Can something be true if it cannot be shown to be true

[McCulloch]

Since no one can prove anything to the other when it comes to invisible concepts and spiritual principles of life, [...]

Question for debate: Is is meaningful to say that something is true that cannot be shown to be true, even in principle?

[Goat]

It seems this "necessarily existing entity, the source and ground of all existence" would not only be the author or ground for "all life, all love, all possibility" but would also be the author, or ground of all death, hate, indifference (after all it does rain and shine on both the good and the evil), choas and limits or restrictions, which is after all like impossible, the opposit of possiblity.

Death hate and indifference are not positive qualities. Death is the absence of life. Being is positive death/evil are negative and tend towards nonbeing. God is the source of what is positive. Death* is the absense of God. The doctrine of the fall tries to explain this tendancy towards nonbeing.

*Spiritual death.

I know that the claim that "God is the source of what is positive" is claim for religions. Can you show that this is true? What objective evidence do you have that God is more than a metaphysical concept that was created by man?

If you are discussing the "Abrahamic" god.. God is supposedly the origin of Evil too.. (see Isaiah).

[mgb]

If you are discussing the "Abrahamic" god.. God is supposedly the origin of Evil too.. (see Isaiah).

The book of Isaiah is 'corrupted' by the so called 'Second Isaiah'

The true Isaiah is interleaved with other writings.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

[Slopeshoulder]

If you are discussing the "Abrahamic" god.. God is supposedly the origin of Evil too.. (see Isaiah).

The book of Isaiah is 'corrupted' by the so called 'Second Isaiah'

The true Isaiah is interleaved with other writings.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Second Isiah is the bomb. How it is a corruption? Is it not scriptural?

[mgb]

Corruption is a bad choice of word. Perhaps 'diluted' is a better word. But the old testament has been written and rewritten, added to, subtracted from, altered and collated so many times that you cannot read it literally (as fundamentalists do) and pronounce any particular sentence as the literal word of God.

What we do have are themes; The one God Yahweh, the Exodus from Egypt, the establishment of the Chosen People (chosen to be a center of revelation for the world), God's call to righteousness and the rejection of wickedness and so on.

[Slopeshoulder]

Corruption is a bad choice of word. Perhaps 'diluted' is a better word. But the old testament has been written and rewritten, added to, subtracted from, altered and collated so many times that you cannot read it literally (as fundamentalists do) and pronounce any particular sentence as the literal word of God.

What we do have are themes; The one God Yahweh, the Exodus from Egypt, the establishment of the Chosen People (chosen to be a center of revelation for the world), God's call to righteousness and the rejection of wickedness and so on.

Agreed, and thanks.

[Goat]

If you are discussing the "Abrahamic" god.. God is supposedly the origin of Evil too.. (see Isaiah).

The book of Isaiah is 'corrupted' by the so called 'Second Isaiah'

The true Isaiah is interleaved with other writings.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

I would not say it is corrupted so much as different books were organized in a certain manner.

The section that is called 'second Isaiah' does not pretend it was written by Isaiah, but merely was put in the collection of writings at that place.

If you want to talk about 'Corruption', then you would just have to reject anything past the 5 books of Moses.. and that includes the New Testement.