What is truth

[Blastcat]

Hi guys and gals,

This one goes out to all of my theistic friends.
Apologists and simple Christian folks often talk about knowing "truth" a lot.. but now, I have to wonder what they mean by the term.

Could you help me out?
What is the truth, how do you define it, and do you care about it?

Some people don't care about the truth.
Some people say they love the truth, and that their beliefs are true.

Then I realize.. maybe I don't know what they MEAN when they use the word "TRUTH"

Smile

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 46 by JehovahsWitness]

Hi, JehovahsWitness

Your concept of truth is riddled with logical problems.

1. What is your FUNDAMENTAL SOLID BASIS that you worked UP from to know what is true?

As I said, that there is indeed a Creator.
https://www.jw.org/finder?pub=lf&wtlocale=E&srcid=share

Correction: You BELIEVE that there is indeed a Creator.
Not everyone else does.

Proving to people that it's a real thing is something else. So, if you make a truth claim, you have to back it up. Now, I KNOW that sending me to go read a pamphlet might be JUST the thing to do, I assure you, that it doesn't work in here. I would need at least SOME good reason FROM YOU.. and then, if I find you even a LITTLE convincing, I will go and investigate JW propaganda further than I already have. I usually read, roll my eyes, and throw JW literature in the trash. I don't think I'm alone in that. People are generally surprised that I DO read them... and seem to be interested. But.. it's usually just Bible quotes.

No Bible quote is going to convince me that there is a CREATOR out there... Sorry. It's going to take a bit more than someone SAYING SO to convince the likes of me.

I, sir, am an aspiring SKEPTIC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

So, you BASE "truth" on your belief that there exists a loving creator?

Truth is not based on anything. Truth is absolute it doesn't need anything but itself to stand. Finding "spiritual truth"(see #5) is dependent on accepting that there is a Creator

Ok, well, I seem to have failed to understand you. That happens.
But when you say that truth isn't based on ANYTHING.... it just manages to confuse me more. Sorry. If the truth is dependent on accepting a Creator.. I would just say that you base your truth on the Creator. .. just a slightly different way to put the same thing, really. I don't see the hub bub here.

You say below that truth is that which is reliable, sure or factual, that which is a reality.

So, I would say that what you take is TRUE, would be based on that which is reliable, sure or factual, and that which is a reality. Maybe you just don't like the word "base". But above, you say that your FUNDAMENTAL SOLID BASIS is that there is a Creator.

So... basis or no basis.. I'm confused.

Let me explain just one more time :

I would say that you BASE your truth on the Creator being true. And you BASE your belief on the Creator being true.... on... what you call the evidence of nature.

The problem I have as an atheist is that when I look at nature, I don't SEE a Creator, but just more nature. It seems to me that the belief in a Creator isn't an observation of a creator, but an INFERENCE that you make FROM nature.

And I don't make that inference.

2. How did you actually come to the conclusion that creationism is true?

I am not a "creationist" I believe that the universe has a creator that's not the same thing.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... sm-belief/

Ok, that link.

It seems that JW don't like to associate themselves with what is commonly referred to as "Creationism" and I don't know why. IF you believe in a Biblical Creator.. sorry, dude. The rest of the world is going to call you a creationist.

Creation=Creationism... simple, really. The person writing the text you linked us to doesn't seem to know that some Creationists are OLD WORLD CREATIONISTS... weird.

I came to have confidence that the must be a creator through studying the natural world.

THOSE VIDEOS

All they do is mostly, at least the first ones on the list, are all SKEPTICAL of the theory of evolution. They are NOT evidence for any creator. You might be studying CRITICISMS of the scientific theory, but that's not studying nature. This is a very common and very FALLACIOUS argument from ignorance that most creationists use.

If you aren't a creationist, you certainly promote the same kind of tactics as most other creationists. But I suppose you don't like the word. Has a stigma. I don't blame you. But the IDEAS and the TACTICS are exactly the same, so that cover up doesn't fly.

3. How do you know that God communicates directly with humans?

He rarely communicates directly.

