Absolute Truth!?!

[Ryokan]

Is there absolute truth? And if so, does it require a God? And is God absolute in his knowledge if he exists?

I don't know, so I will try to elenchizing the suggestions here.:help:

[$cirisme]

It seems to me that for there to be truth, it would have to be absolute.

But, please enlighten my ignorant opinion. :hrm:

[automatthew]

A statement reflects absolute truth when that statement corresponds precisely to reality. This demands that reality exist. Those who would argue against the existence of absolute truth find themselves in the untenable position of arguing against the existence of reality.

If reality can only exist by creation, then absolute truth requires God.

Otherwise, absolute truth does not require God, only the existence of reality.

To discuss this topic without inevitable language confusion, a meta-language may be used. Cf. Tarski's solution to the problem of truth, as popularized by Karl Popper (anyone who wants references, ask and ye shall receive).

[Jaltus]

Not necessarily true, as you are assuming a relationship for truth that you must prove first.

Why does truth have to met the criteria of correspondance?

Besides, you are begging the question as to what reality is.

[Revolg]

When you reply here, are you typing text to be seen on this thread? Yes or No?

If Yes, there is absolute truth

If No, you are lying, hence, absolute lie, which is still absolute truth of your absolute lie.

If you don't know, clean the ear wax out of your head that is causing a chemical inbalance in your head.

[automatthew]

> Besides, you are begging the question as to what reality is.

Which is why a metalanguage is considered by some epistemologists to be necessary to discuss these matters. The question "Is there absolute truth?" is not equivalent to "What is a true statement?" I was just pretending it was for a moment. Without getting into a Tarskian metalanguage, I would answer that if there is reality, then it is possible to make true statements.

For those who don't believe that reality exists, I'm not talking to you.

[geebob]

deleated.

comment was too stupid.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Is there absolute truth? And if so, does it require a God? And is God absolute in his knowledge if he exists?

I don't know, so I will try to elenchizing the suggestions here.:help:

I'd be interested to know what you think the alternatives to "absolute truth" are. For instance, if you dispense with absolute truth, would you still believe in any truth, perhaps some sort of relative truth? How would you define "absolute?" And how would you define "truth?"

[Ryokan]

truth is the way reality really is expressed as an idea. A relative truth is a truth based on a assumption or belief, like if eating bacon makes me happy(assumption) I oughta eat bacon. Unless you got a better def:huh: This can get confusing.

[Ryokan]

I think deciding what a working definition for absolute truth, relative truth, and reality are a good place to start then.

[Ryokan]

Let's assume Hume is wrong, and we can verify that our experience in some way reflects outer reality?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Ryokan,
What I'm getting from the above is that you are possibly an empiricist and a foundationalist. Also, you seem to hold that "assumption" and "belief" are synonymous, which may be true on a connotative popular level, but decidedly cannot be true denotatively in the way these terms are often used philosophically. Have I read you correctly so far?

How would you define "absolute" or "absolute truth?"

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Also, I'd have to ask how you think ethics and the "ought" relate to "truth," given your examples....

Thanks!

[Pate]

The more radical versions of relativism seem to me to be just stupid and obviously self-defeating.

As pereynol has mentioned, it's importan to define the terms carefully with regard to this question. Many who deny the existence of "absolute truth" are actually denying a straw-man version of it.

[Pate]

As a simplistic over-genralization, which nevertheless has some point to it, I'd mention this:

If you say that the one who claims that absolute truth exists is wrong, you're just proving his/her point.

Disagreement would be meaningless if there were no truth to the matter on which you disagree with someone.

[Ryokan]

sorry. I am a very amatuer philospher, as the butt whippings I suffered at TOL would attest. How would you go about defining belief and assumption. Assumption seems to imply evidence to back it up then. Yes, I am an empircist, and I am not sure what foundationalist is, but I am willing to learn:read:

[Ryokan]

And I suppose ethics would be the way to act that corresponds to this "truth", maybe

[Demolition Man]

Well, if there is no absolute truth, then I don't care what another person says about any topic pertaining to "truthful" matters, because it's not really true. No reason to accept that his relative truth is above anyone else's relative truth.

