what do you suppose The Truth really is?? does it matter? Should it matter who the fuck God's messiahs were ( jesus, moses, mohammad, hasn't come yet) or just that there is a God, or are we all just a giant miller-urey experiment. How could we prove its not just the need to fill curiousity of the human condition. If it is, the what about all the complexities and measurements of the world that DiVinci saw; that can't be conisidence.

Is Wiccan the way;hindu? i reguritate; does it even fucking matter?

That's where FAITH comes into play.

I think the fact that every human being at some point ponders that very question is indicative that it does matter. What reason would it pertain to our survival, in a natural sense, to have these deep questions? I think these thoughts are there for a reason and we should continue to ferret out truth, what ever it may be.

REALITY:

The state of being real

I chose this topic as the opening chapter for several reasons. Most noteably, is the reason that perception or imperceptiveness plays a central role in how we understand, or misunderstand the nature of God. It is imperative that we distinguish what is real from what is fictional, so as to free us from the abstract. Without the basic grasp of reality, we would never be able to percieve of anything, let alone the transcendental. In light of this, I ask the all-important question: What is reality?

What predicates reality? What is, or what are, the defining principle(s) that constitute reality? Ah, an age old question, indeed! It is possibly the apex of mankinds endless questions, listed high on the totem with the other biggie, ‘what is the meaning of life.’ Simply put, these questions are deserving of a sufficient answer. Reality is the quantitative summation of all things true. Reality is the totality of possessing or being all that is considered, actual. If I were standing in front of you speaking these very words, how would you deduce that I am real? What would the mechanism of my being ‘real’, constitute? Suffice it to say, that reality is typically, consummated by our five senses, separating the abstract from the actual. The brain recieves messages through stimuli via bodily portals, such as the eyes, ears, and nose. But how are we to think that life is nothing more than biological functions? Does reality begin and end with our senses? Are we supposed to assume that the mechanisms of the body alone, account for emotion? If I were to die would reality, itself, cease to exist because I am no longer physically capable of receiving and discerning messages? Will the earth stop spinning because I’m no longer an active participant in the affairs of the universe? Is it necessary that I percieve reality, in order for there to be, a reality? All indicators would insinuate that this would not be the case. Even still, philosophers spend themselves, engaged in deep ponderance of such questions.

Epistemics is one such branch of philosophy that deals with with these debates. Epistemology is a widely investigated and debated form of philosophy. Much of the debate has focused its attention to the analysing of nature and a variety of knowledge claims, as it relates to similar notions of truth and belief. However, much of its history is a continuously conflicting story. Many of the claims are replete with contradictions and anamoles, as they glance over some very basic and obvious flaws in their theorems. It would seem that its adherents are apt to over-complicate everything to the point of absurdity. In response, reality becomes obscure and rationality is abandoned. For instance, ‘Nihilists’ believe that there is no justification for any knowledge claims. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It shouldn’t take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can the Nihilist even purport such a claim if he hasn’t the ability to ‘know’ that knowledge is unattainable? If nothing can be verified, then he should not offer any solutions, being that, it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question my truth? Similarly, the one who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the ‘self’ is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what’s more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality, strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing my reality? If they don’t know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves, then what are they arguing about? It’s this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits the philosopher against his own beliefs. Is it not absurd and contradictory that Nihilists know that knowledge is impossible? I think we can safely say, yes. This is just one example of how epistemology is constantly at ends with itself. These philosophers often give special status to one theory or another. How is that in keeping with the new tolerance of today?

It seems as though we have reached an impasse. In order to formulate a coherent theory, perhaps it is necessary to reduce the information in to sizable bits. At the base level, there are only two options from which to choose. Reality is either subjective or objective. Reality is either absolute or relative. It is either partial or impartial. The difference between absolutes and relativism is a longstanding philosophical debate that many view to be in a perpetual stalemate. However, using inductive and deductive reasoning, we will clearly see that one stands out superior to the other. The same can be said of truth, as they compliment and parallel one another in every concievable way.

• Relative Truth: Relative truth is laregly considered circumstantial, as something can only be made, ‘real’ by certain circumstances. Relative truth is only considered to be applicable in certain instances as they relate or vary from person to person and from time to time. What was true in one place and at one time, may not be true for all people in all places or at all times. Though something may be true now, it may not be true in the future because truth, and the reality of it, is subject to change at the discretion of chance.

