The truth and nothing but the facts

[Thomas]

if it exists, it is real...if it is real, it is true. OK, that reasonably well sums up, to a point.

OK

Because you no longer exist doesn't mean you did not exist, and presuming you did in fact exist, then the reality is you existed, therefore you are part and parcel of reality.

OK

Let me ask this way...did Adam in fact exist, is he real and therefore True?

I'd say no.

Did Abraham in fact exist, is he real and therefore True?

I'd say yes.

Did Moses in fact exist, is he real and therefore True?

I'd say yes.

Did Jesus in fact exist, is he real and therefore True?

I'd say yes.

Not all little truths are always True, and here I am stepping outside of my preferred understanding and usage. Surely you can recount numerous times in history when cocksure, unassailable truths ruled the day and the minds and hearts of humanity, only to be shown 50, 100, 200 years later to be so far off base as to be laughable?

Exactly! They were never true. They were treated as true, regarded as true, but they were in fact errors of understanding — not falsehoods, not lies, just misunderstanding ...

They may signal the truth ... like sexual reproduction, say, the ancients' idea of the process is way off the mark, but there was a germ of truth in there, I mean, they knew where to put the willy ...

You wish for Truth to be a concept ...

Not quite.

I see truth as a concept proven, by virtue of things that are true. 'This' is true ... 'that' is true ... but 'this' is not 'that', therefore 'truth' is common to them both, but it is not them (there are are truths). 'The Truth' then is the totality of all that is true. I'd say then that 'The Truth' is a concept, but it's not a value judgement, it's a self-evident fact.

But when we start talking about 'The Truth' as an objective something, rather than in reference to particular things, then we're into conceptual structures, and when we talk about One Eternal Truth, then I would have thought very much so ... ?

To me, 'One Eternal Truth' is like Plato's idea of The Good), a religious ideal, a holistic cosmic viewpoint — some truths encompass other truths, like the conservation of mass, or E=MC squared, but I hope you can see that my (and Plato's) idea of 'The Truth' is somewhat different than an all-encompassing scientific dictum like the conservation of mass, or the space-time continuum, both of those are facts.

Do away with concepts and you *only* have experience, concepts are how we parse experience and learn from it. So yes, the tree is a concept for illustration, Truth is a concept to grasp Reality.

That is how it seems to me. That's how we make sense of experience, and can says things like dinosaurs existed, that is true, but unicorns don't. (Knowing my luck, someone will have just discovered a fossilised skeleton ... ) Dinosaurs are real, just not currently ...

Qualities of existence? OK, I think we are getting unnecessarily wordy, we've been here before, obfuscating with language.

OK. Let me simplify.

Something exists.
Therefore I can say it is real, it exists — it has presence in the world;
Therefore it is true, in that it is what it is — it's nature, it's way of being in the world. (No matter how big a dick or a despot someone might be, that someone is, is true.)

s the first sincere, neutral ground discussion you and I have had in quite awhile, and I'd like to stay on track if at all possible.

Ditto.

So I am going to ask, pointedly, by "qualities of existence" are you meaning "concepts," or are we back at value judgments?

I'm saying 'existence' has certain qualities, that is aspects(?), by which we determine that something exists. Its actuality.

Can I ask, at the risk of a massive diversion, how you see the difference between 'concept' and 'value judgement', does not one derive from the other?

As a concept, as a menu...yes. As a value judgment...no. As Reality in substance...no.

Ah, we might be getting to the nub of it here.

All along I have been working from the idea that Truth is a concept/value judgement proven by the facts (at which point it ceases to become a concept, a value judgement, and is a fact — but Truth as a Reality in substance, no.

A bit like colour: Tomatoes are Red. Apples are red. Blood is red. Therefore 'redness' is real, is true, exists as a frequency on the spectrum of light, is something they all have in common, but does 'red' exist as a substance in its own right, no. Does that make things any clearer?

 

[Thomas]

Wait till we impeach the nonsense... that silent majority over here will be heard around the world...

Well other nonsenses have rocked the world, whether they be stupid ideas like 'the master race', or staggering insights, like heliocentrism ...

 

[juantoo3]

It's a matter of discernment – is the current situation a continuation of the past?

Only in that millenniallists left Europe to pursue their own heterodox beliefs in the New World. Once here, the theoogical dimension took off very much in its own dimension and under its own steam, and has become the soapbox of the religious right. The rapture has captivated minds, 'The Left Behind' series has sold over ten millions copies. US 'rapture theology', along with creationism and ID, has been promoted by the US religious right with a strong sociopolitical agenda.

Rest assured, in Europe, we think it's all nonsense.


Ah. It's all part of the same phenomena.