"I know it's absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true"--Plenty of "smart" people:p

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Originally posted by Ryokan
sorry. I am a very amatuer philospher, as the butt whippings I suffered at TOL would attest. How would you go about defining belief and assumption. Assumption seems to imply evidence to back it up then. Yes, I am an empircist, and I am not sure what foundationalist is, but I am willing to learn:read:

Roughly speaking, I think a belief is something one assents to, with varying degrees of certainty. An assumption is often something like an axiom within a foundational system---a presupposition or a "basic belief," one that needn't be justified on the basis of other beliefs.

Sometimes, though, the word "assumption" becomes a derrogatory reference to an unjustified or misinformed belief.

Foundationalism is a metaphor about how knowledge should be structured, that certain beliefs are "basic" or "foundational," as in the foundation of a building. Foundational beliefs are like axioms, and all subsequent beliefs are derived, deduced, or somehow rest upon them as subsequent floors of a building rest upon the foundation or upon preceeding floors. Every belief is properly ordered, and one often hears that some belief is "based", "founded," or "grounded" in or upon another, or that some belief needn't be justified because it is axiomatic, assumed, or properly basic, etc.

As to ethical statements, they become notoriously difficult to derive logically. "Ought" statements usually don't follow from conclusions the way statements of truth do. One must somehow define what one means by the "ought." Are ethical statments emotive, as in preferences, commands, as in imperatives, or do they actually depend upon objective standards, relative or absolute. If the latter, do they inhere within minds, whether human or divine?

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by automatthew
[B The question "Is there absolute truth?" is not equivalent to "What is a true statement?" [/B]

Can you expalin the difference between the two? I would think that being able to make a true statement would be the only thing needed in a proof for absolute truth.

[Blake Reas]

Truth is grounded in God's being. To put it other wise it is part of his nature. There can be no Morality unless there is a all moral being. Read on the Transcendental Argument.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Sozo]

Blake Reas:
Truth is grounded in God's being. To put it other wise it is part of his nature. There can be no Morality unless there is a all moral being. Read on the Transcendental Argument.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Morality is subject to laws. What laws govern God?

[smilax]

For example, Hebrews vi, 18.

God cannot contradict His nature. His perfect goodness, then, becomes the very law and standard to which we are held accountable.

[Sozo]

smilax:
For example, Hebrews vi, 18.

God cannot contradict His nature. His perfect goodness, then, becomes the very law and standard to which we are held accountable.

Don't you mean... found wretched

[Blake Reas]

Sozo:
Morality is subject to laws. What laws govern God?

There are no laws that "govern" God. I would say that there are things that go against his nature, if that is what you mean by laws then we agree. If on the other hand you are saying that there are some laws "out" there which are outside of God that won't work. As Smilax pointed out Morality (Holiness) is grounded in God's being or Nature. For instance God cannot make 2+2=5 because this is ridicoulous he is in fact internally consistent. Therefore God cannot sin because that would be like God creating a Rock so big he could not lift it which he cannot do. So it is inherently in God to be rational and Moral for that matter.

In Christ,
Blake

[flipper]

Everyone who has pointed out that definitions of the terms "absolute", "relative", and "truth" need to be made. Good luck with that, as I have yet to see a definition, particularly of the term "absolute" that has been completely satisfactory. Generally, people resort to examples.

Yes, I agree that there is an objective reality in which we all operate, as the alternatives to this are sterile, valueless, and self-defeatingly circular. However, I don't know how much closer that brings us to an understanding of what constitutes an "absolute" in a sense that is anything other than theoretical. Yes, it is possible to develop absolute axioms and theorems, but these are so powerful largely because they are entirely theoretical (with undeniably practical real-world uses, it is true). As such, it is easy to rigorously define ones terms.

