for THE TRUTH (it can only ever be singular) lead you?

Ruth

[systemstrike_7]

Interesting concept, Systemstrike - "truth is limited to the person trying to find it."

My daughter who is mentally retarded (learning difficulties if you want to be PC) has no concept of countries and continents and seas in between. As far as she is concerned, the sea is the wet stuff at the end of the sand where we go for a picnic in summer. There is no such place as America or Australia or lands that exist across an expanse of ocean in her understanding. Are you trying to tell me that truth is limited to a mentally handicapped girl's comprehension? America doesn't exist. Australia doesn't exist, because truth is limited by her (the person) trying to find it. Get real!

Ruth

I'm talking about personal truth. To her, there is no America. Period. That is where truth ends for her. No matter what we think, or what we know, the truth is (for her) that America doesn't exist. In all reality, it could just run in circles....

So, if I believe the world is flat, and I don't know any better; then (to me) the world is flat. Unfortunately, we humans are trapped in this limited space called our brain.

Again, we are back to an individual's perception of truth. Firstly we have to establish that there is a truth regardless of what anyone perceives. Whether or not my daughter accepts the existence of America, in no way alters the fact that America does in fact/reality truly exist. Once we accept that, in spite of our individual perceptions, there is a truth concerning all existence and all events, then we can move on to debating how truth can be known. And truth is always and only concerned with actual existence and actual events. For instance, this universe either came into existence via no external input - i.e., a self-generating big-bang and then a consolidation of matter into planets and stars, and from there to self-generating life-forms on the planet earth. Or, the universe was created by an external agency such as God or, something else entirely. The point is, not all of these scenarios can be true because they are mutually exclusive, but we know that there IS a true explanation of how the universe and earth and humanitiy came to exist, because we are here - it's called FACT - a train of existence and events that actually happened. All other explanations are necessarily false. Thus, truth is an actual train of existence and events that comprises the history of the universe. Alongside this is an infinite potential for falsehoods.

Just start with two simple opposing statements:

a) There is a God

b) There is not a God

If one of these is true, the other must be false and all else that is predicated on the false statement is necessarily also false.

Assume for the sake of argument that statement a) is true and that there is a God. Now take two further opposing statements.

c) There is a God and He created the universe and all that is in it.

d) There is a God but He did NOT create the universe and all that is in it.

Again, if one is true, the other must be false. And all else predicated on the false statement is also necessarily false even though it may on occasions co-incide with truth, because it is predicated on a false antecedent.

And so on and so on.

Thus truth is a very narrow thread that runs through an infinite potential for lies. To use an analogy, it is the single stone-set pathway through an infinitely large forest. Deviate just once from the pathway that is truth and you are on a dirt-track in a forest of lies. And even though a deviation into the forest may on occasions result in criss-crossing and back-tracking and accidentally co-inciding with the truth path, because such a dirt-track comes from the wrong direction (i.e. is predicated on false antecedents) and is heading in the wrong direction, it is no more than an accidental stumble upon the pathway of truth, that fails to lead to more truth but quickly returns to a dirt-track of falsehood.

Can you agree thus far?

Ruth

Not exactly and here's why:

There are certain truths that will probably never be revealed. Questions like "Is there a God?", "Does God have a pre-destined plan for each one of us?", and "Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?" will probably never be answered objectively. We will never be able to say that we know which is absolutely true and prove it. So with that said, I believe that one can only have a strong foundation is their own beliefs.

So yes, there is a narrow, objective path called "truth", but some of those truths will never be proven, so it stills leaves you with a personal choice.

That's the whole point: if we acknowledge that there IS an objective truth that comprises the factual history of all existence and events, and that this truth exists whether we know it or not, then we can begin to examine how truth can be known. So many people to whom I speak seem to think that the existence of truth is dependent on their perception of it. Which, of course, is where the concept of relative truth comes from. I believe it is a fatal error to believe that truth in any way depends upon the perceiver. Events occur in one specific way, and one specific way only, whether or not they are perceived by an observer. It is erroneous to suggest that by believing a different version of events than what actually occurred, that such belief somehow equates to a personal truth, as though by believing an incorrect version of events has the power to actually change the event and thus render it a true account. Thus the existence of truth concerning all existence and all events is not dependent on proof, or on perception. Truth exists independently. As to how truth is known, it can only fully be known by an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient observer who sees all and knows all. Any observer who is limited by time and knowledge is dependent upon truth being revealed by an eternal, omnsicient, omnipresent observer. Any attempts by time-and-knowledge-limited humanity to discover truth through their own efforts, via evidence or any other means, are subject to the unavoidable potential for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. All that can be hoped for is an approximation of truth which in reality isn't truth at all, since the very meaning of the word disallows approximations. So, as humans we either accept that we can never be certain about anything, and therefore that we must always be groping for truth and never finding it for certain, or we allow that there could be an omniscient, omnipresent observer who knows all, and who has the ability and desire to reveal truth to limited humanity, and then set out to look for such a Being. Has such a Being ever made Himself known to humanity and if so, how, and who is He?

