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?

[cnorman18]

...In Judaism, people are supposed to do good, because it's the RIGHT thing to do, not because it 'carries over' to an afterlife...

Jews adhere to ethical principles because God has commanded them to do so in the Torah. Part of the motivation God gives for them in the Torah is to do good to others because of the good that God did for them in delivering them from bondage in Egypt.

That is correct; and you will note that the afterlife is not mentioned anywhere in those references. The afterlife is not mentioned in the Torah, the Books of Moses, at all.

Cnorman's dichotomy is false and self-serving; both Judaism and Christianity believe that God is ultimately the reason why we should do good rather than evil. And both Judaism and Christianity teach that there is an afterlife, though of course Christians have greater insight into this afterlife.

I think that remark that "of course Christians have greater insight" is false and self-serving, as well as being more than a little patronizing and offensive.

Of course God is the ultimate reason for ANY belief or practice in ANY theistic religion; but that is not what we are discussing here, and that is not the point or the intent of the "dichotomy" -- properly called a "difference," since I do not claim the superiority or truth of one over the other -- presented in my posts.

The FACT is that very many Jews do not believe in an afterlife AT ALL, and such belief is NOT required of Jews (and it's worth noting that the link you gave actually proves that statement). I really don't see the point of trying to obscure that FACT, or in trying to claim that Judaism and Christianity hold the same beliefs on any and every issue.

There are differences, and this is one of them; claims about the nature of the afterlife, and certainly emphasis on its importance, are simply absent from every variety of normative Judaism -- even among Jews who happen to believe in it. I don't see why that's false, self-serving, or even worth arguing about. It's just a fact.

What you call "insight" I would call "assumptions and dogmas."

[Slopeshoulder]

Yes, something can be true if it cannot be shown to be true.
But we can't call it true if we can't show it to be true.
So it may be that there is an afterlife. I can't show it to be true. So I can't claim it to be true, or even meaningful analytically. But it may be true (or just be). So I reject or affirm it based my hopes, hunches, and aesthetic sense. Nothing wrong with that, either way.

[cnorman18]

Yes, something can be true if it cannot be shown to be true.
But we can't call it true if we can't show it to be true.
So it may be that there is an afterlife. I can't show it to be true. So I can't claim it to be true, or even meaningful analytically. But it may be true (or just be). So I reject or affirm it based my hopes, hunches, and aesthetic sense. Nothing wrong with that, either way.

I agree. As someone or other said, you pays your money and you takes your chances. Pick red or black, odd or even, and place your bets; but the House always wins in the end. I kinda like the old joke: a guy goes to buy a Lotto ticket, and the machine is down -- so he just tears up a dollar and goes home.

Me, I'm keeping my money in my pocket. I don't claim to know anything. I know what I think, and what I hope; but don't ask ME for The Truth. I'm nobody's teacher.

[Slopeshoulder]

Perhaps it's a difference of perception.

I don't think "hubris" is quite fair; to me it seems an objective observation. Jews are permitted to believe (or not believe) a wide range of things; Christians' range of acceptable beliefs is rather narrow. That seems inarguable to me.

Guess I'll argue it then. Certainly there are many denominations (maybe even most) who individually restrict the definition of what makes someone a Christian or not and as such have a narrow range of acceptable beliefs. But when you consider the entire range of Christian beliefs, particularly those of more liberal Christians, I do not think narrow is an even slightly accurate word.

I agree with both of you. While I do think, and suspect Cnorman would agree, that liberal Christians can and do believe all sorts of stuff (me for instance), it is also true that Christianity is defined by a creed, there is a strong doctrinal heritage that seeks to define rather than discover, and we liberals get thrown to the ropes by the small-minded fearful thought police much more often than liberals Jews do.

[cnorman18]

Perhaps it's a difference of perception.

I don't think "hubris" is quite fair; to me it seems an objective observation. Jews are permitted to believe (or not believe) a wide range of things; Christians' range of acceptable beliefs is rather narrow. That seems inarguable to me.

Guess I'll argue it then. Certainly there are many denominations (maybe even most) who individually restrict the definition of what makes someone a Christian or not and as such have a narrow range of acceptable beliefs. But when you consider the entire range of Christian beliefs, particularly those of more liberal Christians, I do not think narrow is an even slightly accurate word.

I agree with both of you. While I do think, and suspect Cnorman would agree, that liberal Christians can and do believe all sorts of stuff (me for instance), it is also true that Christianity is defined by a creed, there is a strong doctrinal heritage that seeks to define rather than discover, and we liberals get thrown to the ropes by the small-minded fearful thought police much more often than liberals Jews do.

Very well put, and quite right; that seems accurate to me. I continue to be moved and occasionally dazzled by your use of the language, SS. It's quite remarkable. Would that we were all so articulate.

[Slopeshoulder]

Thanks CN. Humbled. Right back at ya.

You should hear me when I rap haiku's using words they don't allow here. KIDDING.

[cnorman18]

Thanks CN. Humbled. Right back at ya.

You should hear me when I rap haiku's using words they don't allow here. KIDDING.

As we said back in the Sixties -- far out, man.

[mgb]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that in any mathematical system there will be so called 'Undecidable statements'; statements that cannot be proved by the system in question. So the short answer is yes, things can be true but unprovable. Undecidable statements can be proven/disproven if the system is expanded but that would lead to more 'undecidables' and so the system needs to be expanded again and so on ad infinitum...

[Cathar1950]

...If what you mean by the word god cannot be adequately defined, then theism and all related concepts are empty and without content...

God is the necessarily existing entity, the source and ground of all existence, all life, all love, all possibility.

Why?? Because you say so? Because you personally would find no meaning if there wasn't a God??

Just because you proclaim 'God is the necessarily existing entity don't make it true.

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.

I think that our evolution has made us meaning(culture, language and symbol) creating creatures because it helped live in our world and meet our needs.

[mgb]

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.