The idea of an "absolute" is quite a tough one to get one's head around. Especially as we are all rather subjective critturs.

[Pilgrim]

Blake Reas:
Truth is grounded in God's being. To put it other wise it is part of his nature. There can be no Morality unless there is a all moral being. Read on the Transcendental Argument.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

So you are aguing from a foundationalist point of view. That's an awefull big apriori.

[Blake Reas]

Pilgrim:
So you are aguing from a foundationalist point of view. That's an awefull big apriori.


If belief in God makes all other beliefs coherent why is it such a big apriori? Everyone has an assumption in their philosophy I just decide to place mine on God's shoulders. I do believe that God is the foundation for logic, morality, goodness etc.

In christ,
Blake

[Pilgrim]

I agree with you.

[automatthew]

Earlier, I stated that:

The question "Is there absolute truth?" is not equivalent to "What is a true statement?"

Pilgrim then asked:

Can you explain the difference between the two? I would think that being able to make a true statement would be the only thing needed in a proof for absolute truth.

I definitely want to reply to this question, but my draft keeps getting longer and longer. I'll keep working on it, but in the meantime here's the short answer:

-----

If you make a statement that I agree is objectively true, it follows that I believe there is absolute truth. The problem with this reasoning is that it does not address these very important questions:

1) Can a statement be objectively true?
2) Are we even capable of knowing whether a specific statement is objectively true?
3) If so, how do we identify which statements are objectively true?

[Pilgrim]

I am beginning to see the real nead for a meta-language on this one.

[automatthew]

Pilgrim laments: "I am beginning to see the real nead for a meta-language on this one."

The going gets really rough without a clearly defined meta-language. As soon as I'm done with my full reply, I'll cook one up.:thumb:

Actually, I'll just go rip off Karl Popper's beautifully understandable representation of Tarski's meta-language and solution to the problem of truth. I'll just have to figure out which of the numerous Popper books I've grazed on recently has it.

[automatthew]

I just said: " Actually, I'll just go rip off Karl Popper's beautifully understandable representation of Tarski's meta-language . . ."

Perhaps I should start a new thread at that point; if the meta-language proves useful, the mods could make it sticky so we have a common framework for these discussions. Anyone second this idea?

matthew

[Pilgrim]

automatthew:
I just said: " Actually, I'll just go rip off Karl Popper's beautifully understandable representation of Tarski's meta-language . . ."

Perhaps I should start a new thread at that point; if the meta-language proves useful, the mods could make it sticky so we have a common framework for these discussions. Anyone second this idea?

matthew

I second that motion and since I'm the mod it needs no further voting! So moved!

[TheFiveSolas]

Absolute truth does not exist and I know this absolutely!

Seriously though there seems to be a difference between reality and truth. Reality, unless I'm mistaken, refers to that which exists. Truth, on the other hand, is a correct interpretation of reality (and is dependent upon a mind, as I see it, since without a mind "truth" wouldn't exist since truth refers to propositions ABOUT the nature of reality). Absolute truth would be the exhaustive and correct interpretation of reality. Such a view (interpretation) of reality would require the mind of the being described in the Scriptures as God.
Thanks for putting up with my simplistic ramblings on this subject!

[johnransom]

Pilgrim:
Can you expalin the difference between the two? I would think that being able to make a true statement would be the only thing needed in a proof for absolute truth.

A true statement is not necessarily true absolutely. An absolute truth is true at all times and in all places. As a result, most absolute truths are rather limited in scope, because their temporal and spatial locations have to be specified. For example, the statement "It is raining" may be true here and now, but is not going to be true at all times and in all places. However, the statement "It is raining in Seattle at 5pm on January 31, 2003" is an absolute truth (asuming that it is actually true). There are however a few general absolute truths. For instance, the most self-evident one (and this was scoffed at by a skeptic I presented it to) is "I am". It must be absolutely true because in order to make the statement at all, the speaker must exist.

