• 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!

One of the oldest arguements: Is Jesus God?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
First I would like to state that I believe that truth for all of us is different subjectively, therefore the truth of one individual cannot be forced upon one's own subjective truth.

I do not think that you can pragmatically apply this in a manner in which we can agree that you are correct. First of all, what is truth? In your view, it is subjective.

What if I think that every other human did not really exist and that I wanted to kill as many humans as possible. I received this truth from a subjective experience with a god. That is my truth, it is subjective, and no one can force their subjective truth upon me and force me to stop killing other people.
 

oracle

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
First I would like to state that I believe that truth for all of us is different subjectively, therefore the truth of one individual cannot be forced upon one's own subjective truth.

I do not think that you can pragmatically apply this in a manner in which we can agree that you are correct. First of all, what is truth? In your view, it is subjective.

What if I think that every other human did not really exist and that I wanted to kill as many humans as possible. I received this truth from a subjective experience with a god. That is my truth, it is subjective, and no one can force their subjective truth upon me and force me to stop killing other people.
It can't be forced in the sense that people desire what they want to believe in. A person has their own freedom of choice, you cannot force a belief on someone if they do not desire to believe in what you do. Just like if I were to try and force you to believe that Jesus is not God. Truth is ultimately subjective, and I don't think I want to talk about why it's ultimately subjective because It would be repetitive since I talked about it in other posts. Say there is one destination for us, however not everybody takes the same roads and not everybody drives their car the same. Everyone reaches their destination in their own individual way. There is no one specific path or one specific way of driving a car. People like to drive their own way, not be forced to drive in the way that someone else wants them to drive because they claim that is the only way to get to the destination. All objective truth cannot be fully grasped, just like we are not always certain where we are going on the road, like the uncertainty principle in astrophysics. We are only capable of grasping what we have already passed and what is immediatly ahead of us [which is what we go by when looking at a map], so unfortunatly your subjective truth is all you have in your immediate surroundings.

You can force someone to stop killing people, but you cannot force them to understand that it is harmful and bad.

The discussion here is not really to prove that Jesus is not God. For one, it's really to show why it becomes my subjective belief or opinion.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
oracle said:
It can't be forced in the sense that people desire what they want to believe in. A person has their own freedom of choice, you cannot force a belief on someone if they do not desire to believe in what you do. Just like if I were to try and force you to believe that Jesus is not God. Truth is ultimately subjective, and I don't think I want to talk about why it's ultimately subjective because It would be repetitive since I talked about it in other posts. Say there is one destination for us, however not everybody takes the same roads and not everybody drives their car the same. Everyone reaches their destination in their own individual way. There is no one specific path or one specific way of driving a car. People like to drive their own way, not be forced to drive in the way that someone else wants them to drive because they claim that is the only way to get to the destination. All objective truth cannot be fully grasped, just like we are not always certain where we are going on the road. We are only capable of grasping what we have already passed and what is immediatly ahead of us, so unfortunatly your subjective truth is all you have in your immediate surroundings.
I can see the old maxim here, "You can lead a horse to water..." However, the water and the horse are truly there.

However, the philosophical idea that "all truth is subjective" is still not proven in your argument. It is more like a presupposition. In fact, in your view, you obviously think that all truth is subjective, including the subjective means by which you yourself come to your conclusions. That is, you think that what you think is truth: truth is subjective. How do you yourself know this truth?

Subjectively.

So there is no spoon. This "no spoon" idea cannot be worked out pragmatically, as I pointed out above. Sure, there is no "right way" to drive a car, but we still have traffic laws.

It looks like you are contradicting yourself in the above where I have emboldened the text. You can explain if you want to, but I also anticipate that we will be going around in circles. Please enjoy your subjective experience. Subjectively.
 

oracle

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
I can see the old maxim here, "You can lead a horse to water..." However, the water and the horse are truly there.