Ruth

Well, if you haven't noticed, we are obviously on two different planes here. You seem to be dwelling on the truth of EVENTS, which I have not once disagreed with you. I'm speaking of truths that concern things outside of our physical perception. You speak of things such as, the existence of the Sun, which as a collective group of human beings, we can all see and feel together. But when speaking of things we can neither see nor feel collectively, such as God, universal truth becomes irrelavent. The only truth that one can rely on is a revealed personal truth. Evidences that one finds in their own heart, revealed to them by God Himself can be our only sense of truth.

But yes, I concede to you that God must either exist or not exist, regardless of our personal beliefs. But what I am arguing is that we shall never find the proof of His existence collectively. Only in our hearts will we be able to trust in the existence of The Almighty.

With that said, I will be so bold as to suggest something else. This argument we are having will only end in circles. So I will concede that our views shall forever coincide, while at the same time we shall never agree (it makes sense in my head).

But I have enjoyed our debate and it has left me thinking, which will lead me to further search out what the truth is about truth (and now I'm confusing myself ).

system

Actually, I said existence AND events. And that's my whole point. If no-one, or nothing existed, and if nothing ever happened. there would be nothing to be true to or about. So logically truth is concerned with existence and events. My argument is that whether we perceive truth or not, it still exists as a matter of historical fact in terms of what or whom actually exists or existed and what actually happened/happens. There cannot be a truth about nothing, in other words. Therefore, if an individual seeks to know truth, he must first begin with who or what is (exists) and what has happened. Therefore it takes us back to the beginning of the universe. How did it begin? It happened one specific way, and one way only, however much people like to pontificate and suggest possibilities. And the one way it actually happened is THE TRUTH. All other theories are lies. So where does your individual search for THE TRUTH (it can only ever be singular) lead you?

Ruth

As I predicted, we are running in circles. I agreed that there must be one Truth when concerning everything, even the existence of God. My only argument against that statement was simply that truths such as these will never be collectively proven to either way. So that absolute truth is left open. Left open for us as individuals to decide.

I just thought it was amusing that we just had an argument over philosophy 101....

[None]

Fascinating read.

[methinkshe]

As I predicted, we are running in circles. I agreed that there must be one Truth when concerning everything, even the existence of God. My only argument against that statement was simply that truths such as these will never be collectively proven to either way. So that absolute truth is left open. Left open for us as individuals to decide.

I just thought it was amusing that we just had an argument over philosophy 101....

LOL! You'd be surprised, though, by how many people I have met who do not understand, or who refuse to accept, this basic philosophy and hold to a concept of relative truth such that whatever they choose to believe is "true for me" as they put it. Of course, that they believe in mutually exclusive, diametrically opposing positions doesn't seem to bother them.

And you are, of course, correct in in observing that it is open to every individual to decide where truth lies. It is my contention, though, that because truth of necessity cannot be known for certain by limited humanity in and of themselves, and can only be known by an omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being, then it is a good start, for a person seeking to know truth, to look for such a Being and find out if He has made any claims to reveal truth. Which is exactly what God revealed in the Bible has done, as has His Son Jesus. It was for very good reason that Jesus prefaced so many of His words with: "verily, verily I say unto you..." or "truly, truly...." and that He claimed to be THE TRUTH. In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have.

Ruth

[systemstrike_7]

As I predicted, we are running in circles. I agreed that there must be one Truth when concerning everything, even the existence of God. My only argument against that statement was simply that truths such as these will never be collectively proven to either way. So that absolute truth is left open. Left open for us as individuals to decide.

I just thought it was amusing that we just had an argument over philosophy 101....

LOL! You'd be surprised, though, by how many people I have met who do not understand, or who refuse to accept, this basic philosophy and hold to a concept of relative truth such that whatever they choose to believe is "true for me" as they put it. Of course, that they believe in mutually exclusive, diametrically opposing positions doesn't seem to bother them.

And you are, of course, correct in in observing that it is open to every individual to decide where truth lies. It is my contention, though, that because truth of necessity cannot be known for certain by limited humanity in and of themselves, and can only be known by an omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being, then it is a good start, for a person seeking to know truth, to look for such a Being and find out if He has made any claims to reveal truth. Which is exactly what God revealed in the Bible has done, as has His Son Jesus. It was for very good reason that Jesus prefaced so many of His words with: "verily, verily I say unto you..." or "truly, truly...." and that He claimed to be THE TRUTH. In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have.

