Jump to content

God's Truth


Guest end3
 Share

Recommended Posts

If we from science, "know" that any objective truth is only that instantaneously due to a dynamic environment, and therefore making it subject to that environment, then how can you claim knowing God's truth can be known by anything other than faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3, what do you mean by:

 

objective truth is only that instantaneously due to a dynamic environment,

 

Some of us here don't subscribe to such a thing as "objective truth" at all. The scientific method is different from "objective truth". We can only come to an approximation of what things really are, we never really know. Let's just say some things are more probable than others.

 

Someone come help me explain this better. Paging Legion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3, what do you mean by:

 

objective truth is only that instantaneously due to a dynamic environment,

 

Some of us here don't subscribe to such a thing as "objective truth" at all. The scientific method is different from "objective truth". We can only come to an approximation of what things really are, we never really know. Let's just say some things are more probable than others.

 

Someone come help me explain this better. Paging Legion.

 

Yes, Ms. D, that would be the point.....high probablility is still only a function it seems of environment, so if there is a "true" something, then how would we know it by anything other than faith in probability?

 

I am sure this is an old discussion, but it only seeded in my brain a day or so ago.

 

Especially if the evironment is under Satan's control?

 

If we can understand truth, why can't we make it definative today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some here would not absolutely state that there is no deity at all, what-so-ever, without a doubt, etc. Many here claim that we have no evidence for such a divine being so that even if one (or more?) does exist, he/she/it must not be too interested in getting our attention or he/she/it would have done a much better job of doing so. But let's just look at the Christian deity for a moment.

 

There is no evidence for the Christian deity outside of the Bible. In other words, despite what "internal witness" some Christians say they have, no one would know about Christ, his sacrifice, the god of the Old Testament, what he did for the Hebrew, etc, if it had not been written down and compiled into what we today call the Bible. Within the Bible are many styles of writings and many things that are said. Some things within its pages are not testable. For example, the Bible claims that there is a heaven and a hell and that there is life after death. We don't have a means to test these statements to see if they exist and, if they do, if they exist in the manner that the Bible says they exist. There are many such untestable things (god himself, the supposed origin of sin, how this deity judges mankind, etc). So how can one trust these untestable things to see if they are worthy of one's trust/faith/belief?

 

One way to solve this problem is to examine the things in the Bible to see what is testable and then to see if they stand up to the test. There are many things within the Bible that can be tested and tried. These things would range from scientific statements, archeology, history and many other things. If the Bible has divine origins (i.e. inspired by god or "god breathed") then this should show up in the things that can be tested. If the testable things show that they are reliable, then that would give possible evidence that the untestable things may be trustworthy as well.

 

On top of that, the Bible can be examined for its claims, especially its claims about god. While the person of god himself may not be testable, we can take what the Bible says and see if it contradicts itself or displays this supposed god in a light other than he is normally cast. If the Bible shows itself to be consistent, then this, coupled with whether it's testable aspects are reliable, could further lend credibility to the deity promoted within. It may not prove him, but it may give sufficient evidence to take the idea of the Christian god and move him from the realm of impossible and into the realm of a possibility.

 

However, a study of the Bible will reveal that it is not a reliable book. It's testable portions sadly fail. It's claims about its deity are contradicted in many cases. As a result, the Bible shows very little if any reliability and, as a result what it claims about its god, what it states about salvation, etc, are not trustworthy and, therefore, the entire concept remains in the realm of the impossible.

 

If there is a god or gods out there, the Christian god is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Net Eng

I'll give it a shot...

 

From the Postmodernism Dictionary

 

Objective Truth: This is an unbiased truth. It is often used to mean Ultimate Truth. Compare with Subjective Truth.

 

End, do you mean by objective truth something that is true whether it is believed or not as in this:

 

The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.
[link]

 

Or perhaps your referring to the idea that all possibilities are playing out until observed??

 

Sorry Deva I asked more questions than answered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give it a shot...

 

From the Postmodernism Dictionary

 

Objective Truth: This is an unbiased truth. It is often used to mean Ultimate Truth. Compare with Subjective Truth.

 

End, do you mean by objective truth something that is true whether it is believed or not as in this:

 

The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.
[link]

 

Or perhaps your referring to the idea that all possibilities are playing out until observed??

 

Sorry Deva I asked more questions than answered...

 

No Net,

 

I was understanding objective truth to be something that is "measured" to the point where it is accepted as "true". If I have it wrong, my apologies....

 

Per the definition you have provided, I would assign objective truth to God's truth, but how would we know other than faith, as our environment does not allow for measuring Spiritual truth....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End I think you may brushing against some philosophy here, but I don’t understand what you’re driving at.

 

I believe the only things we know for certain are things about ourselves. The contents of our own minds are the most apparent and vivid things to us in my opinion. I can know with the greatest certainty what I am thinking or feeling or imagining.

 

Does this have any bearing on what you are trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we from science, "know" that any objective truth is only that instantaneously due to a dynamic environment, and therefore making it subject to that environment, then how can you claim knowing God's truth can be known by anything other than faith?