Limited time...

I think if you took a poll here, the "religious right" doesn't have as much clout or favor as you imply. Politics causes me stress, I come here to de-stress, I avoid the Politics board as a rule for as long as I've had an account here. I am a Conservative, have been of my own thoughtful accord since I can remember. I understand the lefty louie socialist communist agenda, and don't agree with it. I know they have the pulpit here at this site, and just like the "Young Earth Creationists" stand here so we can dump on you threads, I don't care to be dumped on, but anyone who dares try will go away wishing they hadn't. Not a threat, a promise.

Politicians of all stripes have good and bad among them. I know of no one walking this Earth who is perfect....show me just ONE perfect liberal. H. Clinton is a farce, I expected her to win and I was seriously looking into leaving the country if she had. Lesser people have gone to prison for less than she is guilty of.

I've said enough, I don't wish to say anymore to politics.

As for part of the same phenomena, I can see how you might think that, but to me there are key doctrinal elements related to the Rapture teachings that are not directly associated with Creationism/ID. "Rapture" the word, as such, is not in the Bible, it was introduced as I mentioned in the 19th century, and that teaching has taken hold in a lot of mainstream Protestant denominations. When I compare that teaching with what I read in the Bible, I do not see any genuine parallels. I'm familiar with the quoted (out of context) verses, but I see more of a kind of wishful thinking than I do any serious Bible scholarship.

Whether you see, or wish to see, the distinction is irrelevant to me. I can understand how from your vantage it all lumps into one confusing mess, but then your tradition and mine don't see eye to eye on a lot of matters. There are matters in your traditions that leave me scratching my head wondering why on Earth..., but I just walk away and leave you to find G-d on your own terms. That is the way that is comfortable to you, I can accept that. Your way to G-d is not comfortable to me, so it is not the path I choose to take. Neither of us can, in fact, say that we are right, or more importantly that the other is wrong.

 

[Thomas]

I think if you took a poll here, the "religious right" doesn't have as much clout or favor as you imply.

(Thinks: I wonder if Wil is reading this?)

As for part of the same phenomena, I can see how you might think that, but to me there are key doctrinal elements related to the Rapture teachings that are not directly associated with Creationism/ID.

This is the crux.

"Rapture" the word, as such, is not in the Bible ...

The term "rapture" is derived from the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thessalonians 4:17: "we will be caught up" (Latin: rapiemur).

"Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and most Reformed Christians do not generally use "rapture" as a specific theological term, nor do any of these bodies subscribe to the premillennialist dispensationalist theological views associated with its use, but do believe in the phenomenon —primarily in the sense of the elect's gathering with Christ in Heaven after his Second Coming." (wiki)

"These denominations do not believe that a group of people is left behind on earth for an extended Tribulation period after the event" (ibid.)

"Pre-tribulation rapture theology (which I was referring to) originated in the eighteenth century, with Puritan preachers, and was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further in the United States by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 20th century." (ibid.)

When I compare that teaching with what I read in the Bible, I do not see any genuine parallels. I'm familiar with the quoted (out of context) verses, but I see more of a kind of wishful thinking than I do any serious Bible scholarship.

Quite.

 

[wil]

That's a 'science v religion' thing again...

Again, as soon as religionists quit creating creation museums, using the bible and prayer in lieu of medical procedures, trying to hold the moral and ethical high ground while voting for Donald Trump... maybe that argument won't apply but in 2018... it does, as while you don't think it does...we have tens of millions in this country that do...and they vote, and they hold office, and they run news agencies... ie their warped views affect this country, your country and the world.

 

[wil]

H. Clinton is a farce

agreed, we had no viable choices this year...and of the two she was definitely the lesser of two evils... do we want to use heroin, or more heroin?

(Thinks: I wonder if Wil is reading this?)

of course he is...doesn't mean I agree, especially since the election...the power of the religious right and their alliance to being more right than religious has been blatantly exposed, by their entering into the voting booth...

 

[juantoo3]

I'd say no.


I'd say yes.


I'd say yes.


I'd say yes.

Very good...you caught the gist of my trick question. Of course, one might ask how you arrived at your answers? I suspect that answer has more to do with science than you may be comfortable admitting...

Exactly! They were never true. They were treated as true, regarded as true, but they were in fact errors of understanding — not falsehoods, not lies, just misunderstanding ...

Why should I believe things are any different now?

I see truth as a concept proven, by virtue of things that are true. 'This' is true ... 'that' is true ... but 'this' is not 'that', therefore 'truth' is common to them both, but it is not them (there are are truths). 'The Truth' then is the totality of all that is true. I'd say then that 'The Truth' is a concept, but it's not a value judgement, it's a self-evident fact.