However, the philosophical idea that "all truth is subjective" is still not proven in your argument. It is more like a presupposition.
Yes. For example, the waveform spectrum of light is vast, however the human eye can only percieve a small fraction of this spectrum. The frequency spectrum of sound exceeds beyond 20,000 htz, which means that there is more sound than what the human ear can hear. There is more sound that objectively exists, however it does not exist because it cannot enter into the subjective human mind because of the limitations of the human ear.Everything that you percieve is a replication of an objective reality, making everything in reality subjective. When light hits the retina of your eye, this information is transduced into electricity, which causes neurons to fire, making a replication of an objective reality. When you stroke your fingers across a brick wall, you feel the roughness of it's texture, which seems objectively real to you. However, it is your nerves and the neurons in your brain that creates a replication of an objective reality, and therefore this sensory experience is ultimately a subjective experience. Something only becomes real to you when you become aware of it, by experiencing it through perception and sensation. Otherwise it does not exist. Matter must exist in order for a consciousness to exist, and a consciousness must exist in order for something to become aware of matter. In this mathematical anology, say that matter are numbers and the conscious mind an equation. In reality, your conscious mind is simply created by the complex organization of matter. It can easily be annihilated by removing portions of the brain.

There is more than what the eye can see. IMO It is all based on evolution. We are built according to our immediate environment, not so we can percieve everything in the vast universe, but so we can survive in our immediate environment. If the sun were a white dwarf, our eyes would have been built to see more of an infra-red spectrum due to the low emission of light. If that were so, our universe would appear different to us.`You call this naive, but your reality is only a subjective one extracted from an objective one. There is more than what the human eye can see, there is more than what the human ear can hear. What objectively exists however does not exist subjectively, does not exist subjectively because it exists outside of the subjective human mind due to the limitations of our sense organs and the limited capacity to interpret information that exceeds our immediate environment which is non essential to our survival.

angellous_evangellous said:
In fact, in your view, you obviously think that all truth is subjective, including the subjective means by which you yourself come to your conclusions. That is, you think that what you think is truth: truth is subjective. How do you yourself know this truth? Subjectively.
Personally, it is my truth. But that's all it is, personal. You truth is not mine and vice versa. I cannot force anyone to believe what I am saying, and I actually am starting to enjoy this more neutral standpoint. I don't think you are wrong, I think we all have our own way of percieving truth. Who am I to say you are right or wrong? I cannot grasp All truth that is objectively out there.

angellous_evangellous said:
So there is no spoon. This "no spoon" idea cannot be worked out pragmatically, as I pointed out above. Sure, there is no "right way" to drive a car, but we still have traffic laws.
And what is your point of adding traffic laws to my analogy?

angellous_evangellous said:
It looks like you are contradicting yourself in the above where I have emboldened the text. You can explain if you want to, but I also anticipate that we will be going around in circles. Please enjoy your subjective experience. Subjectively.
Thank you. Pleace enjoy your subjective experience too. :)

All of our conscious minds are like personal theatres. It's just that my projection screen doesn't project the same movie as yours. And don't forget to go to the lobby...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Let's all abandon ourselves and swim freely in our pool of self-actualization in our personal pool of sujectivity.

Let's dance!! :jiggy: :jiggy: :jiggy:

:woohoo:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
What objectively exists however does not exist subjectively, does not exist subjectively because it exists outside of the subjective human mind due to the limitations of our sense organs and the limited capacity to interpret information that exceeds our immediate environment which is non essential to our survival.

Then not all truth is subjective, only the interpretation of the truth, and you have contradicted yourself above.

In order for us (I mean humans) to get along, we must come to certain agreements as to what is objective. I used the traffic laws analogy because you said that "There is no one specific path or one specific way of driving a car." However, we agree that there are specific paths (roads) and specific ways of driving that we objectively conclude that some ways of driving are not beneficial for society.

It seems that you are being highly selective in your application of subjective truth. Perhaps you can agree that the existence of truth is objective, but the interpretation of the truth is subjective. Truth should remian unchanged by our misinterpretations, and truth is often misinterpreted.

EDIT: I must thank you for conversation. Thanks for clarification and answering my questions.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Everything that you percieve is a replication of an objective reality, making everything in reality subjective.

However, reality is not changed by our subjective interpretation. Kant got off the RR tracks, remember?
 

oracle

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
However, reality is not changed by our subjective interpretation.
No, just that your experience of reality is a subjective experience. Not all objective truth can be fully grasped, so your experiences is all the truth you have, and it is personal. I don't think you understand my point.

I don't think it's necassary to try and find contradictions in my statements, we can do the same with the bible. But, it utterly misses the point of the message. It's also unnecassary to do this in a mocking way of expression.

