The failure of reasoning:

a reply to: spygeek

Let me make a lot of corrections in your response: Truth is not subject to facts, it's the other way around...I love that you posted the "definition" so you just gave the evidence of truth itself....pay close attention to this: 1. be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. Look very closely at what you posted.....observation,inquiry OR INFORMATION. Now let's get into why it's defined that way: everything in existence can only BE in one of two natures: Physical or spiritual: Material or immaterial....as a truth or as a fact.....a car exist "materially" and exist as a fact....a statement exist immaterially and exist as a truth....fact and truth are two different words, two different meanings and facts are subject to the truth...facts are subject to reasoning but truth is absolute and is not subject to human reasoning by nature. This is not an opinion, it's an undeniable reality that can be referenced.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

In order for me to intellectually respond I must know something: are you stating your feelings about the case or are you stating the reality of the case?

In reality, we have made a plethora of discoveries in nature that show how nature begets nature, and these discoveries totally and conclusively falsify any concept of god portrait in religions. This is reality.

a reply to: auto3000

Faith isn't Truth! So now if you can't demonstrate to us, the perfect mind, then you have no credibility, otherwise it's just intellectual masturbation.

a reply to: [post=20520113]olaru12 Unless you are stating the case and not your opinion, you''re just defending your feelings and denying the truth...the sad part is, you know that this response is undeniably true.

a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Right... and I'm sure you 'know the truth' because you're a special person, more special than anyone else here because you've gained this knowledge of truth...

You're more than welcome to show how my fact's don't abide by your 'truth' instead of just responding with end-conversation comments to avoid confrontation.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver

sorry that I'm just getting to answering your post, no the conclusion is this: When dealing with things like religion, you are dealing with "truth claims" your reasoning is worthless because it's based upon a mind of limited knowledge. It's like having knowledge of medicine but trying to understand diesel mechanics. Truth claims require spiritual discernment not factual approaches, even if the subject is not religion based, if it's a truth based conversation and not a fact based, time is wasted trying to use reasoning in order to discern the truth.

Or rather, you're trying to justify a claim that spirituality is a real thing and since you have no way of proving it, you have invented this argument that "cannot be falsified",

Medicine and diesel mechanics are easily understood by us. There is no reason that a person can't learn both. Spirituality is a completely dif kind of claim. An extraordinary one. One that would require some kind of demonstration before i will take you seriously.

When it comes to the claims of spirituality or other supernatural language, the evidence falls short no matter how hard people try to explain it. You are claiming that proof is not necessary because you know some kind of truth on the matter. But no, i fear it's just your ego fueling your imagination and you have no proof to back up your claims.

Through observation we distinguish the facts which make up the theories we use to explain the machinations of our reality. How would you observe this immaterial world so that you can "know" of it's existence? If you claim you can "know" of it, or that you can experience it, then we will need to verify your claims with some kind of evidence. In fact, until your claims can pass some rigorous testing with extreme scrutiny, i will simply consider you just another internet charlatan.


I agree that the facts/evidence are subject to the truth. But the f/e should reflect the truth. Where are your facts? If you have none, how did you come to the "truth"? You are saying you understand the truth but have no facts that point directly to the existence of a spiritual/immaterial realm.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Uhh... God just told me that i can have your house and your car, your wife and your dog. Surely you won't argue with what god told me. He also told me to tell you that If you want proof, you'll have to straighten that out with him yourself. See how that works?

Now explain to me how my claim is wrong and yours is correct.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Uhh... God just told me that i can have your house and your car, your wife and your dog. Surely you won't argue with what god told me. He also told me to tell you that If you want proof, you'll have to straighten that out with him yourself. See how that works?

Now explain to me how my claim is wrong and yours is correct.

Can't argue with that.

Here's everything I have *hands over keys to house, car and chastity belt*

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Uhh... God just told me that i can have your house and your car, your wife and your dog. Surely you won't argue with what god told me. He also told me to tell you that If you want proof, you'll have to straighten that out with him yourself. See how that works?

Now explain to me how my claim is wrong and yours is correct.

Can't argue with that.