Moreover, absolute truth must exist because its denial is self-refuting. That is, the claim "There is no absolute truth" is itself an absolute statement. It cannot be true because its truth would consequently be absolute. Thus, "There is no absolute truth" is an absolute untruth.

Does that clarify matters?

[automatthew]

Great responses from everyone. I'm still working on a follow-up, trying to keep it short yet intelligible. In the meantime, a couple of comments:

TheFiveSolas said:
Seriously though there seems to be a difference between reality and truth. Reality, unless I'm mistaken, refers to that which exists. Truth, on the other hand, is a correct interpretation of reality (and is dependent upon a mind, as I see it, since without a mind "truth" wouldn't exist since truth refers to propositions ABOUT the nature of reality).

Right on. That's very close to some ideas I'd like to address. Not now, but soon.


tFS also said:
Absolute truth would be the exhaustive and correct interpretation of reality.

and johnransom said:
A true statement is not necessarily true absolutely. An absolute truth is true at all times and in all places.

Definitions differ; I won't quibble with these. The abstract concept of Absolute Truth, though, is different from a statement of absolute truth. I'll agree that Absolute Truth is an exhaustively correct interpretation of reality, unlimited in scope. An absolutely true statement would be one that is exhaustively correct within a limited scope, a range explicitly defined for the applicability of the statement. Given these definitions, it seems clear that human knowledge cannot achieve an understanding of Absolute Truth, though absolutely true statements may be possible.

Matthew

[automatthew]

My response to Pilgrim's questions of a few days ago has turned into a three-parter. Part I is complete, so I'll post it now. Part II is rough, but close to readable, so it will come soon. Part III is as yet a twinkle in my eye, and may further develop as discussion on this thread warrants.

I.

In the discussion that follows I will try not to quibble over definitions, as I believe words should be merely convenient handles for concepts; people may have different native understandings of the concept signified by "spirit", for instance, but the fact that others use the same word to identify different things poses only a superficial problem.

A while back, I stated that:

The question "Is there absolute truth?" is not equivalent to "What is a true statement?"


Pilgrim then asked:

Can you explain the difference between the two? I would think that being able to make a true statement would be the only thing needed in a proof for absolute truth.


Subsequently, in response to clarifying posts from johnransom and TheFiveSolas, I made a distinction that I'm going to rephrase here:

The abstract concept of Absolute Truth is different from a statement of absolute truth. Absolute Truth is an exhaustively correct interpretation of reality, unlimited in scope. An absolutely true statement is one that is exhaustively correct within a range explicitly defined for the applicability of the statement. Human knowledge cannot achieve an understanding of Absolute Truth, though absolutely true statements may be possible.

Thus I recognize three major concepts denoted by the term "absolute truth":

1) Objective reality - That which exists independently of our subjective awareness; what Karl Popper called World 1. Probably the most commonly used, this identification is the least useful of the three. I think this is what people mean when they ask, "Is there absolute truth?" or "Is any of this really real?"
2) Absolute Truth - An exhaustive interpretation of objective reality that is correct in all details.
3) True statements - Limited-scope explanations which are wholly correct within their specified range.


If absolute truth is taken to mean simply objective reality, then yes, absolute truth unarguably exists. Easy answer, but we get no more than we paid for. Absolute Truth is tantamount to omniscience. Not gonna happen for us, on this side of the river at least. True statements, however, may not be beyond our reach. Now, I'll clarify Pilgrim's question with these concepts in mind:

Can you explain the difference between the questions "Is there objective reality?" and "What constitutes a true statement?" I would think that being able to make a true statement would be the only thing needed to prove the existence of objective reality.

Short answer: The concept of a true statement presupposes that an objective reality exists. If you make a statement that I agree is objectively true, it follows that I believe there is objective reality. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes answers to these important questions:

1) Can a statement be objectively true?
2) If so, can we know with certitude that a statement is true?
3) If so, how do we determine what statements are true?

