make truth?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:31 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:29 pm so if its what you think then its in error, if its what God thinks its not, and man's judgements of what truth is is in error.
That, of course, would imply there IS a truth.
Exactly. Of which there is no proof.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:31 pm It's not hard to make the case that mankind does not know everything that God knows. /... But what is our grounds for saying that mankind doesn't know anything that God knows?
The grounds are that there is no proof of any gods (beyond the imagination of men).

These are just claims by men who want to claim to know truth and god, such that they can position themselves to interpret and proclaim how it applies to everyone. Why don't such men honestly explore the absurd implications of that?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:32 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:31 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:29 pm so if its what you think then its in error, if its what God thinks its not, and man's judgements of what truth is is in error.
That, of course, would imply there IS a truth.
Exactly. Of which there is no proof.
Is that true?
The grounds are that there is no proof of any gods (beyond the imagination of men).
Are you saying that is true, too?
These are just claims by men...
Is that true?

Then you also believe in truth...objective truth.

And if you do not, then none of your statements above can possibly be objectively true.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:42 am none of your statements above can possibly be objectively true.
What can you demonstrate to be objectively true?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:59 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:42 am none of your statements above can possibly be objectively true.
What can you demonstrate to be objectively true?
It's not me who's making the categorical claims, in this particular case. It's you.

So you believe in objective truth, yes?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:28 am So you believe in objective truth, yes?
No. I see truth as a concept that humans create and use to make all kinds of choices and claims, based on their perspective or beliefs or needs at any given time. Just like ANY human concept... such as life, death, purpose... it varies vastly across humankind.

If you believe in objective truth, can you demonstrate it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:50 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:28 am So you believe in objective truth, yes?
No. I see truth as a concept that humans create and use to make all kinds of choices and claims, based on their perspective or beliefs or needs at any given time. Just like ANY human concept... such as life, death, purpose... it varies vastly across humankind.
So then, what you're saying is that LW wants to believe there's no evidence for God, that it's all made up by men, and that there's no such thing as objective truth.

But LW is not saying that any of these claims is objectively true. They aren't common wisdom, but rather "vary vastly across humankind." So nobody but LW has any reason to take them seriously...they do not correspond to any common reality we all inhabit, and they are not asserted as objective truths, but only as "a concept...based on perspective or beliefs or needs..." and only for "a given time."

LW, at this "given time" feels a "need," based on her "perspective" to believe the three above claims. That's it. :shock: Humankind will "vary" on those questions, and no view will be objectively more true or right than any other, she says.

That makes it hard to say you're stating anything that ought to make anybody agree. LW herself, and only herself, wants to believe that. There it starts and stops, according to your response.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am
Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:50 am I see truth as a concept that humans create and use to make all kinds of choices and claims, based on their perspective or beliefs or needs at any given time. Just like ANY human concept... such as life, death, purpose... it varies vastly across humankind.
So then, what you're saying is that LW wants to believe there's no evidence for God,
I'm saying there is no proof for a god that anyone has demonstrated. Prove it and I will believe it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am that it's all made up by men, and that there's no such thing as objective truth.
Can you prove otherwise? Why are there so many different claims... and none of them have been proven beyond all others, let alone at all?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amBut LW is not saying that any of these claims is objectively true. They aren't common wisdom, but rather "vary vastly across humankind."
Don't you see the vast claims and perspectives and ideas of truth across humankind and history? Or would it discredit your claims to acknowledge such a thing?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amSo nobody but LW has any reason to take them seriously...
You can take anything seriously you want to, of course. But people can question you about your claims. And if you apply your beliefs to everyone else, people can ask you to prove it. Wouldn't you ask for proof if someone made claims about the existence of something that they claimed applied to you, and you didn't agree with it?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amthey do not correspond to any common reality we all inhabit, and they are not asserted as objective truths, but only as "a concept...based on perspective or beliefs or needs..." and only for "a given time."
Can you demonstrate otherwise? What common reality can you demonstrate? What objective truth can you demonstrate? What can you prove beyond human concepts?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amLW, at this "given time" feels a "need," based on her "perspective" to believe the three above claims.
I don't feel a need. I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise. Show me! If you show me, I will believe it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amHumankind will "vary" on those questions, and no view will be objectively more true or right than any other, she says.
Demonstrate differently.