 

I'm not sure how you mean to define faith here. I don't generally consider faith a valid way to "know" anything.

 

I might be wrong, but then either god is the sort of fellow that doesn't much care if I believed in him, in which case, no problem; or he is the sort of fellow who will punish me eternally for not believing, in which case I'm quite sure that being forced to worship him for eternity is not qualitatively better than being punished by him. We are ALL equally screwed if that is the sort of god that exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ms. D, that would be the point.....high probablility is still only a function it seems of environment, so if there is a "true" something, then how would we know it by anything other than faith in probability?

 

You wouldn't know for sure. You would have the most probable outcome, given the data as presented to our senses.

 

Especially if the evironment is under Satan's control?

 

You could not be sure it was or was not under the control of a malevolent entity. Things are as they appear to our senses and through the lens of our conditioning.

 

If we can understand truth, why can't we make it definative today?

 

Its not established that we can "understand truth" if you are talking about an objective truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L4A, excellent post. I'll have to bookmark it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Net,

 

I was understanding objective truth to be something that is "measured" to the point where it is accepted as "true". If I have it wrong, my apologies....

 

That is provisional only, not "objective truth" . It is subject to change in the means of measuring or change in what is measured.

 

Per the definition you have provided, I would assign objective truth to God's truth, but how would we know other than faith, as our environment does not allow for measuring Spiritual truth....

 

What do you mean by "faith" in this context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence for the Christian deity outside of the Bible. In other words, despite what "internal witness" some Christians say they have, no one would know about Christ, his sacrifice, the god of the Old Testament, what he did for the Hebrew, etc, if it had not been written down and compiled into what we today call the Bible.

 

But we do have a book.

 

Within the Bible are many styles of writings and many things that are said. Some things within its pages are not testable. For example, the Bible claims that there is a heaven and a hell and that there is life after death. We don't have a means to test these statements to see if they exist and, if they do, if they exist in the manner that the Bible says they exist. There are many such untestable things (god himself, the supposed origin of sin, how this deity judges mankind, etc). So how can one trust these untestable things to see if they are worthy of one's trust/faith/belief?

 

I think L4A, this would be part of my point, we have a hard time defining truth within a probable environment, so how can we make statements about statements that are not "testable", except by faith/trust/belief?

 

One way to solve this problem is to examine the things in the Bible to see what is testable and then to see if they stand up to the test. There are many things within the Bible that can be tested and tried. These things would range from scientific statements, archeology, history and many other things. If the Bible has divine origins (i.e. inspired by god or "god breathed") then this should show up in the things that can be tested. If the testable things show that they are reliable, then that would give possible evidence that the untestable things may be trustworthy as well.

 

I would be open to hearing an example for me to ponder.

 

On top of that, the Bible can be examined for its claims, especially its claims about god.

 

By what methodology?

 

If the Bible shows itself to be consistent, then this, coupled with whether it's testable aspects are reliable, could further lend credibility to the deity promoted within. It may not prove him, but it may give sufficient evidence to take the idea of the Christian god and move him from the realm of impossible and into the realm of a possibility.

 

Again, my point....by what means, method, etc. are you proposing to test the untestable "person" of God

 

However, a study of the Bible will reveal that it is not a reliable book. It's testable portions sadly fail. It's claims about its deity are contradicted in many cases. As a result, the Bible shows very little if any reliability and, as a result what it claims about its god, what it states about salvation, etc, are not trustworthy and, therefore, the entire concept remains in the realm of the impossible.

 

I was just reading through the "verilies" that Christ spoke, and I don't know that I had an immediate reaction to finding them problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, my point....by what means, method, etc. are you proposing to test the untestable "person" of God

 

If god answers prayers we ought to be able to test this and find prayers being answered. In fact we have tested this and found prayers to be no more effective than a placebo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End I think you may brushing against some philosophy here, but I don’t understand what you’re driving at.

 

I believe the only things we know for certain are things about ourselves. The contents of our own minds are the most apparent and vivid things to us in my opinion. I can know with the greatest certainty what I am thinking or feeling or imagining.

 

Does this have any bearing on what you are trying to say?

 

 

I think all I am saying is we can only measure with probablility, that limited by conditions. So in that, we can't stop time or conditions and thusly limits probability to our testing methodologies. So, with that said, how can we make a statement about testing something that is described as Spirit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Net,

 

I was understanding objective truth to be something that is "measured" to the point where it is accepted as "true". If I have it wrong, my apologies....

 

That is provisional only, not "objective truth" . It is subject to change in the means of measuring or change in what is measured.

 

Per the definition you have provided, I would assign objective truth to God's truth, but how would we know other than faith, as our environment does not allow for measuring Spiritual truth....

 

What do you mean by "faith" in this context?

 

I would put faith in a positive believing kind of context.....something that I accept as true but can't define.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put faith in a positive believing kind of context.....something that I accept as true but can't define.

 

End3 I am not following your argument. Your God is defined for you if you accept the Bible. Faith, in the sense of the Christian faith, is believing the Bible is accurate. It has nothing to do with science or the scientific method or probabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ms. D, that would be the point.....high probablility is still only a function it seems of environment, so if there is a "true" something, then how would we know it by anything other than faith in probability?