• Absolute Truth: Absolute truth states that truth is truth, and to deviate from it would nullify the very defintion. In keeping with truth, and by extension, reality, nothing could even be circumstantial without a basis for contrasting views. What is true now, by necessity, will be true at all times and in every instance, for every person. Absolute truth is not subject to opinions or varying perspectives. Absolute truth does not give credence to suppositions, but rather, sets the standard. Truth, may be discovered or revealed, but it is never invented by the personal prejudice of man.

Relativism may be emotionally satisfying to many people, because it takes away those nagging bouts of guilt but it is far removed from reality. This is not to say that some things are not relative. Clearly, there are examples of it in nature and society. For instance, lets say that in America, I am considered short. In contrast to most American males, I am considered short. However, suppose I visited a Pygmy tribe in Africa. To the Pygmy, 5’8 is quite tall; and so, my being tall or short is relative in the eye of the beholder. But this is not example or an argument to be made by an absolutist. This is not example of moral relativity. Relativism is an exaggerated approach with a hidden agenda to exonerate oneself from the whole of morality. Truth and reality simply cannot be dictated by personal one’s personal preference. As it stands, no one can logically refute or argue against absolute truth. To argue against such is to tacitly admit that there is the existance of absolutes. How could someone hold to this argument and still maintain that there are no absolutes? He would have to be a polemicist, because his argument would be baseless. Allow me to clarify by using some classic arguments made by relativists. These declarations should convey the failed ideological premise of relativism. Suppose someone was to say to us, “Everything is always relative because there are no absolutes.” The claimant just single-handedly dismantled his own argument, not once, not twice, but three times in one sentence. To state that things are ‘always,’ relative, would actually be indicative of an absolute; in which case, that isn’t relative at all. To state that ‘everything’ relates in relativity, is also making an absolute statement. To state that there are ‘no absolutes’, is, in and of itself, a prime example of an absolute at work in speech, in theory, and in doctrine. The relativist argument, whether it’s intended to be simple or complex, will refute itself everytime because it is a hopelessly illogical rationale.

If relativism were true, then everything could contain contradictory conditions. This, of course, is not possible. Allow me to explain. Opposites cannot both be true, as it defies the laws of non-contradiction. This is an undeniable fact because we can’t use it, without using it, and you can’t deny it, without using it. Even in some paradoxical usage, the premise would conflict with itself in every instance. If relativism were true, then nothing could actually be true. Does that make sense to you? Me neither. Why is this the case? Well, let’s look at some examples, then ask yourself if there are instances of absolutes in the known universe. Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously? Can you be in India and Sweden, simultaneously? Do some people have no need of oxygen or sustenence to survive? Can you be both living and dead? Can you tell the truth and a lie at the same time? Can you live in the past and in the future? Is anyone actually getting younger, instead of older? The answer to all of the questions is, no. The same rule applies for all people, at the same time, at different times, and is completely independent of what someone might otherwise wish it to be.

Now that we’ve established that there are absolutes, how would it apply to morality? Consider the philosopher who spends countless hours philosophizing whether or not the universe has meaning. He writes volumes of text about the meaninglessness of it all. We could assume, then, that he finds much meaning in the text. The mere fact that he is avidly pursuing meaninglessness is contrary to the point of his meaningful endeavor. Is it not? It shouldn’t take long to figure out that he prefers a meaningless existance and pursues it because he wants it to be so. He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate himself- to excuse himself from responsibility.

If we were to make an absolute statement concerning morality to a relativist, it would likely be cause for alarm. In response, we might hear, “There is no right or wrong. What’s right for you, isn’t right for me!” If that really is the case, then perhaps we should ask him if his statement was right or wrong. If his statement is neither right or wrong, then he has no basis to criticize my statement, now does he? In fact, he has no basis for any statement at all. He is essentially telling me that I have to prefer his reality and reject my own. That is hardly in keeping with tolerance. Likewise, if we were to hear, “It’s wrong for you to impose your beliefs on me,” then, we might ask him why this is wrong, being that he views nothing as being right or wrong; or so he claims to.

As it relates to morality, the relativist sees pious views as being intollerant. Interestingly, when expressing views on absolutes, you just might get the chance to some of their ‘tolerance’ in action. They might see my view as too rigid and finite and so, they’re repulsed by it. In fact, sometimes when expressing my faith, many people get angry at my beliefs. But, if there is no right or wrong, then who are they to judge my beliefs, much less, get angry at them? Perhaps even more condemning is the usage of language to convey thoughts. Perhaps we should remove any word from the dictionary that does not conform to relativistic tolerance. Words, such as, (all, every, yes, no, true, false, good, evil, etc) should be stricken from the language as they impede my rights of personal preference!