[Philosopher8659]

It seems to me that for there to be truth, it would have to be absolute.

But, please enlighten my ignorant opinion. :hrm:
That is not an opinion. Plato tried to teach just that. It is factual. True means "no difference" and being a first principle, it cannot take an adjective. If grammar, and the principles behind grammar were understood, you would better understand Plato. True, that is no difference, is to boundary, Abosolute and true, on the metaphysical level of meaning are the same word. Abosolute = true = boundary. Relative = difference = not true or lie.

In Parmenides Plato was demonstrating what happens when we give the same name to thing, boundary of a thing, and difference in the boundary. Things are defined in terms of boundary and difference, however boundary and difference are not definable, as they are not things. They must be learned by experience, or what Aristotle called induction.

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that for there to be truth, it would have to be absolute.

But, please enlighten my ignorant opinion. :hrm:
I can agree easily that absolute truth exists, but can it be demonstrated that humans are able to make judgements concerning the nature of absolute truth?

For example, different churches and religions have some reference to an absolute. Can that absolute be defined from the human perspective to exclude other worldviews?

[Philosopher8659]

[Good luck with that, as I have yet to see a definition, particularly of the term "absolute" that has been completely satisfactory. Generally, people resort to examples.
If one understood Plato or Aristotle, one would know why these are undefinable and must be learned by example, that is induction. Things are defined, which is the composite of form and difference, neither of which can be defined because both are abstracted by experience. They did not believe that definition was an endless pasta trail of words. j.c.

[shunyadragon]

[Good luck with that, as I have yet to see a definition, particularly of the term "absolute" that has been completely satisfactory. Generally, people resort to examples.
If one understood Plato or Aristotle, one would know why these are undefinable and must be learned by example, that is induction. Things are defined, which is the composite of form and difference, neither of which can be defined because both are abstracted by experience. They did not believe that definition was an endless pasta trail of words. j.c.I believe an absolutely true statement can be be made in an objective falsifiable situation where the statement is inductively vadid based on fact and experience. The example given of it raining in Seatle at a certain time and date.

I am interested in the role of falsifiability and truth. In my view, falsifiability would be a requirement of an objective truth. Popper's concept of the falsifiability of objective truth would lead to the answer of 'How do we determine what statements are true?'

I am also interested in the the difference between metaphisical objectivity and epistimetological (sp?) objectivity and truth. In my view both views of objectivity are not mutually exclusive.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Add a couple drops of venom to a half-truth and you get an absolute truth.
--Eric Hoffer

[truthbeliever]

Well then, i didnt really read everyones post. but it seems from the first page some people just don't understand that there is a absolute truth. the reason that you can say this is by the fallowing example. if you say no, then what do you have that you would mesure that with? IF there are no absoluts then are you absolutly sure about that? see everyone has absolutes. you can deny them but you have them. Let me as you a simple question (i'm not threting anyone). what if i put a gun to your head and killed you. is it worng for me? more then likly you will say no. what do you use to mesure that by? and if you say well it up to the person to whgat is right and wrong. then i have another question, will it hold up in court if i shoot you, and just say well it's what i feel is best and you can do anything about it? or like if yopu are a guy and married would you be mad if someone rapped your wife? of course you would be! because you know that it is wrong for someone to do that. EVERYONE knows what is right and what is wrong. THERE ARE ABSOLUTES. THERE ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Other wise how would we know right from wrong?

[Jme]

what if i put a gun to your head and killed you. is it worng for me? more then likly you will say no.

Well as you would be the one pulling the trigger you would either believe it was right or be very stupid in doing something that you did not mean. Additionally you could believe that it is wrong but feel that you have no choice.

what do you use to mesure that by?
My own personal moral what'sname - judgement (wow spelling bad tonight I typed that with a G the first time round).


and if you say well it up to the person to whgat is right and wrong. then i have another question, will it hold up in court if i shoot you, and just say well it's what i feel is best and you can do anything about it?