OK, but the essence is that Truth is a concept. So much of our reasoning is conceptual and symbolic, but rather than confuse the issue I am going to stay with conceptual. Truth is a concept...to that I have agreed...it is the menu, not the meal. So when I say, or someone says, the word "Truth" the implication is that it points, *conceptually,* to something very Real. Because of the nature of Reality, it may only be Real for what appears to the human eye for a moment, but it is in fact Real. Am I missing anything yet?

But when we start talking about 'The Truth' as an objective something, rather than in reference to particular things, then we're into conceptual structures, and when we talk about One Eternal Truth, then I would have thought very much so ... ?

And therein is where this all gets really, really sticky. Now we move from concept to value judgment. "The Truth" as I see it typically applied, means something considerably different than Reality. "The Truth" is philosophy, "The Truth" is implied morality, "The Truth" is my way or the highway. That is a deliberate abuse of the word Truth, whether intended or not. Truth cannot be partially true and partially not true. Truth cannot be true for some and not for others...not as a justification to proselytize or subjugate, but in a very Real, uncoerced sense.

To me, 'One Eternal Truth' is like Plato's idea of The Good), a religious ideal, a holistic cosmic viewpoint — some truths encompass other truths, like the conservation of mass, or E=MC squared, but I hope you can see that my (and Plato's) idea of 'The Truth' is somewhat different than an all-encompassing scientific dictum like the conservation of mass, or the space-time continuum, both of those are facts.

But then we are back at value judgments, and philosophy. (All of this entire thread is philosophy at the root core, just differing branches) How much of this statement is in fact, Reality?

I posit that not one whit of it is Reality.

It may, or may not, point to one observer's view of Reality, but none of it is Reality. Menus and meals. And that is the best case scenario. Some of it may be Truth, we truly don't *know* (another subject for another day) how much is Truth, maybe none of it! Maybe all of it. We don't have any honest way to 100%, beyond doubt confirm whether Truth or not.

That is how it seems to me. That's how we make sense of experience, and can says things like dinosaurs existed, that is true, but unicorns don't. (Knowing my luck, someone will have just discovered a fossilised skeleton ... ) Dinosaurs are real, just not currently ...

And elephant bones have been interpreted as Cyclops, and who knows what else humanity has stumbled on through the years, comforting themselves with some *sure* knowledge that a mystery is solved and there are no more monsters under the bed.

Something exists.
Therefore I can say it is real, it exists — it has presence in the world;

Trying to be certain I understand...is it only Real if it exists in this world? Cannot Reality exist off of this world as well?

I'm saying 'existence' has certain qualities, that is aspects(?), by which we determine that something exists. Its actuality.

I'm not so sure I follow..."certain qualities" is such an ambiguous phrase that can be applied in such wide ranging manners as to be meaningless.

Can I ask, at the risk of a massive diversion, how you see the difference between 'concept' and 'value judgement', does not one derive from the other?

You may, and it is a reasonable question. "Concept" as I've been using it here, notes a symbolic stand-in that helps our comprehension. "Value Judgment" as I have been using it, like good, or beautiful, is a subjective value that may be personal, may be cultural, may be situational, but is subject to such a wide range of variation that no comprehensive, long term (thousands of years) meaning can be attached.

Disregarding for the moment differences in spelling and pronunciation between languages...an apple is an apple, and has been an apple for as long as humans have had a name for apple. Apple is a concept.

Apples are good, apples are yucky, apples are red...no they are green! Apple of my eye. Adam's Apple. Road Apple. Crab Apple. Apples are beautiful...except those nasty worm eaten ones you find in grandma's back yard. These are value judgments that vary from person to person and time to time.

Going back over everything I believe you are using "exist" in the same context I am using "Real." I see only semantic difference, otherwise we are saying the same thing it appears in that regard.

Ah, we might be getting to the nub of it here.

All along I have been working from the idea that Truth is a concept/value judgement proven by the facts (at which point it ceases to become a concept, a value judgement, and is a fact — but Truth as a Reality in substance, no.

A bit like colour: Tomatoes are Red. Apples are red. Blood is red. Therefore 'redness' is real, is true, exists as a frequency on the spectrum of light, is something they all have in common, but does 'red' exist as a substance in its own right, no. Does that make things any clearer?

Sort of, but I still like mine better, and I still make a hard line distinction and separation apart from subjective value judgments...for the reasons already mentioned. Truth is eternal, nothing subjective is ever eternal. Value judgments are subjective, therefore can never be eternal, therefore can never be Truth. (they might for a moment point to Truth, but we have no way to confirm, so they are useless to found any guiding principles on)

 

[wil]

OK, but the essence is that Truth is a concept. So much of our reasoning is conceptual and symbolic,

When it comes down to it.... to simplistic me it is what is useful, in this moment (now) in this life, here, on this planet.

