It would seem that a question of proof of a claim is always asked and never given or accepted. It may be beneficial to define what a truth is or what a proof may consist of, so that a common agreement can be established and an endless barrage of, show the evidence' and 'thats not proof' can end. For starters I have pasted the following, which may serve as a beginning to an end.
the true or actual state of a matter:
---conformity with fact or reality; verity:
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically.
---any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.
Except for reality all the others are opinions.
Is your opinion of reality more truthful than others and, if so, why?
Reality is not dependent on opinions and there is only one reality, things exist. It is the most truthful and anything beyond is opinion.
Reality is beyond the senses. Reality is beyond the intellect. Reality is perceived differently by different people according to their awareness and ability to perceive reality. For instance, my dog is quite deaf. In dog years she is almost 100. My other dog, Sparky, hears things that the deaf dog, Kelsey does not. She trusts the hearing dog… and whenever Sparky starts barking, Kelsey will start barking too. The reality of what Sparky is barking at is an unknown for Kelsey. She barks anyway.
I like your story. I find a lot of people that willfully behave in the same way as Kelsey regardless of hearing ability.
5x5 is 25 and the Empire State Building is larger than my house. One is true, because in our reality, reason exists. Another is true, because reality exists. It would appear that there is some force at work that not only establishes reality, but a reason behind it.
Ah, the mind of reason is back. Great subject. So tired of reading the "intellectual" responses of the 3 stooges. Great subject. How shall we divide proofs; by knowledge, experience, association? Are proofs to the individual necessarily proofs to the group? Does that which is not accepted by the group mean the proof is invalid or can reason override the group?
Have been working on a book and riding merry-go-rounds is best left to others.
I think for our conversation, truth can be divided into two categories subjective/ personal or objective/analytical. The subjective truth ie, the painting is beautiful, blue is the best color. These are truths to the individual and cannot be debated, only disagreed with, as to the preference of another. Perhaps the belief in a god falls into this category.
I have listed here five proofs for the existence of god. Do you accept these?
1,Everything has a cause
2,There is evidence for design
3,There is intrinsic morality which needs a point of reference.
4,The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
5, The claims of Christ can be experienced (This is totally subjective, as is my favorite color and cannot be promoted or debated.)
The objective or analytical truth is, perhaps, this is a computer, the earth is a satellite of the sun. "A "satellite" is a mass that is gravitationally coupled to (i.e. in orbit with respect to) a larger mass. Earth is in orbit with respect to the sun in the same way that the moon is in orbit with respect to the Earth." Here we can reasonably prove that gravity exists, the sun exists, as each point of the assertion can be validated with further scrutiny.
Having a background in law enforcement, as you have the same background; when arresting a suspect with a crime, reasonable cause must be the determining factor, in that, a crime was committed and that this person committed the crime. The arrest of this person is not enough to bring him into court, as the DA will make a further determination and that is only for a prelim. The court now will make its determination. If the case goes further, a jury will make the final determination, as to whether or not your opinion to arrest was truthful. (There is always an allowance for mitigating circumstances, which may warrant an arrest, but not a conviction.)
This would fall into the category of objective truth.
I will leave this here for consideration and debate,
To respond to your questions directly, 'Are proofs to the individual--". I would say no, and if one wants them to be truths for others, then a process of scrutiny must be provided, as in a court of law.
"Does that which is not accepted by the group---" The great majority of the earths population believed it to be flat, a few did not. The few proved the majority wrong, with a preponderance of evidence, that was scrutinized and verified. The speed of sound and the speed of light are accepted truths, but now we begin to understand the possibilities of variations, as in the speed of light, not all photons, like all things, are not equal or perfect.
Please define any disagreements individually.
The knowledge of truth will always represent one's reality...and the two are one.
So where truth is not known chaos reigns and all is immerse on a sea of falsehood.
So it is inevitable that your definition of reality add truth differs.
That would be incorrect as there is only one reality. There are approximately as many perceptions of reality as there are people, but only one reality. As truth matches that one reality there is only one truth; all others are either intentionally false or mistake.
Not to say, of course, that definitions of reality/truth will differ, but only one is ever correct.