I'm not sure if you mean they can do anything they want about it or that they can't - because the spelling and grammer of your post is a bit off, so I'll answer both:

"...you can....."


well yes they can punish you for the crime you have committed (that's if it was a murder).

"...you can't..."

AS above they can punish you for the crime you committed because they are the courts - acting with the power of the government to pass judgement on you - you don't usually get much of a say in the matter.


or like if yopu are a guy and married would you be mad if someone rapped your wife? of course you would be! because you know that it is wrong for someone to do that. EVERYONE knows what is right and what is wrong.

And yet there are many different takes on what is right and what is wrong, with no side (that claims the absolute) able to show that this is the case.

There are many on this site and out there that believe that abortion is wrong, that it is murder -then there are those on the other side of the fence - where is the absolute in this example?


THERE ARE ABSOLUTES. THERE ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Other wise how would we know right from wrong?
Do we? CAn we? Paedophiles don't think what they are doing is wrong (generalising of course some would, some wouldn't), same for the rapist. A murderer convicted in court may feel that they were right to kill and show no remorse. We believe that they were wrong to do such a thing, but they do not share this.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

The statement “all truth is relative” is relatively false. “Truth” describes what is real, accurate and factual. Viewing things in a relative manner requires comparing them. It can be absolutely true that relative to a 7 hour drive, a 1 hour drive is short; in the same way, it is absolutely true that relative to a 10 minute drive, a 1hour drive is long. There must be in some way or another absolute truth. The totality of all absolute truth would then describe the reality of what is existent.

[kofh2u]

Absolute truth does not exist and I know this absolutely!

Seriously though there seems to be a difference between reality and truth. Reality, unless I'm mistaken, refers to that which exists. Truth, on the other hand, is a correct interpretation of reality (and is dependent upon a mind, as I see it, since without a mind "truth" wouldn't exist since truth refers to propositions ABOUT the nature of reality). Absolute truth would be the exhaustive and correct interpretation of reality. Such a view (interpretation) of reality would require the mind of the being described in the Scriptures as God.
Thanks for putting up with my simplistic ramblings on this subject!


You are right on target!

The Christians will ignor the verse I post below. They insist they are orthodox. This is in order to censor bible interpretations that differ from their dogma and metaphysical traditional language. The way they explain everything is by vague induendo. They resist concrete and simple ideas about things they have no rational clue.

If you can stand it, here is what you said as simple as possible:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Reality), said Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),... Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Reality), created man (whose facility of mind enabled him to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created (the external theistic Universal Reality), God, him (man, in God's own immanent reflection); male and female created he them.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

If you can stand it, here is what you said as simple as possible:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Reality), said Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),... Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Reality), created man (whose facility of mind enabled him to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created (the external theistic Universal Reality), God, him (man, in God's own immanent reflection); male and female created he them.
What!?!

Genesis 1:26-27 (New King James Version)

26Then God (I’ll give you that description) said, "Let Us (The Triune theistic almighty) make (Through whatever means he chose, out of dust by breathing life into it, Gen 2:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&verse=7&version=50&context=verse)) man (a living, physical and spiritual being) in Our (reflecting the triune quality) image (reflecting at least the spiritual characteristics of God, but including free will, which God also has, but He is kind of perfect by definition as God), according to Our (again triune) likeness; (emphasizing that we are made as more than animals) let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (because we are more than animals and this world was given to us to live in and care for)

27So God (The triune, almighty deity) created man (made by what means he chose, see Gen 2:7 as dust that He formed and breathed life into) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; (reflecting the distinction between us and animals) male and female (both) He (the single, triune, almighty deity) created them.

[Vivian]

What!?!

