truth creator ? a new truth ? thanks anyway. what are you wanting to discuss theoligically ? ehyeh ?
Hello. Can someone point me in the right direction?
- Thread starter Ehyeh
- Start date
Ehyeh
New member
I see. Well, I have never registered here before.
Perhaps I can be shaken away from epistemological agnosticism. "Who knows?"
Serpentdove's analysis is correct, my agnosticism means "without knowledge" meaning that I reject all knowledge claims. This is because knowledge claims are necessarily made formatted by the creation of propositions. A given proposition is either an assumption or a conclusion, meaning that its truth or falsity is either assigned by the speaker, listener, writer, or reader or follows by logical inference from a set of assumptions whose truth or falsity is thusly assigned.I perceive truth as existing independently of propositions, as something which is experienced in the realm of the actual.
I see truth as being assigned to propositions as they relate to action in the present. Therefore, the propositions themselves do not embody the truth. Thus, the truth of a proposition such as "Christ is the Truth." depends upon the realization of the listener concerning his or her understanding of the nature of Christ as Christ relates to his or her perception of the present.
Certainly. I am guided by a voice in my head. But where does that voice come from?
Sure. The world changes, and new ideas come into being. They can be synthesized into ways of guiding individuals to the actual truth- the truth which is realized through experience and action. Many individuals will never accept ideas like "Christ is the truth." But can, say, a scientifically-minded individual be guided towards an attitude of truth-seeking through under-standing analogies which discuss the the connection between John 1:1 and Holographic Universe Theory/M-Theory? I certainly believe that such analogies have guided and are guiding me closer to the truth.
Never in my life.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I see. Well, I have never registered here before.
Perhaps I can be shaken away from epistemological agnosticism. "Who knows?"
I perceive truth as existing independently of propositions, as something which is experienced in the realm of the actual.
I see truth as being assigned to propositions as they relate to action in the present. Therefore, the propositions themselves do not embody the truth. Thus, the truth of a proposition such as "Christ is the Truth." depends upon the realization of the listener concerning his or her understanding of the nature of Christ as Christ relates to his or her perception of the present.
Certainly. I am guided by a voice in my head. But where does that voice come from?
Sure. The world changes, and new ideas come into being. They can be synthesized into ways of guiding individuals to the actual truth- the truth which is realized through experience and action. Many individuals will never accept ideas like "Christ is the truth." But can, say, a scientifically-minded individual be guided towards an attitude of truth-seeking through under-standing analogies which discuss the the connection between John 1:1 and Holographic Universe Theory/M-Theory? I certainly believe that such analogies have guided and are guiding me closer to the truth.
Never in my life.
I happen to believe that the very definition of "God" is the reality of propositional and absolute truth.
IOW's, faith/belief in God is not blind nor without reason.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
If you have posted the required amount, click on the name of the person you want to message, click pubic profile, and their wall will come up.
God is what He has proposed and revealed to His creatures, through His word (Holy Scriptures).
See my motto.
< - - - - - - - - - -
PureX
Well-known member
Wow! Those are two very different questions.
The first one, I don't know the answer to.
The second one, … well … I don't know the answer to that one either. Though I'll answer it, anyway.
For me, "God" is the term we use to refer to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. God is the who and the how and the why of it all. Including us. It is from God we come, and to God we will return.
It is for God, then, that I presume we exist. And so we are obliged to love, and respect, and help one another, rather than use, and exploit, and destroy one another for our own sakes.
PureX
Well-known member
Yes. And by letting the reflection of God within us to help us become our true selves.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You assume that God reflects Himself in fallen men, and that total sinfulness is not mankinds' actual condition and state of being.
God has revealed there is none righteous, no not one.
Knowledge, faith, and love of God, by necessity, comes from outside the fallen creature; not from within. John 6:44
Ehyeh
New member
You really seem to be trying to avoid this question. What does he propose?
