• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Many proofs for God's existence.

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Where do you stand with dreams and imagination as reflections of reality?
I have no problem with imagination ─ I grew up on SF and ghost stories, and as a grandpa I know not a little about Harry Potter. On the other hand, I have no reason to think, and I don't think, that magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics ─ exists anywhere but in imagination.

Dreams? It's unusual for me to remember what I dream, but from personal experience I think dreams are of two kinds. First, there are long sequences of loosely connected, plotless episodes, which I know about by being snapped awake from deep sleep once or twice and jotting down the details for later consideration. And then there are waking dreams, where you can interact with the dream, sometimes affect the story line, have a better chance of remembering it, and so on. A waking dream can reflect anxieties and other moods (and indigestion &c). You probably know the various hypotheses to account for such phenomena. But I don't attach magic to them either, prognostication, clairvoyance &c.
With supernatural and paranormal experiences, understanding personification can go a long way. For myself, it does reflect from natural reality. With that in mind, lessons can be written objectively, no?
Don't think I follow that sentence. What does 'personification' mean in this context? And what lessons can be written objectively, and what kind of thing would one actually learn in such a lesson?
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
Don't think I follow that sentence. What does 'personification' mean in this context? And what lessons can be written objectively, and what kind of thing would one actually learn in such a lesson?
That it must be understood.

Truth and creative thinking to in turn teach truth.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That it must be understood.

Truth and creative thinking to in turn teach truth.
What is the "it" that must be understood?

What test do you use to determine whether something is true or not?

Do we agree that 'truth' is a quality peculiar to propositions about reality (by whatever name called) and only such propositions?

It seems to me that creative thinking may be anything. It may produce true or false propositions or it may produce propositions not about reality.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
What is the "it" that must be understood?
The lack of one reaching or concluding objectively.

What test do you use to determine whether something is true or not?
Does it permeate as a truth for the whole.

Do we agree that 'truth' is a quality peculiar to propositions about reality (by whatever name called) and only such propositions?
It might need to be more definitive than that.

It seems to me that creative thinking may be anything. It may produce true or false propositions or it may produce propositions not about reality.
Yeah, depends on ones level of understanding.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The lack of one reaching or concluding objectively.
As I said, I've paid attention to the problem of subjectivity. Reasoned enquiry, including scientific method, therefore seeks to maximize objectivity.
Does it permeate as a truth for the whole.
I may not have phrased my question clearly. I'm trying to pin down your definition of 'truth' and thus the test you use to tell whether any proposition / statement is true or not.
It might need to be more definitive than that.
How, exactly?
Yeah, depends on ones level of understanding.
And even more on what, exactly, we mean when we say 'true' and 'truth'.

I may have mentioned before that in my view, a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (known as the 'correspondence' view). So my test for truth is as objective as I can make it.

Do you agree? If not, what definition, hence what test, do you use?
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
As I said, I've paid attention to the problem of subjectivity. Reasoned enquiry, including scientific method, therefore seeks to maximize objectivity.
I may not have phrased my question clearly. I'm trying to pin down your definition of 'truth' and thus the test you use to tell whether any proposition / statement is true or not.
How, exactly?
And even more on what, exactly, we mean when we say 'true' and 'truth'.

I may have mentioned before that in my view, a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (known as the 'correspondence' view). So my test for truth is as objective as I can make it.

Do you agree? If not, what definition, hence what test, do you use?
Do you think of 'intuition' as falling short of understanding objectivity?

Would you agree that the ultimate truth is what is essential and necessary for the wholeness of life?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Would you agree that the ultimate truth is what is essential and necessary for the wholeness of life?
You still haven't told me what you mean by 'truth'.

Do you accept my definition? If so, please just say so. If you have another definition, please set it out here so that we're not talking past each other.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
You still haven't told me what you mean by 'truth'.
I'm not sure why you've jumped from "understanding" to wanting my definition of truth.

Do you accept my definition? If so, please just say so. If you have another definition, please set it out here so that we're not talking past each other.
I'm not sure why my approval of your definition matters that much. It works for you. I'm not limiting truth to objectivity.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm not limiting truth to objectivity.
Then how do you define it?

You don't want to think of truth as an objective quality, you say.

Do you think truth is whatever suits the individual, a synonym for 'personal comfortable idea'? Is the test for truth, Do I like that idea?

In other words, is truth arbitrary, nothing true or false unless I say so?

Or do you think truth is something else again?

And why does it matter? Because as I said, if we don't have an agreed meaning for 'truth', I won't understand you when you use the word and we'll talk past each other.
 
Top