Not to muck up the gears with the advent of a spanner, but has anyone stopped to consider that the truth may be the 'Red Balls' themselves and the illusive green ball we seek is in fact a fallacy?
It is certainly one of the many possibilities. Many here would probably agree with the sentiment that there are countless truths, and the one most striven for is false. my point wasn't to say the green ball is in any way any particular belief. As you stated the red balls could be the truth, would be the same as redefining the green ball as the alternate truth you are speaking of.
Well, to start...you. Trying not to be antagonistic here, but you have made it pretty clear that no one else here even comes close to how well you have it all figured out. My paraphrase, but the gist is plenty easy for anyone else to see
If that is what you see I don't know what you are looking at. I try to be as agreeable as possible, and be very careful not to step on any toes. Obviously I, like many others am convinced my path (whether I am able to follow it correctly or not) is The Truth. I don't discount anyone else's view as not possible, nor entirely wrong. If I believed their path were equal, I would probably follow them. I cannot see how that equates to what many here seem to place as pushy or nay-saying. Much less as wil states, "I'm right and you are wrong, you should listen to me". I HAVE NOT ONCE SAID I KNOW EVERYTHING.
None of the created knows all, not even the angels who have spent nearly an eternity with Allah.
and
I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am saying I believe my faith is true, and the evidences I see in it haven't and perhaps cannot be contested. But just as equally possible that there is more information to come, or that there is no truth
Nowhere do I claim I am Absolutely correct in all I know. I have no way of proving that. Nor do I claim to know all. Quite the contradictory since I have stated many times that all views are equally possible in the statistical POV. So what keeps me from those paths, noone likes me answering that, although that is the point of Interfaith, to share and discuss others religions for a better understanding.
I'm trying really hard here to find some mutual ground to work from, but your definitions of truth and logic are all over the place...and again, not trying to seem antagonistic, but the definitions you provide are like trying to have your cake and eat it too, like trying to cover all your bases with deliberately convoluted definitions.
Truth is either a teaching...which is fine, as long as you understand that a teaching *often* (and this includes Islam) goes against reality. Or else truth is reality, in which case it often goes against religious teaching. You can't have it both ways without being disingenuous.
I'm not seeing what you are obviously. It seems you are arguing the point that you believe I think my logical conclusion is the only one. Which isn't true, and I have attempted to make that very clear many times. Your definitions of the possibilities of truth kind of express my point. The teaching type as you say I would equate to a spiritual truth (I believe, as I can't understand how you state it goes against reality. Why would someone maintain a true path not set in reality?). This spiritual truth is the 1 True God, the father, the creator, YHWH, Allah, God, Elohim, and many other names. This would also include the "What are we here for?" and "What happens after death?" questions. In Islam these are stated quite clearly, and many other religions as well. Your speak of reality I can only assume then is the path to that spiritual truth. Again in Islam the path is very straightforward. The 5 Pillars very direct.
Truth "is teaching which goes against reality" or "is reality and goes against teaching". Maybe your definition of reality is different that mine, because I just can't see ANY contradiction in teaching and reality. Teaching leads to reality. This might be a difference in belief structure, I don't know. This argument however seems less based on religion than it is on anti-religion. You can't believe in a God and believe in reality, as if God is not a possible part of the reality. If this isn't what you meant, maybe you should start a thread on definitions of common words you intend to use, because I simply do not understand how these have to be exclusive. I would propose that a scholarly approach would be less shuffling of definitions, and more direct answering of questions. Trying to stay on topic, rather than attempt to chastise me for not following your format. (it isn't just you).
---
It seems I have run out of quote allowances, I agree I wouldn't Consider Judaism + Christianity = Islam. But I would consider the message the prophets found therein together is Islam so the 3 are linked in an Islamic POV. Whereas in the aforementioned traditions it is not.
And if you are referring to logical fallacies in the Quran, by all means, post them, I would suggest doing 1 at a time and waiting for an answer or we might miss several while discussing some intricacies of Quranic explanations. If you are talking about logical fallacies from my post, also yes, please do, but I ask that if respond in a way that is concise, we not harp on it too much. When I say I agree something is logical, I mean so in the most direct definition of logical, a distinct possibility exists that it is correct using sound arguments. Google Def. - "characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning"
--
I'm not so sure I am moving goalposts, as much as trying to explain in more direct terms what it is I meant, as it seems common language is inexcusable here. Sometimes what you think I meant and what I meant were different, when I say something to clarify it, the goalpost might appear to move, but it really is just coming in (or out) of focus
--
I've yet to be presented with warts of what I talk about. Everyone gets caught up in how they don't agree with the idea of 1 truth. And no discussions ever take place about anything else. This thread is about evolution in religion, and the word evolution hasn't popped up in over 10 posts. I believe we got off track due to me saying "In Islam there is..." or something of the sort. What would be incredible is if these posts could be answered without the clan getting upset about someone believing what they believe is correct. I would be more OK with someone coming out and saying "I disagree because..." or even "Islam is not congruent to this because..." than someone coming out to tell me that I am incorrect because I believe in one truth.
--
Please take the last Sentence and make a new post. That is a prime example of a worthy TOPIC to discus such matters. Not one based on Evolution in religion.
