Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

J. Askiloupos · Sep 5, 2007, 02:23 am

I come from Greece, a land steeped in ancient religious tradition, and it is also, I might add- the birthplace of the logic that atheists cling to so dearly. With this background of national duality (which continues even today), one would think that one would be more prepared for something like the fierce debate that rages on in American society due to this one religion in particular: Biblical Christianity. A religion that claims to exclusively have the ear of God. It is fact that absolute truth must exist somewhere, and also that it (in its sum total) can reside only in one place. However, snatches of Veritas exist everywhere- even in the slightly odd practices of the Neopagans. So, then, it is not the hopeless search for truth perfected by man that must consume us, but a quest to aqquire as many of these fragments of precious Veritas as is humanly possible. Please, friends, your thoughts...

phoenix_fire · Sep 5, 2007, 03:01 am

This inclusionist ideal that hopes to avoid conflict and political incorrectness by crediting Truth to anyone who has some religious idea (or a chance encounter with some suspect fungi) is adverse to logic. If you concede that there is an absolute Truth (meaning that the spiritual is something real and unaltered by our own wishes, rather than a product of fantasy) then you have to accept that there will be incorrect answers. To say that there is absolute Truth is to make that Truth real, and real things have properties. They have things that they are and aren't. And discounting belief, you can't say that one faith doesn't have a much better grasp on that Truth than others, just as you can't take an A paper and a D paper and give those students each the average of the two.

J. Askiloupos · Sep 5, 2007, 03:16 am

I was not discounting Christianity- or any other religious ideal, for that matter. I merely stated that I see fragments of Veritas in every belief. I do not pander to the pathetic philosophy that all faiths are different facets of the same truth, but instead I feel that there must be one supreme truth. I am not yet sure where this truth lies... That is my purpose here, friend. To discover what this truth may be. In retrospect, I was a bit vague on my final premise- thank you for going after the flaws in my idea, so that I may clear them up.

phoenix_fire · Sep 5, 2007, 04:29 am

Consider that there is an absolute Truth. Is this Truth sentient? Does it want to reveal itself to people? If so, why would it bury small grains of itself within a large mass of distraction and fiction? Why wouldn't it just tell someone? Or maybe most faiths are like a well crafted lie woven around the kernel of Truth that makes it all the more believable. But that would imply that the Truth had been revealed in a more complete form at some time, for it to be able to spawn these derivatives. So are some faiths more derivative than others? Do some have more Truth than others? Logic would seem to lead to that conclusion. After all, this Truth would want to perpetuate itself, hopefully mostly intact. And some witnesses are better than others. So that just leads back to my premise: you can't give them both a B-.

Technosoul · Sep 6, 2007, 11:09 am

In the wisdom of Plato as a philosophy we cannot say there is no absolute truth, because such a statement would then become an absolute truth. Therefore contradicting it's self.

Here is my opinon.

We can assume that truisms are possible and can be shared or agreed upon by people from many backgrounds, secular and religious.

An absolute truth would be the "source provider" of those truisms that come to light, via our consciousness of those principles.

Each mind however digests and interprets what is being introduced into our thought steam from the provider source, and those interpretations generate a diversity of explainations based on each persons background of knowledge and experience.

The source-provider might be some sort of metaphyisical 'whatever' or whatever we term as "reality". Such truisms are realitive to our concepts of what reality is. Truth is relative to each circumstance being experience at the moment and if the circumstances change then so would the truths that are applied.

Realities that have the less amount of change are viewed as more absolute then realities that are in constant flux. Example: The idea that the sun will remain constant, would favor a concept that such is true, as the same sun has been around for millions of years, where as our local weather is in constant flux, or cycles, and so what is true would likewise change seasonally relative to our perceptions.

Our consciousness might be simular, both influenced by the sun and by progressive changes within the thought steam. Re: standing thought verses novelty or the randomness of thoughts. As in the Dylan song " a season for war and a season for peace".