And how do you KNOW that? It seems as if you KNOW what God does.. as in you KNOW a fact. Facts can be PROVEN... so.. how do you prove that?

He communicates mainly though his written word the bible, thorugh his holy spirit and through moving individuals and manipulating situations in response to sincere prayers.

And you know that HOW?
Same thing as above.

I believe this to be true because He has used all these indirect methods with me at various time.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402015921

More Bible quotes.

The Bible is not considered proof for what it says in the Bible in these debates. You might have had powerful experiences, however ONCE AGAIN, nobody can verify them for truth. So, that's another failed attempt at providing proof.

4. How do you know that the Bible itself is true?

It contains information that cannot possibly be from human origin such as prophecies proven to have be fulfilled.

And some people have the exact opposite opinion. Like me.
I think everything in the Bible can ENTIRELY be from human origin.

I would dispute just about every truth claim you might make about prophecy. So, at the very LEAST, your claim about prophecies IS DEBATABLE. You'd have to prove that what you say is true, and not just proclaim it. Proclaiming is easy, proving is harder. MUCH MUCH harder.

You are talking to an atheist.. and many atheists are reading this. We DON'T agree with just about everything you have to say about the Bible. When I get ANY KIND OF AGREEMENT.. I really take NOTE of it, because it's so RARE.

I'm SEARCHING for agreements, not just proclamations.

5. And finally, what IS truth ?

Truth is that which is reliable, sure or factual, that which is a reality.

I like that definition. It's clear and simple. But it begs the question: How do we TELL when something is true or not?

What method should we use?

"Spiritual truth" is refering to the accurate information that meets the above criteria that comes from God.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007728

Nah, I reject that...

It might be that way FOR YOU and other JWs.. but not for me.
I use the word "spirtual" in a very different way.. and people of OTHER FAITHS don't believe in a JW kind of God.. they believe in another kind, and don't base their idea of spiritual truth the same way that you do.

So, when you say "spiritual truth", you mean to say SUBJECTIVELY spiritual truth relative TO YOU. ( and possibly, other JWs )

THAT LINK

Really really really bad. Right off the bat, it insults me. Look:

___________________

What Is Truth?

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp."John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. "

___________________

It implies that if I don't accept the JW version of what the truth is, I am cynical, not interested in an answer, that I must think like Pilate that truth is too elusive to grasp, that I am disdainful towards the truth.. and so on.

Way to go.. poisoning the well right off the bat.

That kind of rhetorical tactic DOES NOT INCREASE the credibility of anything that comes after to someone who is asking WHAT IS TRUTH, but isn't JW.

It's a right turn off.
Here's more from the same page:

___________________

"Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you? Why not ask Jehovahs Witnesses what the truth that Jesus taught is all about? They will be glad to share that truth with you."

___________________

So, not only am I possibly cynical, not interested in an answer, that I must think like Pilate that truth is too elusive to grasp, that I am disdainful towards the truth and now I'm indifferent and need to know YOUR "truth".

Well, I say that's a subjective kind of truth.. not the kind of truth I'm looking for. I guess what I'm looking for is the kind of truth that is more OBJECTIVE.. in the sense that truth is that which is reliable, sure or factual, that which is a reality. I can't just accept some guy's version of reality. I want to TEST THAT. Facts can be checked, interior experiences and opinions really can't.

I'm really thankful for your take on all of this.. if you want to discuss more about the truth.. don't be shy. I find all of this very fascinating. I'd much rather have your own words as much as possible, though. I don't want to have a conversation with online pamphlets, but PEOPLE. If I want to learn about JW, I can certainly find it on the internet. Thanks for the links.

Now, I know where to go if I want a more "corporate" version of your beliefs.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 50 by JehovahsWitness]

but my understanding it is an assumption taken without proof to be a self evident truth.

Correct, that is an axiom.

If that is correct then no I don't believe so

No? So when you said earlier

Truth is not based on anything. Truth is absolute it doesn't need anything but itself to stand.