A friend who is headed back to England as his visa has expired loves to argue philosophy and make loose statements, like borders being man made constructs...of course they are but violating them has repercussions.

His latest and greatest, one we've all heard before from someone...time is a useless man made construct... I asked him to test that on Tuesday...when his plane leaves.

 

[juantoo3]

When it comes down to it.... to simplistic me it is what is useful, in this moment (now) in this life, here, on this planet.

A friend who is headed back to England as his visa has expired loves to argue philosophy and make loose statements, like borders being man made constructs...of course they are but violating them has repercussions.

His latest and greatest, one we've all heard before from someone...time is a useless man made construct... I asked him to test that on Tuesday...when his plane leaves.

The first thing I would ask your friend is "how does he manage to think without man made constructs?" All of language is a man made construct. Every alphabet is a man made construct. Every name is a man made construct. The only thing he could do to prevent using any man made constructs is to live solely and only in the moment (I have yet to meet a rational, sane, unimpaired person who can do so exclusively), and grunt in pain or squeal in ecstasy.

Concepts are not disqualifiers, we need them to parse experience and form into a cognitive whole, what I call a "library," from which we can retrieve and relate...it is a function of memory. Our brains are naturally good at sorting and comparing notes, especially for those experiences that cause stress or discomfort.

If I say something smells bad...like, really bad - that can mean so many different things to people it is essentially meaningless, I could not expect you to understand what I specifically meant, and if I did expect you to it would indicate how little I could relate to you, empathically or sympathically.

If I say something smells like rotten eggs...like really old, strong, pungent rotten eggs - most people can relate to that pretty well and get a specific sense (even smell the smell in their minds) of what I am talking about. Now you can relate *directly* to what I am talking about. And for your friend's benefit, this was all using man made constructs, and yet it relates directly to experiential knowledge, and elicits a knowing comparative response in another individual (you).

Concepts are not required to be Truth to be useful. I've learned tidbits of wisdom from sources ranging from Miss Manners to Charlie Brown, Frodo Baggins to bathroom graffiti, Wikipedia to the old man that lived next door when I was a kid. All of these little chunks of experiential knowledge get catalogued and compared with other chunks on file, and bookmarked accordingly...some for future reference, some for the circular file, some for the "doesn't play well with others" file, and some for the "what were they thinking?" file. How much of this is Truth is anybody's guess, but if I were a betting man I would bet that not very much of it actually is. Yet all of it is instructive and useful, in one way or another. Of course, your friend could learn *everything* by experience instead...if he lived very long to tell of it. Ooops, he couldn't do that either, speech is a human construct.

 

[juantoo3]

 

[Thomas]

Again, as soon as religionists quit ...

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Thomas]

Why should I believe things are any different now?

That's for each to find her/his own answer ...

Am I missing anything yet?

Don't think so

And therein is where this all gets really, really sticky. Now we move from concept to value judgment. "The Truth" as I see it typically applied, means something considerably different than Reality. "The Truth" is philosophy, "The Truth" is implied morality, "The Truth" is my way or the highway. That is a deliberate abuse of the word Truth, whether intended or not. Truth cannot be partially true and partially not true. Truth cannot be true for some and not for others... not as a justification to proselytize or subjugate, but in a very Real, uncoerced sense.

Agreed, but while you point to this abuse of truth to proselytize or subjugate, it is also used as a means of education, enlightenment, empowering, etc.

"Concept" as I've been using it here, notes a symbolic stand-in that helps our comprehension. "Value Judgment" as I have been using it, like good, or beautiful, is a subjective value that may be personal, may be cultural, may be situational, but is subject to such a wide range of variation that no comprehensive, long term (thousands of years) meaning can be attached.

OK. Understand now.

Going back over everything I believe you are using "exist" in the same context I am using "Real." I see only semantic difference, otherwise we are saying the same thing it appears in that regard.

That's how it seems to me.

... so they are useless to found any guiding principles on)

So what do we found those principles on?

 

[wil]

So when the ancients designated something as a miracle, they did so conscious of the fact that in any normal circumstance, what just happened should not be possible ..

How does that differ between the definition of today?

 

[juantoo3]

So what do we found those principles on?

Seems we have come full circle:

People don't live their lives by empirical facts.

Oh? I have seen more people here alone than I can count claim that very thing. I agree with your statement, but clearly that is not what MANY people *believe.*

My response to Wil above should address your other concerns.