The Source-Provider factor would reveal in our consciousness the best truism for each situation, each change has its own absolute truth which truth would not apply too another circumstance.

The unfolding realtiy is like our DNA, containing codes or intructions while also effecting an continued diversity, or individualisms, so noted as circumstances.

thrashee · Sep 6, 2007, 11:20 am

Quote:

I do not pander to the pathetic philosophy that all faiths are different facets of the same truth, but instead I feel that there must be one supreme truth.

I'm not seeing how the two parts of your statement are in opposition. First, why is that a pathetic philosophy (it seems the most pragmatic to me). Second, couldn't each religion, indeed, contain different forms of the same seed of your absolute truth?

thrashee · Sep 6, 2007, 11:23 am

Quote:

If so, why would it bury small grains of itself within a large mass of distraction and fiction? Why wouldn't it just tell someone?

Perhaps it did "just tell someone". You're not accounting for the single most unreliable part of this equation--human beings. Remember the game telephone?

Quote:

After all, this Truth would want to perpetuate itself, hopefully mostly intact.

And why is that? There might be a one Truth, but how can you make assumptions on what it does or does not "want", or even if it wants at all?

J. Askiloupos · Sep 6, 2007, 11:33 am

What I see as being contained in each system of belief, Thrashee, are not so much different forms of Veritas, but fragments of differing size. And in response to your first question, the differing amounts of truth in all these religions is, in fact, what keeps me from inclusivistic doctrine. There are, whether it is admitted or not, black points and white points within different faiths that mark them at their particular degree of veracity, which is why I cannot possibly accept that all are equally true.

thrashee · Sep 6, 2007, 11:44 am

I'm not sure, then, what the real issue here is.

You've stated that separate religions contain fragments of truth. That you believe there is one Absolute Truth. And that you can't accept all religions as equally "true".

Ok....all of those things follow logically. So...what's the question?

Chancellor · Sep 6, 2007, 01:16 pm

Something is either true or it is not true and, thus, truth is absolute. Leaving religion and philosophy out of the debate, you have only these two options.

thrashee · Sep 6, 2007, 01:21 pm

Quote:

Something is either true or it is not true and, thus, truth is absolute.

Unless something is both true and not true. We're applying logic here for higher "absolute" truths. Do you imagine the absolute truth of reality might not extend quite a bit beyond our ability to comprehend?

Technosoul · Sep 6, 2007, 01:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Chancellor

Something is either true or it is not true and, thus, truth is absolute. Leaving religion and philosophy out of the debate, you have only these two options.

Give an example of a something that is absolute and true.

J. Askiloupos · Sep 6, 2007, 01:43 pm

Thrashee, the issue here is my personal search for the fullness of Veritas through the examination of all possible sides of the problem. And it seems to me that, for now, the best way to go about that quest lies down the path of quality discussion with other seekers.

Chancellor · Sep 6, 2007, 03:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Give an example of a something that is absolute and true.

2+2=4

**Jack** · Sep 6, 2007, 04:43 pm

Quote:

Leaving religion and philosophy out of the debate...

what basis would an absolute truth have? Even within the context of religion and philosophy (which are the same thing in my book) there aren't any absolute truths which can be objectively defended as such.

thrashee · Sep 6, 2007, 04:46 pm

2+2 does not always equal 4.

Let's say that in a new arithmetic, 2 is the new symbol that represents the old numeric construct of 4.

Now 2+2 = 8 (provided in our new numeric system, 8 remains the same).

thrashee · Sep 6, 2007, 04:47 pm

Or, as a better example:

10 + 10 = 4.

This true in present day systems.

HelioPrime · Sep 6, 2007, 09:44 pm

Paris Hilston is dumb as bricks? Is that absolute?

On a serious note, If you break down water, you will always get hydrogen and oxygen, thats an absolute fact isn't it? Or is this thread only about truths of philosophy?

Chancellor · Sep 7, 2007, 01:51 pm

Quote:

Quote by: thrashee

2+2 does not always equal 4.