 

You wouldn't know for sure. You would have the most probable outcome, given the data as presented to our senses.

 

Especially if the evironment is under Satan's control?

 

You could not be sure it was or was not under the control of a malevolent entity. Things are as they appear to our senses and through the lens of our conditioning.

 

If we can understand truth, why can't we make it definative today?

 

Its not established that we can "understand truth" if you are talking about an objective truth.

 

That would be the point....the Bible claims God the Father to be objectively true if I am reading it right, but you are saying we have yet to establish our ability to understand objective truth, so how can we claim God is not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put faith in a positive believing kind of context.....something that I accept as true but can't define.

 

End3 I am not following your argument. Your God is defined for you if you accept the Bible. Faith, in the sense of the Christian faith, is believing the Bible is accurate. It has nothing to do with science or the scientific method or probabilities.

 

No, it doesn't say that....it says the Comforter(KJV) guides us to truth....the objective truth of God, that we are unable to measure.....and if we are, someone tell me how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not established that we can "understand truth" if you are talking about an objective truth.

 

That would be the point....the Bible claims God the Father to be objectively true if I am reading it right, but you are saying we have yet to establish our ability to understand objective truth, so how can we claim God is not?

 

 

And how can we claim that he is? I am not saying we have to establish our ability to understand an objective truth. I maintain there is no such thing as an objective truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not established that we can "understand truth" if you are talking about an objective truth.

 

That would be the point....the Bible claims God the Father to be objectively true if I am reading it right, but you are saying we have yet to establish our ability to understand objective truth, so how can we claim God is not?

 

 

And how can we claim that he is? I am not saying we have to establish our ability to understand an objective truth. I maintain there is no such thing as an objective truth.

 

All it says is by faith...so do you believe this to be a trick by the writers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put faith in a positive believing kind of context.....something that I accept as true but can't define.

 

End3 I am not following your argument. Your God is defined for you if you accept the Bible. Faith, in the sense of the Christian faith, is believing the Bible is accurate. It has nothing to do with science or the scientific method or probabilities.

 

No, it doesn't say that....it says the Comforter(KJV) guides us to truth....the objective truth of God, that we are unable to measure.....and if we are, someone tell me how?

 

I don't see how you can say that God is not defined by the Bible. You picked out one verse about being guided, but there are many others that state very exactly the attributes of God. God is jealous, God is holy, God is just, God is love, etc. You just added "objective truth" there is no such thing. In fact your God may be true for you- that's a different kind of knowledge, but do not try to prove it by the scientific method. It just doesn't work that way, End3.

 

This cannot be measured scientifically. How you relate this to science I cannot comprehend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All it says is by faith...so do you believe this to be a trick by the writers?

 

No. Not a deliberate trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sentence "God doesn't exist" is basically shorthand for saying "I don't think that God exists" which is itself shorthand for "I don't see any real evidence that God exists so I'm comfortable saying that God doesn't exist."

 

The statement "God doesn't exist" isn't really the heart of atheism or disbelief in the Christian God. As I've pointed out on another thread, there are many varieties of atheism. The real test is not whether one believes in God or not, but whether one is willing to worship God. Atheists aren't willing to worship the Christian God, even if such a being does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put faith in a positive believing kind of context.....something that I accept as true but can't define.

 

End3 I am not following your argument. Your God is defined for you if you accept the Bible. Faith, in the sense of the Christian faith, is believing the Bible is accurate. It has nothing to do with science or the scientific method or probabilities.

 

No, it doesn't say that....it says the Comforter(KJV) guides us to truth....the objective truth of God, that we are unable to measure.....and if we are, someone tell me how?

 

I don't see how you can say that God is not defined by the Bible. You picked out one verse about being guided, but there are many others that state very exactly the attributes of God. God is jealous, God is holy, God is just, God is love, etc. You just added "objective truth" there is no such thing. In fact your God may be true for you- that's a different kind of knowledge, but do not try to prove it by the scientific method. It just doesn't work that way, End3.

 

This cannot be measured scientifically. How you relate this to science I cannot comprehend.

 

And that is a good point, everyone talks of proving it scientifically or by means we can measure, so how can we measure in any other terms? I don't know that we can...

 

And the one verse....there is a verse that says God is true. What that means to me is there is "true" out there somewhere....I believe it to be objective. You may not see it that way, but look at your description of the qualities....jealous, holy, just, love......How do we measure these in an environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is a good point, everyone talks of proving it scientifically or by means we can measure, so how can we measure in any other terms? I don't know that we can...

 

Maybe not, but what gives the Bible a special authority?

 

 

And the one verse....there is a verse that says God is true. What that means to me is there is "true" out there somewhere....I believe it to be objective. You may not see it that way, but look at your description of the qualities....jealous, holy, just, love......How do we measure these in an environment?

 

No I don't see it as objective. It isn't my description, it is the Biblical authors' description.

 

You don't measure that. You take it on faith if you are Christian.

 

good night, End3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.