Here's everything I have *hands over keys to house, car and chastity belt*

Thank you for obeying gods word, and in such a timely manner, you'll probably find some loose change in your couch or experience the miracle of five green lights in a row as a reward for your service. I'll be expecting the same from everyone else, or you're all going to hell, and that's not coming from me, that's directly from god, through me, to everyone. All of you. Especially you auto3000. Or don't you believe in god?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Uhh... God just told me that i can have your house and your car, your wife and your dog. Surely you won't argue with what god told me. He also told me to tell you that If you want proof, you'll have to straighten that out with him yourself. See how that works?

Now explain to me how my claim is wrong and yours is correct.

Can't argue with that.

Here's everything I have *hands over keys to house, car and chastity belt*

Thank you for obeying gods word, and in such a timely manner, you'll probably find some loose change in your couch or experience the miracle of five green lights in a row as a reward for your service.

but... you took my couch... and my car!?!?!?!

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Uhh... God just told me that i can have your house and your car, your wife and your dog. Surely you won't argue with what god told me. He also told me to tell you that If you want proof, you'll have to straighten that out with him yourself. See how that works?

Now explain to me how my claim is wrong and yours is correct.

Can't argue with that.

Here's everything I have *hands over keys to house, car and chastity belt*

Thank you for obeying gods word, and in such a timely manner, you'll probably find some loose change in your couch or experience the miracle of five green lights in a row as a reward for your service.

but... you took my couch... and my car!?!?!?!

Hold on, let me look in my book of generic responses.... Ah yea, this'll do.

Uh.... God works in mysterious ways.

Very very mysterious. Only a few people like me and auto really understand the "truth". if you subscribe to my newsletter and make a series of considerable donations, MAYBE, i could teach you.
haven't you heard that whatever you give to god, you'll get back like a thousand fold. So really i'm doing you a huge favor. Your gonna be so rich..... When you get to heaven. But actually you prob don't meet the strict requirements. God still loves you though, that is why he has to burn you... because he loves you, cooked to a crispy golden brown.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

Uhh... God just told me that i can have your house and your car, your wife and your dog. Surely you won't argue with what god told me. He also told me to tell you that If you want proof, you'll have to straighten that out with him yourself. See how that works?

Now explain to me how my claim is wrong and yours is correct.

Can't argue with that.

Here's everything I have *hands over keys to house, car and chastity belt*

Thank you for obeying gods word, and in such a timely manner, you'll probably find some loose change in your couch or experience the miracle of five green lights in a row as a reward for your service.

but... you took my couch... and my car!?!?!?!

Hold on, let me look in my book of generic responses.... Ah yea, this'll do.

Uh.... God works in mysterious ways.

Very very mysterious. Only a few people like me and auto really understand the "truth". if you subscribe to my newsletter and make a series of considerable donations, MAYBE, i could teach you.

TAKE MY MONEY AND GIVE ME THE KOOL-AID ALREADY!!!!

a reply to: auto3000

Back to the point. What is this spiritual/immaterial thing you keep bringing up? How do you "know" about it?

a reply to: Ghost147

This implies that you have never met anyone who really knows the truth, this is not about knowledge on knowledge...but you demonstrate to see it that way. This is about why reasoning fails, particularly when dealing with abstract objective realities like "a truth statement".

here's what we can do, simple example to see where your mind set is. I want you to to give me two truth statements: the first truth statement must be referring to a truth and the second truth statement referring to a fact. If you can do that, we can both see where the understanding is not clear.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I do love humor....I see you have experience with religious people, that's nice...if God tells you something to tell me then it's not God i'm trusting but you....

a reply to: Woodcarver

belief in God not dogma...but I love that.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: spygeek

Let me make a lot of corrections in your response: Truth is not subject to facts, it's the other way around...

Well this depends on how you are defining truth.. I was referring to the most widely accepted and used theory of truth; correspondence. You appear to subscribe to constructivist truth..

The accepted definitions are as follows:

Correspondence theory: A true statement is one that is in accordance with reality. This tradition follows Aristotle's definition, is still the most widely accepted by far, and an important epistemic foundation of thescientific method.