Let's say that in a new arithmetic, 2 is the new symbol that represents the old numeric construct of 4.

It doesn't change the fact that two (representing the quantity previously known as two, a pair, a couple, etc.) plus two equals four (representing the quantity that is known as four, a quadruple, etc.). Whatever you call them, this many + this many = that many.

Quote:

Now 2+2 = 8 (provided in our new numeric system, 8 remains the same).

These kinds of hypotheticals ("if we changed the meaning of the number 2 or the number 4") are just stupid. We're talking about reality and not hypotheticals.

J. Askiloupos · Sep 7, 2007, 01:56 pm

No-one here should feel compelled to answer, but... what particular worldview do each of you hold?

Sep 5, 2007, 02:23 am	#1 (permalink)
J. Askiloupos Home Once More Location: Greece Posts: 224	Truth Absolute? I come from Greece, a land steeped in ancient religious tradition, and it is also, I might add- the birthplace of the logic that atheists cling to so dearly. With this background of national duality (which continues even today), one would think that one would be more prepared for something like the fierce debate that rages on in American society due to this one religion in particular: Biblical Christianity. A religion that claims to exclusively have the ear of God. It is fact that absolute truth must exist somewhere, and also that it (in its sum total) can reside only in one place. However, snatches of Veritas exist everywhere- even in the slightly odd practices of the Neopagans. So, then, it is not the hopeless search for truth perfected by man that must consume us, but a quest to aqquire as many of these fragments of precious Veritas as is humanly possible. Please, friends, your thoughts... ..."Light up the Darkness" - Bob Marley...

Sep 5, 2007, 03:01 am	#2 (permalink)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	This inclusionist ideal that hopes to avoid conflict and political incorrectness by crediting Truth to anyone who has some religious idea (or a chance encounter with some suspect fungi) is adverse to logic. If you concede that there is an absolute Truth (meaning that the spiritual is something real and unaltered by our own wishes, rather than a product of fantasy) then you have to accept that there will be incorrect answers. To say that there is absolute Truth is to make that Truth real, and real things have properties. They have things that they are and aren't. And discounting belief, you can't say that one faith doesn't have a much better grasp on that Truth than others, just as you can't take an A paper and a D paper and give those students each the average of the two. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Sep 5, 2007, 03:16 am	#3 (permalink)
J. Askiloupos Home Once More Location: Greece Posts: 224	I was not discounting Christianity- or any other religious ideal, for that matter. I merely stated that I see fragments of Veritas in every belief. I do not pander to the pathetic philosophy that all faiths are different facets of the same truth, but instead I feel that there must be one supreme truth. I am not yet sure where this truth lies... That is my purpose here, friend. To discover what this truth may be. In retrospect, I was a bit vague on my final premise- thank you for going after the flaws in my idea, so that I may clear them up. ..."Light up the Darkness" - Bob Marley...

Sep 5, 2007, 04:29 am	#4 (permalink)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Consider that there is an absolute Truth. Is this Truth sentient? Does it want to reveal itself to people? If so, why would it bury small grains of itself within a large mass of distraction and fiction? Why wouldn't it just tell someone? Or maybe most faiths are like a well crafted lie woven around the kernel of Truth that makes it all the more believable. But that would imply that the Truth had been revealed in a more complete form at some time, for it to be able to spawn these derivatives. So are some faiths more derivative than others? Do some have more Truth than others? Logic would seem to lead to that conclusion. After all, this Truth would want to perpetuate itself, hopefully mostly intact. And some witnesses are better than others. So that just leads back to my premise: you can't give them both a B-. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Sep 6, 2007, 11:33 am	#8 (permalink)
J. Askiloupos Home Once More Location: Greece Posts: 224	What I see as being contained in each system of belief, Thrashee, are not so much different forms of Veritas, but fragments of differing size. And in response to your first question, the differing amounts of truth in all these religions is, in fact, what keeps me from inclusivistic doctrine. There are, whether it is admitted or not, black points and white points within different faiths that mark them at their particular degree of veracity, which is why I cannot possibly accept that all are equally true. ..."Light up the Darkness" - Bob Marley...