I agree. Truth and reality can never ever be defined as subjective! In fact, to find reality one must take away the sense of I and be objective in perceiving the truth / reality of the matter.
As We All Know
Do you even know what you doubting.
I see you doubt became you can and not because of reason.
Truth must be absolute...then reality must be the same...then heaven is reality.
If reality is not heaven to a man, then his Truth is not absolute, meaning that he believing in falsehood.
I know what I am doubting. Your claims. Truth is absolute regardless of your belief in heaven. Reality is indeed the same - therefore heaven does not exist.
Reality is not heaven, which is a subjective, meaningless term - undefined. Therefore you believe subjective falsehood.
Now that you've had the mike,
We acknowledge your noble deed for mankind have a cup of tea
....and a seat.
No problem. Sorry if using your brain to make reasonable judgements is so offensive. Are you upset that heaven does not exist or something?
I will have some tea though.
A very interesting and creative way of saying .
Try dumbing it down a bit and say it like this .
Even at my best am i on the slower side.
The seat professor.....
Sorry if the Truth is offensive to you. The door........
- not fair to rearrange what someone says.
He knows heaven exists. Thats all.
It is rude to say: "show me proof," in regard to spiritual perceptions.
Is he not allowed to reveal an honest insight?
Can you disprove his perceptions? any of them?
So, each to their own, as far as spiritual beliefs.
According to Me
It is fair when what is said is not only nonsense but also contemptuous. If about this particular comment, I didn't rearrange at all but only kept the relevant sentences, just like I am splitting your comments now, for the ease of replying.
He doesn't KNOW. That is only his opinion which he can't substantiate. Putting it in poetical nonsense won't change it. Does spiritual perception mean hallucination?
His perceptions are just that, his perceptions.
But he was claiming it as reality that is not honesty.
If someone gets perception of heaven it means it is time for him to be assessed by a doctor that is if he is not a charlatan.
It is belief and "belief" only not reality.
"He doesn't KNOW." How do you KNOW he doesn't KNOW?
You do not know he doesn't know, so be polite.
Allow the guys to have their say...it is their day in sun, let them enjoy.
They are smart only if I am indeed stupid.
I don't mind being stupid for them all day long so that they may have a good day.
After all even atheist needs to know happiness,
and after all what else would you expect them as to do to be happy?
Not sure stupid is a choice.
But - nice. Passive aggressive with a suggestion that anyone who does not believe your nonsense is stupid. Well done. You must be religious.
Do not spoil your own fun by over thinking things
Just accept me as I am...or as you want me to be....which ever is easier
Weird. You won't accept anyone that does not believe your claims. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
No! I will not have it… we are to accept you as you are, with the perceptions that you have. After all, no one can prove your perceptions are not reality! No One!
No. I disagree….based on what I know about psychiatry.
Favorite christian tactic.
While I am spiritual, it seems to me that anyone, religious, spiritual or atheist is capable of being happy without religion to "allow it to happen."
In fact, my atheist grandfather was quite a happy man.
Just because you or I might be happier when we work with our respective Gods, doesn't mean that spirituality is the only method of achieving joy.
You seem a little confused, in that "knows" suddenly becomes "perceptions". The two are NOT the same, you know - the first is truth while the second is opinion.
You're mistaken in that perceptions (opinions) should not be required to provide evidence. How else can others determine if they are true or not? The specific evidence used to come to the conclusion may not be found by others for centuries, or at all; the speaker should be more than happy to provide it for all.
No. Who are you to determine what an opinion is, versus an actual perception?
You asked: "How else can others determine if they are true or not?" They are true if they are stated to be true. Ghandi advised others to believe a man... for the sake of harmony. In other words, just believe a man believes what he believes. No one says you have to believe it as well. What they are doing is revealing, sharing and explaining their perceptions of reality.
One is completely and utterly free to discriminate, think and consider the thoughts of another and weigh the validity according to one's own perceptions of reality.
"The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses." D
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." D
Truth must be absolute...then reality must be the same...then heaven is not a reality
If reality is hell to a man, then his Truth is absolute, meaning that he believing in falsehood.
Doubt is how we separate lies and errors from truth and fact. It is a wise choice to doubt.