Why would you... or anyone else who makes theist claims... be the mouthpiece for a god? Why would that even be necessary? Why would it even make sense? You are nobody. It is ONLY to serve yourself. That is the only thing you have demonstrated. Claims supported by games. If you have more to show, do it. No one is stopping you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amThat makes it hard to say you're stating anything that ought to make anybody agree. LW herself, and only herself, wants to believe that. There it starts and stops, according to your response.
I do not buy into archaic stories as you do. I am looking at the way things are demonstrated in the world: diversity, change, evolvement, connection, egos, fear, etc. Your claims do not fit with anything else that is demonstrated. They are claims that separate and deny and condemn. That is not what I see nature doing... that is what I see man doing. How can you explain the way theism rejects the world it is part of, while claiming that one god or another offers salvation from that? To me, this sounds like man wanting to escape what he has not learned to accept and love, and what he fears. And this theism has evolved into a huge multi-headed beast of ridiculous proportions and stories, which men ride on to glorify themselves. :D

Can you demonstrate otherwise?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 3:41 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am
Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:50 am I see truth as a concept that humans create and use to make all kinds of choices and claims, based on their perspective or beliefs or needs at any given time. Just like ANY human concept... such as life, death, purpose... it varies vastly across humankind.
So then, what you're saying is that LW wants to believe there's no evidence for God,
I'm saying there is no proof for a god that anyone has demonstrated.
But there's no such thing as the truth, you say, so no truth can be demonstrated, you say...?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 am that it's all made up by men, and that there's no such thing as objective truth.
Can you prove otherwise? [/quote]
I could, and many have; but that's really not the point at the moment. According to your theory that truth doesn't exist, your idea that it's "all made up by men" isn't true anyway. Nothing's true, remember? Truth is just what people make up from their perspective, you say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amBut LW is not saying that any of these claims is objectively true. They aren't common wisdom, but rather "vary vastly across humankind."
Don't you see the vast claims and perspectives and ideas of truth across humankind and history? Or would it discredit your claims to acknowledge such a thing?
No, it would be irrelevant. It wouldn't matter how many people were wrong, so it wouldn't "discredit" anything. Remember? You don't believe in truth anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amSo nobody but LW has any reason to take them seriously...
You can take anything seriously you want to, of course. But people can question you about your claims.[/quote]
Apparently not. You can't "question" a thing if there are no true facts that can be summoned relative to it. There's no basis for any "question," then.
Wouldn't you ask for proof if someone made claims about the existence of something that they claimed applied to you, and you didn't agree with it?
Well, I would...but I'm not you. You can't. Because since you say there's no truth, there's nothing that can be summoned to "prove" anything, either way.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amthey do not correspond to any common reality we all inhabit, and they are not asserted as objective truths, but only as "a concept...based on perspective or beliefs or needs..." and only for "a given time."
Can you demonstrate otherwise?
It's not my claim: it's yours. If you provide no support for it, and in fact, deny that truth is even relevant to it, then your point of view can only be viewed as trivial. It's worse than unsupported...it denies that support is even possible.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:59 amLW, at this "given time" feels a "need," based on her "perspective" to believe the three above claims.
I don't feel a need. I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise.
Well, you haven't seen many, many things. The same could be said of anyone. But that doesn't mean those things don't exist, or that we have reason to deny that they do. It just means that, at the moment, those things are not part of our personal experience...yet.

So you've never been to Boston, say. That doesn't mean there's no Boston. It doesn't even mean you're justified in being a Boston-skeptic until you get there. It just means you don't personally know.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: make truth?

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:55 amAccording to your theory that truth doesn't exist, your idea that it's "all made up by men" isn't true anyway. Nothing's true, remember? Truth is just what people make up from their perspective, you say.
It's ontology V epistemology. There are states that obtain, and therefore potentially statements which are true. People who insist that some statement about ontology is true are cranks and religious nuts. The only exceptions are Parmenides and Descartes.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:55 am...
So, as usual, you dance around playing games with what I've said, as if that's somehow the reason that you offer nothing. Unable to demonstrate or prove otherwise to the points I brought up... you suggest it's because I won't believe you. :lol: How easy it is for you to make excuses for not describing something as apparently important and real as the objective truth you claim to know of! If you actually had any truth you could demonstrate based on actual things many of us are quite aware of (as opposed to simply making claims based on stories), then that might be impressive. I was hoping you would try. But once again you're not up to the task. Maybe someday.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: make truth?