It seems that the more someone wrestles against an absolute, the more they actually prove that its existance is a timeless truth. Does anyone else see just how ridiculous relativsim is? Relativism is not a cogent argument, much less, a coherent thought. Absolutes are compell and comprise the universe. Absolutes are the mechanisms for a working universe. Imagine the tumult and chaos that would ensue without it’s immutable law firmly entrenched in the fabric of the universe? What would happen to physics without it? What would happen to mathematics? It is with, and only with, precision that mathematics and science are possible. They have no meaning without exacting precision. How would the architect design a house using relativity? Supremely more important, what would happen to the universe, if it’s Architect showed as much indifference and carelessness as some philosophers? The bottom line is this: There are absolutes; and that’s an absolute fact! Why then, is there such an aversion to absolutism? Why would anyone feel repelled by the notion of absolutes?

Our society has become one of self-decision. Mankind is trying to establish and assign morality based on his own ideals, even though they actually contravene relativity. Truth is not the opposite of falsehood, but rather is the absence of falsehood. So, to humanly decide if something is right or wrong means that there was a standard of truth. If there are instances of absolute phenomena, then we must concede that something or someone instituted such policy. This makes for some very uncomfortable people, squirming around in their seat. They would have to acknowledge that there is something greater than themselves; something ubiquitous and omnipotent; something like, God.





[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-04-2006).]

Truth is the stuff that grows in my shoes.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Our society has become one of self-decision. Mankind is trying to establish and assign morality based on his own ideals, even though they actually contravene relativity. Truth is not the opposite of falsehood, but rather is the absence of falsehood. So, to humanly decide if something is right or wrong means that there was a standard of truth. If there are instances of absolute phenomena, then we must concede that something or someone instituted such policy. This makes for some very uncomfortable people, squirming around in their seat. They would have to acknowledge that there is something greater than themselves; something ubiquitous and omnipotent; something like, God.



You could have skipped all but the last paragraph since all you wanted to say is the word God. Arriving at it with a completely illogical way is ironic when the topic's title is "The Truth".

Yes, there are absolute phenomena because there are LAWS in nature. How you use this fact to arrive at the existence of God is irrational. And you really had to use the word "omnipotent"? A logically impossible concept is not very helpful for your case for absolutism.

You want the truth!? YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Ash hadu alla ilaaha illallah, wa ash hadu anna Muhammad ar rasool ullaah.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

You want the truth!? YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

It's sad, but that made me laugh out loud.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elfstone:

You could have skipped all but the last paragraph since all you wanted to say is the word God. Arriving at it with a completely illogical way is ironic when the topic's title is "The Truth".

What was my illogical way of approaching it?

Yes, there are absolute phenomena because there are LAWS in nature. How you use this fact to arrive at the existence of God is irrational. And you really had to use the word "omnipotent"? A logically impossible concept is not very helpful for your case for absolutism.

If there is a Law, any law, then something must first institute that policy and also to enforce it. Just to summarize, we know for a fact that all things tend towards disorder when left to themselves in the physical universe. That's the tendancy of all things natural. The fact that we are even here is a testimony all in itself. And how is the word 'omnipotent' an illogical concept?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Just to summarize, we know for a fact that all things tend towards disorder when left to themselves in the physical universe. That's the tendancy of all things natural. The fact that we are even here is a testimony all in itself. And how is the word 'omnipotent' an illogical concept?



Wrong. The human condition is one towards disorder. No miracle here.

If I leave water in Alaska it naturally becomes more 'ordered' there goes that law. (Maybe you should stop screwing up the 2LoT, it doesn't impress anyone).

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



If there is a Law, any law, then something must first institute that policy and also to enforce it.

Why? There's no fundamental reason it should be so.

And even if we agree to that, you can't know whether this something is God, an alien from another universe, or the universe itself.

Your approach is illogical because you arrive at your conclusion with nothing to point you to it, no evidence whatsoever.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Just to summarize, we know for a fact that all things tend towards disorder when left to themselves in the physical universe. That's the tendancy of all things natural. The fact that we are even here is a testimony all in itself.

The universe as a whole tends toward disorder. This means that a part of the universe is free to be as ordered as it wants as long as another part gets more disordered. Simple high school physics.

The fact that we are here isn't a testimony to anything.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



And how is the word 'omnipotent' an illogical concept?



I think this has been demonstrated many times here. It leads to logical contradictions like the "can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it?" conundrum.