But if truth means heaven and god are real, and you know that "reality" to be the one and only, would you please produce the evidence you base that opinion on? The world needs to know, to eliminate the doubt that lack of evidence produces for all other reasoning people.
Are you not a man?
Therefore I can only present what you already know and seen in your capacity as a man.
But since you are already doubtful..... how can you ever know?
In the end you employ doubtfulness is to keep exactly where you want to be.....
good for you
How can we ever know? By eliminating doubt, through the artifice of finding evidence. How do YOU eliminate doubt, other than deciding whatever you want to be true, IS true?
The ignorant expresses his ignorance through doubtfulness,
He agitates himself constantly by thinking himself Knowledgeable.
So he find it necessary to prove all things by employing doubt.
But yet all that is proven is his own nature....
His pride keeps him from accepting the reality of himself, which allows
him to ultimately doubts that which he seeks is actually unlike himself.
My friend though am a man just like you but yet......
I am unlike you.
Yet...doubt that we could not fly gave us the airplane. It allowed us to sail around the world instead of falling off the edge. Doubt has produced nearly all that we know today - as such it is a very good thing, not bad.
Ignorance has always been, and will always be, a part of life. No man will ever know everything there is to know, but that is never a reason to invent unfounded beliefs as a replacement for that ignorance.
...we must respect his choice. Kess believes: "If reality is not heaven (if heaven is not reality) to a man, then his Truth is not absolute, meaning that he (is) believing in (a) falsehood."
What's wrong with saying, "Oh, very
interesting viewpoint you have," ? Then you can add "I happen to disagree… You don't even have to state why! But you certainly can for the sake of conversation.
Did Kess say, "You must believe me?'
He is only revealing his honest insights of reality.
Take them or leave them...as he has already expressed.
Atheists seem to think they must shut down theists and disallow their perceptions of reality.
Case in point:
RA asked Kess: "Are you upset that heaven does not exist or something?" Is this question respectful of a theist's honest perceptions of heaven which he dared to reveal here on a forum thread?
I experienced what I considered to be a perception of heaven. It was so joyful and loving, I couldn't even handle it.
Back when I used to play Magic: The Gathering (a role-playing game, for those not familiar) one of the important considerations was that we not break "subjective reality" for the folks who witnessed us.
Thus while each of our characters had various magical powers, we had to be careful not to be seen using them, or else to use them in such a way that it could be explained by something "normal."
I would agree with the game that "reality" is indeed subjective.
As I've seen on several recent threads here, some of us live in a reality where we have witnessed things that others say are "impossible."
Our beliefs and our inner life are also part of our reality, as are our experiences.
As another example, we humans live in a linear time frame, most likely because our brains would go "spluck" if we had to exist in All-Time-At-Once. It is quite possible that there are beings in the Universe who live in a non-linear time frame.
For big "R" Reality to exist it would have to be a fusion of all the realities of everyone.
I agree also that we must divide truth into objective and subjective, and was about to make that point until I saw it had already been made.
Here's an interesting article by physicist and philosopher David Chalmers, Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/docume … facing.pdf
I do not believe Spiritual Beliefs can be transferred to another. My advice: Don't even try. You may share your beliefs if others are open to hearing them, but if they aren't open, let it go.
The best response for someone trying to persuade you, (and you have no interest or you don't believe what they are saying,) is, "Oh! Very Interesting!" You could also be honest and say, " This subject/issue/topic is not interesting to me at this point in time," or something to that effect. It is actually impolite to flatly state, "There is no proof, etc." If you are interested in proof, you can request it, but not demand it.
In My Perfect World
Well, I wasn't the person saying there had to be proof or not. (In this thread at least. In another, I asked what proof someone had that something was absolutely impossible. A flat statement they made insisting that the experiences of others were not biologically possible.) Nor am I bored.
As to the rest of what you said, I agree completely. Everyone has their own spirituality, and trying to overlay your own onto them is not only a waste of time, it's a disrespect for their own unique viewpoint.
As for hearty debate, that can be fun for those who wish to partake.
I have just gotten a very interesting revelation (again).
Reality IS in fact, how we see it.
"For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
For Righteous, it is truth that there is no heaven...
Kess, has a different reality...
It's hard to wrap my brain around it, from this current perspective. But there are many different realities.