Post by Dontaskme »

The beliefs man has about God forces him to defend them, but why should beliefs in God be defended if they were the truth?

If beliefs were the truth, it would not require anyone to defend them - they would stand by themselves as the truth. The fact that beliefs have to be defended, along with man's anger when he is provoked, proves that he is not sure of his beliefs.

If God needs man's help to defend His honour, it can only mean that man is more powerful than God. Then he would only need to pray to man and not to God.
But who could have instilled such beliefs into his mind? It cannot be man for he neither made himself nor his mind.

It is the intelligence of God that manifested these thoughts in his mind so that he might understand that whoever or whatever man is against is only a manifestation of God. Understand that God is everywhere as everything, including man and his mind.

Man does not need to realise God - he needs to realise that he is not man. God is this immediate functioning of LIFE that is everywhere, everything and nothing, all one, all a lone.

That's what Nonduality is pointing to. It's a very hard truth to face, and yet simply and always this immediate and intimate presence. The realisation that God is present in every possible direction and every speck of the universe.

Beliefs just veil this immediate ever present truth. Drop all beliefs and what's left is the original and only living truth.If God really existed in the manner in which man thinks he does, then every child's first spoken word would and should be God, which will assert and prove that God is his creator.That would be the proof right there. But God doesn't need to prove - God is always ever present and self-evident. While man believes he is the believer - there is no room for God.

Man cannot be certain that God created the world, as he was not present during the creation. How can he be certain that God created the world and himself, when he is not certain of his own life or anyone else's for that matter? He merely believes that God created the world and everything else, including himself. It must be understood that if God created or manifested the world and everything in it, including man, He must be present within everything in the world, including man, to keep them all alive.

That which is growing the grass - is growing you. It's all good. And it's sometimes very painful, physically and mentally.



.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:11 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:15 pm So you think "things that exist as solids" can exist in no "shape"?
I do?
Apparently.

And I know where you're trying to go. But you know you're playing games.

The instrument that can measure my boredom with this strategy has yet to be invented. So I'll forego the pleasure.
I am not trying to go anywhere. I am merely pointing out that your attempts at synthesising an ontology are failing because you lack knowledge.

If you are going to be speaking about THE shape of Earth I only insist that you identify and specify what THE shape is.

You've been arbitrarily discriminating against other people's specifications but you refuse to tell us why.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: make truth?

Post by Belinda »

DPMartin wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:52 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:22 pm if someone lies and more people believe the lie more then don't believe the lie, does that make it the truth?
Nobody knows whether or not there be absolute truth. Absolute truth transcends knowledge. No matter how many people believe some idea or experience being eaten by tigers we cannot absolutely explain truth, nor predict that tigers always will kill and eat people.

Lying is deliberately trying to mislead and has nothing to do with transcendental truth.It is the case that social reality might possibly be founded upon a culture of deliberate lies, and if this happens the society is in trouble unless someone comes along and leads people to knowledge and reason.
what proof do you have that truth can't be known or even explained?
There is no "proof " to be deduced from a synthetic fact such as the limit of temporal life. If God is real and knows all then God knows and is absolute truth. Christ is widely believed to teach truth, as much as is possible for men to know.

It is probable that any man who claims to know absolute truth is a charlatan; and there is ample proof of that fact.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:22 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:55 am...
So, as usual, you dance around playing games with what I've said...
No games. It's very simple.

If LW says "objective truth does not exist," then she cannot then say that her claim is "objectively true." She must be speaking merely of her own "needs," or "perspective" or even just her wishes...for if what she says IS objectively true, she falsifies her own claim.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make truth?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:41 am You've been arbitrarily discriminating against other people's specifications but you refuse to tell us why.
To "discriminate" means "to know the difference." So yes, I "discriminate" between your mere sophistry and a valuable conversation, and I reject the former out of preference for the latter.
Post Reply