Genesis 1:26-27 (New King James Version)

26Then God (I’ll give you that description) said, "Let Us (The Triune theistic almighty) make (Through whatever means he chose, out of dust by breathing life into it, Gen 2:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&verse=7&version=50&context=verse)) man (a living, physical and spiritual being) in Our (reflecting the triune quality) image (reflecting at least the spiritual characteristics of God, but including free will, which God also has, but He is kind of perfect by definition as God), according to Our (again triune) likeness; (emphasizing that we are made as more than animals) let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (because we are more than animals and this world was given to us to live in and care for)

27So God (The triune, almighty deity) created man (made by what means he chose, see Gen 2:7 as dust that He formed and breathed life into) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; (reflecting the distinction between us and animals) male and female (both) He (the single, triune, almighty deity) created them.



Genesis tells the story of two creations. The first, in chapter one, tells us about the spiritual or consicousness creation of the universe and man/adam. The second, in chapter 2, tells us about the taking of dust (Spirit) and creating a form into which the breath of life (or that which was created in chapter 1) is placed into it.

Also there is truth - man's attempt to understand Reality - and there is Truth which is Reality, without form. One can connect with formless Truth via the Word of God - His Voice/Vibration.


vivian

[Sacrificial Ram]

The statement “all truth is relative” is relatively false. “Truth” describes what is real, accurate and factual. Viewing things in a relative manner requires comparing them. It can be absolutely true that relative to a 7 hour drive, a 1 hour drive is short; in the same way, it is absolutely true that relative to a 10 minute drive, a 1hour drive is long. There must be in some way or another absolute truth. The totality of all absolute truth would then describe the reality of what is existent.
It seems to me that there are two different types of 'truths' that people can talk about. Once is the dry bare bones of fact. The other is the moral judgement and implications that come from the evaluations of fact. In that way, we can seperate 'truth' (fact), with moral evalutations "Truth".

[D. Medvedev Fan]

It seems to me that there are two different types of 'truths' that people can talk about. Once is the dry bare bones of fact. The other is the moral judgement and implications that come from the evaluations of fact. In that way, we can seperate 'truth' (fact), with moral evalutations "Truth".
They are only separate when you take God out of the picture. God, at least as Christians see Him, defines morality through His nature. He is what goodness is and so what reflects His nature is good.

[Sacrificial Ram]

They are only separate when you take God out of the picture. God, at least as Christians see Him, defines morality through His nature. He is what goodness is and so what reflects His nature is good.
No, that is not true.. even if you assume god, they woudl be different.

True.. when you throw a brick release a brick , it falls. That is a fact.
That has no moral or ethical component to it. That is 'truth' with a small t.
That is 'truth' no matter what your view , or lack of view of any god is.

How about sacrificing a goat, such as they do to Allah in the poorer sections of Indonisia?

Is that good or bad?

[kofh2u]

Joan of Arc:
What!?!

Genesis 1:26-27 (New King James Version)

26Then God ...(I’ll give you that description)...

KOFHY:
Cool!
And thank you for your thoughful reply.

Joan of Arc:
...said, "Let Us make (The Triune theistic almighty)...

KOFHY:
"Triune" jumps the gun and rushes the interpretation of this first chapter all the way to Matthew 28:19.
I will agree that God, Theistic God, is joined here by some component yet to be understood clearly from the text.
Since you agree that, the creative process which He uses can be described as:
"Through whatever means he chose,"

I insert "pantheistic"... which is equated to His "spirit which moves across the face of the deep," (Gen 1:2)...

By "pantheistic," (for want of a better term), I credit our Theistic (pre-Big Bang) Father with having His fingers (pan) on the "controls" of natural works in nature.

Joan of Arc:
...out of dust ...

KOFHY:
Inorganic Chemistry, utilized as building blocks for the organic developmnt of life.

Joan of Arc:
...by breathing life into it, Gen 2:7

KOFHY:
Oxygen is our breathe of life

Joan of Arc:
man...
(a living, physical and spiritual being)...

KOFHY:
Spiritual = psychic energy, as identified by ECG examinations).

W read here that man, physically and mentally, is being created in the image, the sameness of God. The implication is the God is represented immanently, i.e.; Webster: internally, mentally within.