If the Pharoh is your God, it is so for you. But he will not be able to withstand the earthquakes.
What, say you???
What accounts for your very own aggression?
Are you too religious? Or just practicing???
I believe in happiness. But that is not the ultimate goal in life to be happy. In fact, many responsibilities I have do not make me happy. But they are responsibilities. They must be preformed. I want to be happy life everyone else. But I cannot read where we're suppose to be happy all the time. Quite the contrary. Suffering develops character, integrity, and respect. And honor!
Joy and happiness are 2 totally different things. I can find happiness in rating a red velvet ore cookie. But joy is a deep lasting fulfillment. There is no joy in possessions. But in fulfillment. The joy of the Lord. ..
Proof of truth is exactly what it is; its manifestation is its full expression. Isness is true; not isness is an impossibility, or false.
Almost every human perceive one line as longer than the other, but reality is that both are of the same length. So if someone says if one is longer we can say no, both are of the same length. If he repeats it we can correct him. But if again he repeats because he perceives one to be longer so in reality one is longer and it is the absolute truth and whoever says differently is uttering falsehood, we simply don't "add "I happen to disagree…, but we ask whether the one who says so is an idiot or a charlatan.
It's this a temporary glitch which results in a lack of foresight our a genuine change of heart.
Maybe one of your cronies will inform you or they will more than likely leave you out to dry....
For doubt does indeed create a dog eat dog world.
Christanity is a permanent glitch.
None of your cronies will inform you or they will more than likely leave you out to dry....
You can eat whatever you like.
You forgot to include..
- all hail to Conviction you alone is God
It seems that one of the persons needs to ne shown the truth. Flip the wings and lay the images atop one another. Bam!!! The evidence is obtained.
Seems as if everyone would at least try the instruction for obtaining proof that God is in fact real and reigns forevermore.
Step 1: Say, Lord please help my unbelief and create in me, a clean heart (it's tricky because if you actually do not believe, you will not ask, then you perpetually have not...)
Step 2: Read the entire New Testament *while asking God to help you understand who Jesus was* thus getting to know the Lord.
Step 3: Thank the Lord daily for his mercy and grace.
Step 4: Expect your faith to grow.
This way, it is possible to prove that God exists. Trust moves him.
Unfortunately, no one (no matter how clever) can GIVE you evidence of God.
You must GET your own. (see instruction above)
Finally... "No man is as blind as he who WILL NOT see."
Jesus is a myth whose most vociferous supporter was paul who got it from jewish scriptures. Mark made it into a historical story by copying homer and ot. Only fools believe that such fictions are real. It's like children believing that harry potter or 'his dark materials' are real.
Now can you logically state what does this 'god' mean?
By confirmation bias you can make anything true. Just substitute god to dung and do the same things you advocate, you will get the same result.
Gosh you're old; or have lots of faith in OTHER writers... which is it???
I think he is a kid.
He pays far more attention to the fact that he is saying something rather than what he is actually saying.
Kinda like he feel mature because he participate with supposedly mature people.
Well, you cannot lose when you have three "safety" phrases, and anonymity.
What is "true" for one; is not "true" for the other. The bible confirms. "For *him it is sin." "According to *your faith..."
Cannot get around it. No way... no how...
Kids are those who believe magical stories.
Again dishonesty. It is you who got faith in writers, the gospel fiction writers. When they said a dead man rose up again you believed.
by emrldphx5 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a...
by Charles James5 years ago
This is a question I have yet to see thoroughly answered, here. It is an open question to Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, Gnostic -even Scientist, Philosopher or Other. In your opinion, what constitutes or is [would...
by AshtonFirefly15 months ago
I've been researching the relationship between philosophy and science lately, and I came across this opinion during discussion:This person claimed that scientific theories, by nature, are ultimately influenced by and...
by Doc Young3 years ago
... ever notice when believers speak of God, invariably the debates will arise regarding and demanding proofs of his existence, ad nauseum ... yet ask naysayers for their adverse proofs, or any proofs or facts...
by amer7864 years ago
What criteria can be used to establish evidence for the thesis of an All-Powerful God that supposedly created the universe, determined its physical laws, originated and sustains mechanism for living organisms, created...
by fallenangel6667 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.