I am just trying to understand what it even means when you say that "God is the reality of propositional truth." I am used to using these words in an academic context and your sentence would simply be considered nonsense. First of all, active verbs relate more meaning than to verb "to be", so try to avoid answering with a sentence in the form of "X is Y". That would mere shift the semantics by resetting the definitions and would force you into a regression where meaning would not be related unless the the meaning of Y is agreed upon.
Sometimes God defines himself tautologously, like "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh", I am that I am.
Are you proposing that the "reality" of propositional truth is tautology? I could understand what you mean by that. It appears to me that the foundation of meaning is the isomorphic function.
How many posts do I need to have to send visitor messages? I have received several but am unable to reply. This is frustrating.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God is (propositus) what He proposes; discoverable through His objective revelation alone.
Logically speaking, yes. God reveals Himself as "IAM" necessarily, because He IS; and reasonably through the further revelation of His names and descriptions of His unique (divine) attributes.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Ehyeh
New member
Okay, Nang, I hate to sound rude but you're literally just saying the same thing over and over using different words without actually answering the question.
I think I know why you don't want to answer the question-or why in truth nobody can- but it isn't clear to me whether you even realize you're not answering it.
And there is nothing on that page that helps, but thanks for trying anyway.
I think I know why you don't want to answer the question-or why in truth nobody can- but it isn't clear to me whether you even realize you're not answering it.
And there is nothing on that page that helps, but thanks for trying anyway.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Thus my replies . . .
The bolded exposes your actual attitude and opinion. However, I do understand your inability to understand and discuss biblical theology.
You will find no objective, Godly Truth, from reading Alan Watts.
Last edited:
Ehyeh
New member
Is that so? Because his book on Christianity is the only reason I joined this forum, because he presents a very compelling picture of the religion that is far better researched and satisfying than any I had ever encountered before or any I have encountered since, including on this forum. And if you're saying this forum might lead me to read some "objective, Godly truths", then I would say that in a way Watts' book does lead you to the truth.
There is one thing he says with which I unreservedly agree. Just as the road sign is not the destination and money is not the resource, words cannot be the truth. Signs point to their destinations, money points to resources, and words point to truth. Once you grasp the truth, you should forget the words, just as when you acquire the resource you give up the money and when you arrive at your destination you quit looking at the maps and sings that guided you there. Words are stepping stones to ACTUAL truth- truth in action.
For a rigorous proof of why no language is capable of consistently representing all true facts, see Godels incompleteness theorem.
As far as I can see, I am not the one with an inability to discuss theology, you are. Theos means God and ology means study of so you'd think you would be willing to elaborate a non evasive, non circular definition of God, but you're not even willing to do that.
There is one thing he says with which I unreservedly agree. Just as the road sign is not the destination and money is not the resource, words cannot be the truth. Signs point to their destinations, money points to resources, and words point to truth. Once you grasp the truth, you should forget the words, just as when you acquire the resource you give up the money and when you arrive at your destination you quit looking at the maps and sings that guided you there. Words are stepping stones to ACTUAL truth- truth in action.
For a rigorous proof of why no language is capable of consistently representing all true facts, see Godels incompleteness theorem.
As far as I can see, I am not the one with an inability to discuss theology, you are. Theos means God and ology means study of so you'd think you would be willing to elaborate a non evasive, non circular definition of God, but you're not even willing to do that.
PureX
Well-known member
Total sinfulness is not mankind's state of being. Surely, we do sin. But just as surely, we do love, and forgive, and heal each other when we allow that part of ourselves that is a reflection of our Creator, to be expressed within us and through us to each other.
That doesn't mean we are totally sinful, except in the eyes of an irrational extremist who's heart has been given over to loathing his fellow human beings, as well as himself.
These traits exist within us because we were made in the image of God. In that sense, I guess they came from "outside of us". But they nevertheless exist within us, now. And it is within us that we will find them, now, and be healed by them; if we so choose.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Theos is Jesus Christ; the Word come in flesh to work the salvation of sinful creation.
Such Is Truth.
John 17:17
Godel had no clue . . .
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Ehyeh
New member
Basically you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. I hate to be so harsh about it but your terse, content devoid replies essentially just wasted my time.