Coherence theory: A statement is considered true if it is logically consistent with an already established system of other statements. Another, stricter version of this theory only accepts statements as true that are logically deduced from (or "entailed" by) an existing set of propositions. This approach is most prominently employed in mathematics, and used to be favored by some 20th century philosophers of science.

Constructivist theory: Truth itself is seen as a social construct, and therefore contingent upon tradition, convention and perception. This approach is usually favored by relativists who like to deny that there could possibly be any "preferred" system or method of deriving objective facts. Moderate constructivists hold that while objective knowledge is possible and there most likely is a shared reality, individually diverging perceptions are of greater importance for how people interact with each other and the world.

Consensus theory: The truth is whatever is agreed upon, or at least whatever would be agreed upon as the result of a free, rational discourse. This variant was strongly promoted by Jürgen Habermas in the 1970s, who seems to have given up on it nowadays. Except for sounding like a certain fallacy, the group of people who are allowed to settle the debate over some issues would necessarily have to be restricted to a much narrower one, since there are only few people who are informed enough about complex topics to participate in such discourse. The consensus theory does not provide a satisfying solution for situations in which expert opinion (a.k.a. "Scientific consensus") has reached a consensus, but one that is different from opinions within society at large.

Pragmatic theory: This variant was introduced by the American pragmatist school, and most notably held by Charles Peirce and William James. In a nutshell, truth is whatever works — if belief in a certain proposition has beneficial consequences, it can be considered true. "Beneficial consequences" are usually defined as anything that allows humans to navigate the world successfully — so for example, belief in one's ability to fly is false since it is harmful. This approach also shares common ground with the scientific method: Dewey's update on this theory consisted of defining "truth" as the end product of the process of scientific enquiry. For pragmatists, it does not matter all that much whether a highly abstract theory (like much of modern physics) actually represents an accurate picture of reality or whether it is just made up of useful assumptions and analogies, as long as its predictions are accurate.

Deflationary theory: Deflationists reject the idea that the word "truth" refers to a substantive property held by statements. They hold that there is no difference between the statements "Snow is white" and "It is true that snow is white," since they both hold if and only if snow is actually white. Other properties attributed to statements (such as peculiarity; e.g. "It is surprising that snow is white") do not have this property, which suggests it is not a property at all. Deflationists generally do not deny that there are statements which actually describe the world, but hold that assigning the word "true" to them is equivalent to asserting them.

Disquotationalism: a position within deflationism which explains the nature of some statements attributing truth as functioning grammatically, not semantically. The sentence "Bob's statement is true" is interpreted by disquotationalists not as assigning the property "truth" to Bob's statement but simply as shorthand for accepting it; the word "true" is understood to be useful in that it allows us to reaffirm Bob's statement without repeating it word-for-word, in a grammatically acceptable manner.

I love that you posted the "definition" so you just gave the evidence of truth itself....pay close attention to this: 1. be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. Look very closely at what you posted.....observation,inquiry OR INFORMATION.

Yes, and where does this information arise from if the source is not perceivable? How can information be derived from the unperceivable?

Now let's get into why it's defined that way: everything in existence can only BE in one of two natures: Physical or spiritual: Material or immaterial....

Anything in existence can only be physical. Existence is by definition physical.

existence
ɪɡˈzɪst(ə)ns,ɛɡ-/
noun

the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

The "spiritual" or "immaterial" does not literally exist, they are concepts of subjective abstract thought.

as a truth or as a fact.....a car exist "materially" and exist as a fact....a statement exist immaterially and exist as a truth....fact and truth are two different words, two different meanings and facts are subject to the truth...facts are subject to reasoning but truth is absolute and is not subject to human reasoning by nature. This is not an opinion, it's an undeniable reality that can be referenced.

Again, you are describing (kind of) constructivist truth theory, where facts are derived from a subjective interpretation of truth, and you are denying correspondence truth theory, wherein truth is derived from objective facts and reality.

originally posted by: auto3000
here's what we can do, simple example to see where your mind set is. I want you to to give me two truth statements: the first truth statement must be referring to a truth and the second truth statement referring to a fact. If you can do that, we can both see where the understanding is not clear.

What are you going on about? What is a truth statement?

1+1=2

Water boils at 100* C

My hair is brown.