Zone1 What is Truth?

[onefour1]

When Jesus was brought before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?".

John 18:
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Unfortunately in the Bible we do not have a record of Jesus' response. However, in these latter days, in a revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith Jesus gives us this definition:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:24
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

So how can we know that something is true or not?

Doctrine and Covenants 93 continues by saying:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:25-28
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;
27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.
28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

By honoring God and keeping his commandments He will bless us with the Holy Ghost in our lives and through the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. This is God's method of teaching us eternal truths.

Moroni 10:5
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The truth is no one actually knows what if any discussion was between Pilate and the man people call Christ.

Pilate cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But to ask "What is truth?" is something philosophers have been dealing with it seems, forever. Ethical truths exist outside of religion.

 

[MisterBeale]

The truth is no one actually knows what if any discussion was between Pilate and the man people call Christ.

Pilate cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But to ask "What is truth?" is something philosophers have been dealing with it seems, forever. Ethical truths exist outside of religion.

Is there a difference between one's "truth?" and actual knowledge?

This is an oldie and a goodie, and very hard to find on yutoobs.

What accords with our observations and epistemological reality?

The Science of Truth and Reality​

"Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/ ⓘ ih-PISS-tə-MOL-ə-jee; from Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:[1][2][3]

• The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification;
• Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
• The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs; and,
• Philosophical scepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether scepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute sceptical arguments. . . "

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there a difference between one's "truth?" and actual knowledge?

This is an oldie and a goodie, and very hard to find on yutoobs.

What accords with our observations and epistemological reality?

The Science of Truth and Reality​

View attachment 972340
"Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/ ⓘ ih-PISS-tə-MOL-ə-jee; from Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:[1][2][3]

• The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification;
• Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
• The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs; and,
• Philosophical scepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether scepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute sceptical arguments. . . "

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bertrand. Quite the guy.

look at this later

ty

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there a difference between one's "truth?" and actual knowledge?

This is an oldie and a goodie, and very hard to find on yutoobs.

What accords with our observations and epistemological reality?

The Science of Truth and Reality​

View attachment 972340
"Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/ ⓘ ih-PISS-tə-MOL-ə-jee; from Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:[1][2][3]

• The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification;
• Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
• The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs; and,
• Philosophical scepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether scepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute sceptical arguments. . . "

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would you go with this:

"What is knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge?"
..
"To have knowledge by acquaintance, according to Russell, occurs when the subject has an immediate or unmediated awareness of some propositional truth. Knowledge by description, by contrast, is propositional knowledge that is inferential, mediated, or indirect."



a bit nutty because the guy says many things, things which lack ...

Alien Scientist – Rational analysis of secret technologies

alienscientist.com

 

[ding]

For any given thing there is a final state of fact. Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging. Ergo God is truth.

The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is reality.

Reality is existence. Ergo God is existence. Hence the name I AM.

 

[zaangalewa]

... But to ask "What is truth?" is something philosophers have been dealing with it seems, forever. Ethical truths exist outside of religion.

Truths or truth? How do you explain the word "truthes" and/or what do you call "ethical truth outside of religion" (religion = ¿spiritual disclosure and/or tradition?). Example?

 

[zaangalewa]

Reality is existence. Ergo God is existence. Hence the name I AM.

Why do you never listen to something what you do not like to hear, allknower?

God is creator. He created existence (out of nothing). But this doesn't mean god exists (or is nothing). God transcends as well existence and not-existence (=the nothing).

And no - I do not like to discuss about this theme. I just simple try to correct one of your mistakes.

 

[ding]

Why do you never listen to something what you do not like to hear, allknower?

God is creator. He created existence (out of nothing). But this doesn't mean god exists (or is nothing). God transcends as well existence and not-existence (=the nothing).

And no - I do not like to discuss about this theme. I just simple try to correct one of your mistakes.

St. Thomas Aquinas defined God as "the act of existing" or "existing itself". He believed that God's existence is self-evident because God is his own existence or being. The Bible also supports this definition, such as when Moses asks God for his name and God replies, "I am who am".

 

[zaangalewa]

St. Thomas Aquinas defined God ...

Aha.

 

[ding]

Aha.

Empty phrase

 

[zaangalewa]

Empty phraseuss abnhiut thsui tehjr I

What do you not understand whan somone says to you "I do not like to discuss about this theme. I try to correct only one of your mistakes", omniscient being?

Okay: Let me try this: What you see in front of you is nothing. And because it is a real nothing you see not even the word nothing in front of you - and also not a black nothing - because black is something and not nothing and so on. ... Everything is very clear and very easy now, isn't it? And very peaceful - but the nothing is also not peaceful because peaceful is something and so on.

... Now comes the next step - which you are not able to go because there is nothing where to go. Fortunatelly there is no need for you to go because you are also nothing. ...

... And suddenly only about 13.8 billion years later we write stupid words onto electronical paper. Wonderful, isn't it? Keeps the problem that in all this 13.8 billion years something was able to kill you so we could not do so if this had happened. When you will follow back your life and all conditions before your birth which leaded to your existence (and which existed on their own) then you will see this all began in a nothing. And since this nothing you are existing. But are you god? ...

Whatever: Congrats to your 13.8 billionth birthday today.

 

[ding]

What do you not understand whan somone says to you "I do not like to discuss about this theme. I try to correct only one of your mistakes", omniscient being?

Okay: Let me try this: What you see in front of you is nothing. And because it is a real nothing you see not even the word nothing in front of you - and also not a black nothing - because black is something and not nothing and so on. ... Everything is very clear and very easy now, isn't it? And very peaceful - but the nothing is also not peaceful because peaceful is something and so on.

... Now comes the next step - which you are not able to go because there is nothing where to go. Fortunatelly there is no need for you to go because you are also nothing. ...