This isn't an axiom, in your mind? Your foundational solid basis, what you answered Blastcat with, was

As I said, that there is indeed a Creator.

You can't go lower than the foundation. Your belief, what you hold to be true, is that there is a creator, and this belief is Truth, not based on anything, it doesn't need anything but itself to stand.
As far as I can see, you're describing an axiom, one that, when you use it to study the world, gives you a rigged result.

My starting point was that we need to know that such a thing exists before searching for it.

We need to 'know' that it does indeed exist before we search for it? Does this hold true for any X that one might search for? If I ask the question "Is there a Bigfoot in my pantry?" do I have to assume or 'know' that it is indeed in my pantry before I open the pantry door?
Again, you're describing rigged journeys of discovery. You presuppose what you might find.

If there is a God we could find truth with Him.

Not if this god wants to hide or mess with your mind. The Bible has a few verses describing how God deceives people, including Thessalonians.
Again, you presuppose that the god you presuppose exists will ALWAYS tell the truth and never deceive. Or that this god will even communicate with humans.

It has to be in finding the answer to the question "Is there a Creator?"

In this thread, you haven't asked that question. When Blastcat asked you what your foundational solid basis was, you answered with

that there is indeed a Creator

.
You don't ask IF, you start out by believing that there IS a creator.

My point was that this is the first question that must be answered and based on the answer one can move on to other questions.

So which is it? Is your foundational solid base, your axiom, that there is a creator, or do
you actually ask the question "Is there..."? You can't do both.
I can't have as an axiom "There is a Bigfoot in my pantry" and also ask "Is there a Bigfoot in my pantry?"

Looking back it has occured to me that possibly Blastcat was thinking that when I refered to the above being the basis upon which all the other steps are built, he (and possibly your good self) are assuming that I think the ANSWER to this quesiton is self evident and not to be found through logical examination of the available evidence (ie an axiom) this is not the case.

If you never meant to describe an axiom, then you have quite literally fooled me into thinking you were, since what you wrote describes an axiom to a T. I guess this means you'll have to scrap what you wrote earlier and write something different, then?

we (humans) are here. If there was a "stage" in the reasoning that I failed to stipulate (because I thought it was self evident and unnecessary to state) that is it.

That stage is unnecessary, agreed. It is self-evident.

let the search for how begin.

My search results in natural origins. This contradicts what you assert.

[bjs]

So, how do we tease what is accurate from what is inaccurate?

In the strictest sense we cant. The only thing I can know for absolute certain is that I in some sense exist. This leaves room for someone to say, I dont believe that to virtually any statement.

With that said, most people use reason, experience, and sources they consider to be trustworthy to uncover what is true.

But what if I don't happen to believe in Platonic Realms?

Then you dont. I have attempted to explain what theists, in certain contexts, mean when they talk about Truth. I have not attempted to prove them correct.

That said, Plato was one of the smartest men in human history so we should not dismiss anything he said lightly.

THEY are or YOU are?... I'm interested only in what YOU are saying about what truth is TO YOU.. not what others might.

I, personally, have used the term truth in both the mundane sense of an accurate statement and in the sense of ultimate Truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 50 by JehovahsWitness]

but my understanding it is an assumption taken without proof to be a self evident truth.

Correct, that is an axiom.

Thanks, I learnt a new word. I will try to avoid making assumptions without proof in future.

Much apprecitate what you have to say,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 46 by JehovahsWitness]

Hi, JehovahsWitness

Your concept of truth is riddled with logical problems.

1. What is your FUNDAMENTAL SOLID BASIS that you worked UP from to know what is true?

As I said to rikuoamero I think I did miss out a step which I should have articulated; I should have started of by stating that we (humans) exist and since we are not infinted we got here somehow. From that point I personally began to ask questions and have found answers that have satisfied me. I think you have as well, although you have come to the exact opposite conclusions.

So, not only am I possibly cynical, not interested in an answer, that I must think like Pilate that truth is too elusive to grasp, that I am disdainful towards the truth.

I can understand that. I believe it is not but I can accept that no everyone will share my belief.



JW