Joan of Arc:
in Our (reflecting the triune quality) image

KOFHY:
You get ahead of us here.

The text specifies a plurality, but 3 is not yet clearly understood.

But yes, it turns out that God has three a aspects, as most Christians agree.

And, coorespondingly, imaged within the mind of man, there is an analogous trinity in the Unconscious Mind, the Subconscious Mind, and the Conscious Mind (not yet awakened in Gen1:26-7).

Joan of Arc:
(reflecting at least the spiritual characteristics of God, but including free will, which God also has, but He is kind of perfect by definition as God),

KOFHY:
Wow!
All that metaphysical assumption superimposed and insisted upon already?
Patience.
If we get that far, that such literary criticism is warranteed, great.

So far, all we know, secularly, that agrees with Genesis 1:26-7, is: that by some natural process following the Big Bang, a very special kind of life, a thinking (non-matter, spirit-like ability) animal has been evolved.

This ability to think in images, or to produce a reflection of the Creation external to man, informs man of these pantheistic characteristics of the Theistic (Webster: transcending, pre0existing the Universe) God.

CONSIDER:
Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (His pantheistic expression), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood (pantheistically, as "Father Nature"), by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made, (and by our on-going observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his (theistic), eternal, (transcendent) power and Godhead (in Trinity); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse:

Joan of Arc:
according to Our (again triune)...
an assumption of 3...
.. likeness; (emphasizing that we are made as more than animals)

KOFHY:
Made more...?
In the likeness seems to mean "like God, like us."

Webster defines an Immanent God as one that is totally internal and mental.

Here we see the root to the mystery of the expression, "The kingdom of God is within."

But, yes.
We have the special gift of our mind.
As a survival tool, with faith in God, that this tool really works, that it will separate Truth from the lie, we are "saved."
Our salvation can be both personally, and as a species.
Our salvation, unlike the dinosaurs, will be eternal.
We can live, compatibly, with the Creation of God, with his pantheistic presence, with Father Nature, if we trust in our ability to correctly and properly image, imagine, how He works and how we are to behave.

Joan of Arc:
27So God (The triune, almighty deity) created man (made by what means he chose, see Gen 2:7

KOFHY:
Gen. 2:7 And the LORD God, (the Universal Power), formed (the organism), man, from the dust (of organic chemicals) of the ground (of the Earth), and breathed (from His atmosphere) into his nostrils the breath of life, (oxygen); and man became a living psyke' (Gr.).

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

You raised a number of idas that emphasize problems that follow from assumption made which have no foundation yet for comment in this first chapter.

God, for instance, is not defined specifically. In fact, we will descover in chapter 2 that YHVH means "I am what I turn oug ti be"...

Free Will has been interjected already, too. However, t is attribute does not appear until Chapter two:

Gen. 2:9 And out of the ground (in this Eden of the mind), made the LORD God, (Father Nature), to grow every tree (of Subconscious thought) that is pleasant to the sight (of mind), and good for food (of thought); the (Biological) Tree of Life, also in the midst of the garden (of the evolving mind), and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, (the possibility of free will through Consciousness).

Thank you again for your thoughtful post.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

How about sacrificing a goat, such as they do to Allah in the poorer sections of Indonisia?

Is that good or bad?
Goe desires mercy, not sacrifice.

Fact of the real nature of God as presented in the Christian Bible.

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Morality as God desires functions in some times as a means of attaining what is better now and in all times as a means of attaining what is better in eternity. True, this does presume that there is a God and that we will as Biblically described be judged for our actions, but if all men lived as they ought, this would be a tangibly, realistically better world. Sacrificing the goat to Allah is bad because it does not satisfy what the real god desires and it deprives the people of an animal that the poor could be fed with milk from-which no loving God would desire to see happen to the starving.

kofh2u, is it safe to assume that you think that all life constists of nothing that is not of this physical world and there is not spiritual existance and even metaphysics is merely the result of natural chance reactions of the physical world?