... And suddenly only about 13.8 billion years later we write stupid words onto electronical paper. Wonderful, isn't it? Keeps the problem that in all this 13.8 billion years something was able to kill you so we could not do so if this had happened. When you will follow back your life and all conditions before your birth which leaded to your existence (and which existed on their own) then you will see this all began in a nothing. And since this nothing you are existing. But are you god? ...

Whatever: Congrats to your 13.8 billionth birthday today.

You are arguing against Catholic thought.

"...When we talk about the essence of God, we mean what God is. So God’s essence being equal to existence is just another way of saying that God is existence itself...."

God 'Is that He Is.' But What Does That Mean?

Exodus has God telling Moses, 'I am that I am.' We hear it all the time. But if we want to try to understand it, we need to look at essence and existence.

www.catholic.com

 

[zaangalewa]

You are arguing against Catholic thought.n ...

You are no Catholic by saying so. End of discussion, self-made god. The whole theme is normally totally unimportant. It shows only the limits of this what we are able to think about. Your problem is your unbelievable arrogance.

 

[zaangalewa]

You are arguing against Catholic thought.

"...When we talk about the essence of God, we mean what God is. So God’s essence being equal to existence is just another way of saying that God is existence itself...."

What's wrong and not wrong. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time. But we are not able to think this. If we think so then we have the problem that a conclusion which is basing on a preposition and contains a contradiction always is true and so never anything is wrong. Again: To think so gives for every tought on such a basic only true results. So it is senseless to think so. We have to make the decision to believe "god exists". But - and this is a very big fat "but" - not always believes someone in the existence of god. Sometimes only for some minutes - sometimes for a longer time - sometimes even in the whole life. Nevertheless this excludes nobody. Existence is creation - but god is creator. All possible and real lines of existence together since the universe exists are less than god. We are still not able to think outside of this lines - but god is able to do so - even in case he not exists. All this questions are more a kind of question of trust than a question of real knowledge. We need to find totally new forms how to think if we like to come to a deeper level of such discussions.

 

[MisterBeale]

Would you go with this:

"What is knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge?"
..
"To have knowledge by acquaintance, according to Russell, occurs when the subject has an immediate or unmediated awareness of some propositional truth. Knowledge by description, by contrast, is propositional knowledge that is inferential, mediated, or indirect."



a bit nutty because the guy says many things, things which lack ...

Alien Scientist – Rational analysis of secret technologies

alienscientist.com

 

[zaangalewa]

View attachment 972757

A frustrated man this Carl Sagan. And someone who knew how many billions of people by making such an absurde "hypothese"? I remember for example in this context that I suddenly changed my attitude towards vultures when the Dalai Lama said that this creatures are very polite because they wait until their food is dead before they start to eat. From one second to the next I saw this creatures in a new light. And in general: Life is always wonderful. Why should I change such a form of belief only because "scientists" tell me that animals are only like machines? Do you know for example what a "consumer" is? A part of a machine. Are you only a consumer of an industrial machine? Some believe so and never ask themselves why they believe so. They do not ask why they believe so because they think they do not believe. But everyone is a believer. And for me everyone is also a child of god - the difference: Some "know" this (=accept this) while others still do not know or even do not like to know; Christians are [good will] idiots, aren't they? And who likes to be an idiot?

 

[ding]

You are no Catholic by saying so. End of discussion, self-made god. The whole theme is normally totally unimportant. It shows only the limits of this what we are able to think about. Your problem is your unbelievable arrogance.

Actually I am. You are the one behaving arrogantly. Not me.

 

[ding]

What's wrong and not wrong. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time. But we are not able to think this. If we think so then we have the problem that a conclusion which is basing on a preposition and contains a contradiction always is true and so never anything is wrong. Again: To think so gives for every tought on such a basic only true results. So it is senseless to think so. We have to make the decision to believe "god exists". But - and this is a very big fat "but" - not always believes someone in the existence of god. Sometimes only for some minutes - sometimes for a longer time - sometimes even in the whole life. Nevertheless this excludes nobody. Existence is creation - but god is creator. All possible and real lines of existence together since the universe exists are less than god. We are still not able to think outside of this lines - but god is able to do so - even in case he not exists. All this questions are more a kind of question of trust than a question of real knowledge. We need to find totally new forms how to think if we like to come to a deeper level of such discussions.

Is God able to not exist? Can existence choose to not exist. Can non-existence choose to exist. I don't think so.

 

[zaangalewa]

Actually I am. You are the one behaving arrogantly. Not me.

You are vain. It is totally unimportnatz whether I am right or wring. This changes noting for you. You are right. Always. With everything what you say. This is so because you are god. And I am the criminal who not gives you your burnt offerings because I love all animals.

And do you remember that I said to you: "And no - I do not like to discuss about this theme. I just simple try to correct one of your mistakes."

So why do you like to know something about this theme? This is not essential for the Catholic faith. God made it his way. It's very okay how he did do this - how ever he really is doing what is was/is/will do.

Why are you interested in such a completely unimportant question? And why do you destroy with your way to thin sto be superintelligent what others really like to speak about? If I shoud be wrong with my ideas which I said here how importmat woudl this be? Not at all or not all? I have no problerm to be wrong - otherwise I could not learn.

Important is only not to think god exists and not exists the same time - although god could indeed exist and not exist the same time. This kills the formlisms in which we are able to think. Such wrong forms to think - not wrong in case of faith in god but wrong in case of epistemology - cause problems. We need first another form how to be able to think before we are able to solve such "problems". Otherwise someone who thinks so gets the wrong result always to be true. Abnd wgho ais alwas treu - why should this persons listen to this what others say?

Again: I do not like to discuss about this theme. I just simple tried to correct one of your mistakes.