Ruth

You know, that last paragraph is right on spot! I've been having some discussions with my friend who has trouble believing, and I think this very statement will help him understand what I've been trying to tell him for the past 6 months. If you don't mind, I might paste this paragraph in word and print it out for him to read. I'll give you kudos of course...

Wow, I'm still amazed at how well you worded that... bravo, bravo..

[methinkshe]

As I predicted, we are running in circles. I agreed that there must be one Truth when concerning everything, even the existence of God. My only argument against that statement was simply that truths such as these will never be collectively proven to either way. So that absolute truth is left open. Left open for us as individuals to decide.

I just thought it was amusing that we just had an argument over philosophy 101....

LOL! You'd be surprised, though, by how many people I have met who do not understand, or who refuse to accept, this basic philosophy and hold to a concept of relative truth such that whatever they choose to believe is "true for me" as they put it. Of course, that they believe in mutually exclusive, diametrically opposing positions doesn't seem to bother them.

And you are, of course, correct in in observing that it is open to every individual to decide where truth lies. It is my contention, though, that because truth of necessity cannot be known for certain by limited humanity in and of themselves, and can only be known by an omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being, then it is a good start, for a person seeking to know truth, to look for such a Being and find out if He has made any claims to reveal truth. Which is exactly what God revealed in the Bible has done, as has His Son Jesus. It was for very good reason that Jesus prefaced so many of His words with: "verily, verily I say unto you..." or "truly, truly...." and that He claimed to be THE TRUTH. In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have.

Ruth

You know, that last paragraph is right on spot! I've been having some discussions with my friend who has trouble believing, and I think this very statement will help him understand what I've been trying to tell him for the past 6 months. If you don't mind, I might paste this paragraph in word and print it out for him to read. I'll give you kudos of course...

Wow, I'm still amazed at how well you worded that... bravo, bravo..

My dear System,

If I speak any words that have about them some wisdom, then it is not mine, it is the Lord's, and therefore it is not copyrightable and is freely available to be reproduced without any recourse to me! However, if I speak trash, I take full responsibility, and you are more than welcome to offer my name as the offending culprit! Does that help!!??? lol!

Ruth

[MorningGlory]

In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have.

Ruth

You know, that last paragraph is right on spot! I've been having some discussions with my friend who has trouble believing, and I think this very statement will help him understand what I've been trying to tell him for the past 6 months. If you don't mind, I might paste this paragraph in word and print it out for him to read. I'll give you kudos of course...

Wow, I'm still amazed at how well you worded that... bravo, bravo..

I agree, system; that's the best interpretation of Truth I have ever come upon.

[systemstrike_7]

As I predicted, we are running in circles. I agreed that there must be one Truth when concerning everything, even the existence of God. My only argument against that statement was simply that truths such as these will never be collectively proven to either way. So that absolute truth is left open. Left open for us as individuals to decide.

I just thought it was amusing that we just had an argument over philosophy 101....

LOL! You'd be surprised, though, by how many people I have met who do not understand, or who refuse to accept, this basic philosophy and hold to a concept of relative truth such that whatever they choose to believe is "true for me" as they put it. Of course, that they believe in mutually exclusive, diametrically opposing positions doesn't seem to bother them.

And you are, of course, correct in in observing that it is open to every individual to decide where truth lies. It is my contention, though, that because truth of necessity cannot be known for certain by limited humanity in and of themselves, and can only be known by an omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being, then it is a good start, for a person seeking to know truth, to look for such a Being and find out if He has made any claims to reveal truth. Which is exactly what God revealed in the Bible has done, as has His Son Jesus. It was for very good reason that Jesus prefaced so many of His words with: "verily, verily I say unto you..." or "truly, truly...." and that He claimed to be THE TRUTH. In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have.

Ruth

You know, that last paragraph is right on spot! I've been having some discussions with my friend who has trouble believing, and I think this very statement will help him understand what I've been trying to tell him for the past 6 months. If you don't mind, I might paste this paragraph in word and print it out for him to read. I'll give you kudos of course...

Wow, I'm still amazed at how well you worded that... bravo, bravo..

My dear System,

If I speak any words that have about them some wisdom, then it is not mine, it is the Lord's, and therefore it is not copyrightable and is freely available to be reproduced without any recourse to me! However, if I speak trash, I take full responsibility, and you are more than welcome to offer my name as the offending culprit! Does that help!!??? lol!

Ruth

Haha, ok good. If you would have said no, I might have had to do something illegal....