Peace, and God bless. :)
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Yes, it is absolutely necessary to find contradictions in your statements. That is how we find out that we are incorrect. Yes, it is possible to be wrong, and contradictions indicate incorrect ideas. You are not free to contradict yourself as you please because you think that errors in the Bible will somehow phase me, which is an entirely false supposition.

I can demonstrate that you are wrong because your ideas concerning the subjective nature of the interpretation of truth began with Kant's book Critique of Pure Reason, whose ideas were wholesale rejected during his own day by pragmatic Scottish philosophers. The idea that "all truth is subjective" is false and we have seen that you must contradict yourself to sustain your argument. On top of this, like Kant, your argument cannot be pragmatically applied, which makes it even more impobable.

For example, in order for your theory to be true, then all human expereince must be subjective because the mind interprets all experiences. Let us test this. All objective expereinces are a form of truth. That is, I can hit my little brother in the face. He has just had an object hit him in the face: an objective experience that must be interpreted by his brain. In his mind, he had a subjective experience. However, this would be true for you as well if I hit you in the face. You would have the same subjective reaction that my brother would have: the object hit you square in the face and your interpretation of the same would be that you just got hit in the face.

However, if either one of you had a mental illness or were taking any mind-altering substances, you may think a walrus hit you or something else. Nevertheless, the truth that I hit both of you in the face remains the same.

Kant faced a similar problem. He originated your argument in the 18th century. He thought that if he saw a train, the image of the train went from his eyes to his mind, and took the shape of his mind. Therefore, ultimate truth is subjected to the experience and can be altered by the mind. However, Scottish philosohers correctly pointed out that if Kant were on the tracks and he saw the train coming that he would get off the tracks. The truth is not objective, it is the same for everyone. Any person who stands on the tracks will be obliterated by the train. In spite of however we interpret reality, reality remains real for all of us.

EDIT: I am specifically contemplating this: Something only becomes real to you when you become aware of it, by experiencing it through perception and sensation. Otherwise it does not exist. I am wondering how you can possibly qualify yourself without contradiction, which is very important in objectively defending your point of view.

Don't forget to dance!! :jiggy: :jiggy: :jiggy:
 

oracle

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Kant faced a similar problem. He originated your argument in the 18th century. He thought that if he saw a train, the image of the train went from his eyes to his mind, and took the shape of his mind. Therefore, ultimate truth is subjected to the experience and can be altered by the mind. However, Scottish philosohers correctly pointed out that if Kant were on the tracks and he saw the train coming that he would get off the tracks. The truth is not objective, it is the same for everyone. Any person who stands on the tracks will be obliterated by the train. In spite of however we interpret reality, reality remains real for all of us.
I don't think you really understand what I am saying. Actually this is obvious. That is not the point of my argument [the point was, is that EVERY objective truth that is out there cannot be grasped]. No duh reality remains real for all of us. Reality however, does not remain the same for all of us, due to limitations we cannot understand everything, otherwise you wouldn't have so many wars and so many different religions. You keep on changing and interpolating my arguement.
angellous_evangellous said:
EDIT: I am specifically contemplating this: Something only becomes real to you when you become aware of it, by experiencing it through perception and sensation. Otherwise it does not exist. I am wondering how you can possibly qualify yourself without contradiction, which is very important in objectively defending your point of view.
<Sigh>
 

Dr. Khan

Member
this argument began about 150 ad I think. This is as Roli stated that if you basicly are not connected to Jesus you can never understasnd. His was the tenth post on this thread. The book of Proverbs gives us a many exortations to wisdom knowledge and understanding. Only the Holy Spirit can truly make you understsand because aHe knows you. And He knows what it will take to make you understand ands I pray that He will do that for you. The bible gives many accurate discriptions of who Jesus is. what he did and what he is right now. The Holy Spirit which is his even as it is also the Father's make you understand that you don't even have to understand as much about him, as you need to understsand who you are ,in him. Jesus is Lord, king of kings and hebrews chapter one will tell you that God the Father called him God and said let all the angels of God worship him. Read Revelation chps 4 and 5, slowly behold their sayings.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
oracle said:
I don't think you really understand what I am saying. Actually this is obvious. That is not the point of my argument [the point was, is that EVERY objective truth that is out there cannot be grasped]. No duh reality remains real for all of us. Reality however, does not remain the same for all of us, due to limitations we cannot understand everything, otherwise you wouldn't have so many wars and so many different religions. You keep on changing and interpolating my arguement. <Sigh>
I did not change or interpolate your argument. I have shown that what you have written is both contradictory and not pragmatic, and you have qualified yourself only after I have shown weaknesses in your argument, and your qualifications greatly weaken your point.