Sep 6, 2007, 11:09 am	#5 (permalink)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,967	In the wisdom of Plato as a philosophy we cannot say there is no absolute truth, because such a statement would then become an absolute truth. Therefore contradicting it's self. Here is my opinon. We can assume that truisms are possible and can be shared or agreed upon by people from many backgrounds, secular and religious. An absolute truth would be the "source provider" of those truisms that come to light, via our consciousness of those principles. Each mind however digests and interprets what is being introduced into our thought steam from the provider source, and those interpretations generate a diversity of explainations based on each persons background of knowledge and experience. The source-provider might be some sort of metaphyisical 'whatever' or whatever we term as "reality". Such truisms are realitive to our concepts of what reality is. Truth is relative to each circumstance being experience at the moment and if the circumstances change then so would the truths that are applied. Realities that have the less amount of change are viewed as more absolute then realities that are in constant flux. Example: The idea that the sun will remain constant, would favor a concept that such is true, as the same sun has been around for millions of years, where as our local weather is in constant flux, or cycles, and so what is true would likewise change seasonally relative to our perceptions. Our consciousness might be simular, both influenced by the sun and by progressive changes within the thought steam. Re: standing thought verses novelty or the randomness of thoughts. As in the Dylan song " a season for war and a season for peace". The Source-Provider factor would reveal in our consciousness the best truism for each situation, each change has its own absolute truth which truth would not apply too another circumstance. The unfolding realtiy is like our DNA, containing codes or intructions while also effecting an continued diversity, or individualisms, so noted as circumstances.

Sep 6, 2007, 11:44 am	#9 (permalink)
thrashee Igneous Magma Location: Denver Posts: 621	I'm not sure, then, what the real issue here is. You've stated that separate religions contain fragments of truth. That you believe there is one Absolute Truth. And that you can't accept all religions as equally "true". Ok....all of those things follow logically. So...what's the question?

Sep 6, 2007, 01:16 pm	#10 (permalink)
Chancellor It's my first name! Location: Buffalo, New York, USA Posts: 3,922	Something is either true or it is not true and, thus, truth is absolute. Leaving religion and philosophy out of the debate, you have only these two options. "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." -John Quincy Adams -

Sep 6, 2007, 01:43 pm	#13 (permalink)
J. Askiloupos Home Once More Location: Greece Posts: 224	Thrashee, the issue here is my personal search for the fullness of Veritas through the examination of all possible sides of the problem. And it seems to me that, for now, the best way to go about that quest lies down the path of quality discussion with other seekers. ..."Light up the Darkness" - Bob Marley...

Sep 6, 2007, 04:46 pm	#16 (permalink)
thrashee Igneous Magma Location: Denver Posts: 621	2+2 does not always equal 4. Let's say that in a new arithmetic, 2 is the new symbol that represents the old numeric construct of 4. Now 2+2 = 8 (provided in our new numeric system, 8 remains the same).

Sep 6, 2007, 04:47 pm	#17 (permalink)
thrashee Igneous Magma Location: Denver Posts: 621	Or, as a better example: 10 + 10 = 4. This true in present day systems.

Sep 6, 2007, 09:44 pm	#18 (permalink)
HelioPrime Hucking Fuskies Location: Conn Posts: 2,719	Paris Hilston is dumb as bricks? Is that absolute? On a serious note, If you break down water, you will always get hydrogen and oxygen, thats an absolute fact isn't it? Or is this thread only about truths of philosophy? What do you say to an atheist who sneezes? Yourdeadthatsit! - Dane Cook

Sep 7, 2007, 01:56 pm	#20 (permalink)
J. Askiloupos Home Once More Location: Greece Posts: 224	No-one here should feel compelled to answer, but... what particular worldview do each of you hold? ..."Light up the Darkness" - Bob Marley...