Your primary supposition for your entire argument here is:
First I would like to state that I believe that truth for all of us is different subjectively, therefore the truth of one individual cannot be forced upon one's own subjective truth. Ultimately a person believes what they desire and wish to believe, and the result is that they become very personal. They are a part of us, and we protect them as if they are us. No one testifies against their own faith. The objective of this argument is not to disapprove any beliefs, but it is a discussion based on some of my own research in which judgement is procurred in accordance to what seems to be evident. I would like to emphasize that I have respect in regards to people's personal beliefs, and that my belief is not an ultimate truth but my own.

You said: Truth is ultimately subjective

Here are a few of your qualifications

And: Something only becomes real to you when you become aware of it, by experiencing it through perception and sensation. Otherwise it does not exist.

And: Everything that you percieve is a replication of an objective reality, making everything in reality subjective.

The most important qualification is:
I don't think you really understand what I am saying. Actually this is obvious. That is not the point of my argument [the point was, is that EVERY objective truth that is out there cannot be grasped]. No duh reality remains real for all of us. Reality however, does not remain the same for all of us, due to limitations we cannot understand everything, otherwise you wouldn't have so many wars and so many different religions.

Here's more:
Personally, it is my truth. But that's all it is, personal. You truth is not mine and vice versa. I cannot force anyone to believe what I am saying, and I actually am starting to enjoy this more neutral standpoint. I don't think you are wrong, I think we all have our own way of percieving truth. Who am I to say you are right or wrong? I cannot grasp All truth that is objectively out there.

I will review the above quotes in my next post.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Oracle,
I am quite capable of reading your argument, and I see the following weaknesses.

1) You have said that all truth is ultimately subjective, but you also say that it is objective. However, it is only subjective in human interpretation but the truth remains the same. If truth or reality remains the same, then your fundamental supposition is incorrect. If reality remains the same despite subjective interpretation, I do have the right for my truth to be forced upon your truth. This is pragmatic, and we see it in ordinary life with traffic laws (etc). Here we also see that your supposition of all truth being subjective is wrong, because most humans interpret information in the same way, and it does not affect whether something is real or not.

2) You did say that truth is ultimately subjective, but you really meant that human interpretation is subjective and your theory that this subjective interpretation frees people from being held accountable for misinterpretation is wrong because humans can interpret information in the same manner and come up with similar interpretations, making interpretation objective. The best example for objective interpretation is scientific naturalism. Humans can replicate and observe the same experiment all over the world and come up with countless realities that can be forced on others for their own safety.

EDIT: The statements that I have numbered 1 and 2 above and your statements concerning the nature of truth and personal truth in my previous post are mutually exclusive.

Example:
If I am a police officer and I see you run a red light, you cannot say that my personal truth is that the light was red and your personal truth is that the light was green. We both have eyes and interpret the same information similarly, objectively. The judge can force this objective reality upon you - and your minsinterpretation of the red light will keep you from driving if you keep on breaking the law. Reality does not change, and society has the responsibilty to keep your personal truth from harming both yourself and others.

It is not fair nor intellectually responsible for you to selectively apply your theories. You are selective in this sense: I would like to emphasize that I have respect in regards to people's personal beliefs, and that my belief is not an ultimate truth but my own. We can force someone not to run a red light, or at least do our very best. However, we cannot force someone to believe that the light is red - on this we agree. But this does not affect in any way the ultimate truth that the light is red, you should believe that it is red, and the light will always be red whether you believe it or not. We can respect the preson who thinks that the light is a purple octopus, but we should try to convince them of the truth. It looks like you only want to apply your theory to your personal belief system and not to real life. This would allow you to construct your own belief system without regards to any form of truth - it is subjective so you can create your own, and no other belief system is superior or inferior to yours because truth is subjective. However, we see that truth is objective and only the interpretation is subjective, which would affect everything in life from traffic laws to your religious system that you create for yourself.
 

andddd

Member
Alright.
God is the creator of the universe and the creator of mankind. He is high above us all. We are nothing compared to what he is because He created us.
Jesus has the characteristics of human beings..yet christianity still beleive that he is the son of God. Jesus was born out of a woman (HUMAN BEING)..he ages just like human beings..he looks like a human being..and he dies like a human being. (I still cant think how a god can die). YES yes..christianity believes that he taught humans that he is the son of God...but Islam and Judaism say something different..Which story must we beleive? I would beleive the one that makes the most sence.. Concidering Jesus as a human being with human characteristics..I seriously doubt that he is the son of the Almighty God.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Oracle,

I think what AE is trying to say to you is that you can't separate the conscious mind from the world. While we can have false perceptions, it is tied to reality, and that evidence is for the most part objective. Granted, it's structured, but evidence for a murder that includes a video of the murder is well-nigh impossible to structure in a way that can lead to another conclusion.

His concern with your posts is, thus, that he sees (and I to an extent) you as making a radical dichotomy between observation and reality. I have a similar dichotomy, but I don't take it as far. As a result, he sees the subjectivism without a tangible objective check on it as practically eliminating truth, and thus, justifying every belief possible.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
andddd said:
Alright.
God is the creator of the universe and the creator of mankind. He is high above us all. We are nothing compared to what he is because He created us.
Jesus has the characteristics of human beings..yet christianity still beleive that he is the son of God. Jesus was born out of a woman (HUMAN BEING)..he ages just like human beings..he looks like a human being..and he dies like a human being. (I still cant think how a god can die). YES yes..christianity believes that he taught humans that he is the son of God...but Islam and Judaism say something different..Which story must we beleive? I would beleive the one that makes the most sence.. Concidering Jesus as a human being with human characteristics..I seriously doubt that he is the son of the Almighty God.

You might want to aquaint yourself with Christian theology on this point. We see Jesus as fully human and fully God. As a result, Christ's having human characteristics is exactly what we believe and expect.
 

oracle

Active Member
No*s said:
Oracle,

I think what AE is trying to say to you is that you can't separate the conscious mind from the world. While we can have false perceptions, it is tied to reality, and that evidence is for the most part objective. Granted, it's structured, but evidence for a murder that includes a video of the murder is well-nigh impossible to structure in a way that can lead to another conclusion.
Okay I understand. Thank you Noss. I don't think me and AE are on the same page. I am going to have to rexplain what I was trying to discuss.

No*s said:
His concern with your posts is, thus, that he sees (and I to an extent) you as making a radical dichotomy between observation and reality. I have a similar dichotomy, but I don't take it as far. As a result, he sees the subjectivism without a tangible objective check on it as practically eliminating truth, and thus, justifying every belief possible.
Part of what I am saying is that everything you experience is all apart of the consciousness and is a conscious experience which is subjective, meaning that it is the mind, it is an experience which the mind creates. I am going to have to rexplain what I was trying to discuss. Part of what I am saying is, is that what a person believes becomes their ultimate reality for that individual. Does that mean pigs really do fly just because one person believes in it? No, of course not. Not for the mainstream of people, but yes for that one individual. There's a certain point that I'm trying to adress or argue, but we are not on the same page. The consciousness, the subjective mind is personal, it percieves and interprets information differently, and I am going to have to explain what I mean by this. What AE keeps pointing out, are things that I am not trying to argue against and what is already obvious. It may be my fault because the things I have stated are broad and unspecific, I throw in things I have stated from another thread with a different agenda behind it. And with one post, I argue one thing, then I move unto something else. However they have the same underlying agenda that I'm trying to lead to.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
andddd said:
wow thats kinda weird :S

Yeah, it can get that way. There are titles like "He who never sleeps" for icons of Jesus sleeping. For us, it's a great mystery. We don't understand it, but we believe that He was completely God and completely man, and militate against any opinion that compromises either side.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
oracle said:
Okay I understand. Thank you Noss. I don't think me and AE are on the same page. I am going to have to rexplain what I was trying to discuss.

Welcome :).

I hope that helps clear things up some.
 
Top