1. 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!

Featured Tools for Determining the Truth

Discussion in 'Monotheism' started by Ehav4Ever, Apr 30, 2020.

  1. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    I posted this in a different thread and I think it may have merit to be analyzed on its own. One of the discussion that is common on most "religious" discussions is the issue of comparison of beleifs and claims. In this thread I will provide some of the various concepts and ideas I have either written or put into video form.

    To start, it would seem logical that humanity, in some form, should be geared to the determine the truth of the reality/or lack there of we find ourselves in. Taking the word "religion" out of the picture, consider the following:
    1. If there is a Source of all creation, that is itself not created, and it has defined what it is about and what it is not about then logically anything that contradicts the Source's definitions is false.
    2. If said Source of creation has dictacted the correct mindset and development for its creations then it is logical that anything that contradicts it would be not only false but useless.
    3. If said Source of creation has in the past revealed the correct method of thinking and actions that helps one operates in the reality that was created then it would stand to reason that anything that contradicts it would have no real short term or long term benefit for any intellegent/sentiant creation.
    4. Based on #3 it would also stand to reason that anything given by said Source of creation would be more beneficial and more based on reality than something created by a thing that is itself created; i.e. a resultant of creation is not compariable in its logic when compared to the logic of the Source.
    5. If said Source of creation intended to have the above information be kept and passed on throughout the generations among some of its creations then it would stand to reason that the delivery method would have to be in a way where the information would be kept, preserved, and available in a way where false concepts or fabrications could be easily indentified and avoided.
    It would stand to reason that the only reasonable question is, "did this situation, information, mindset, philosophy, way of life, etc. actually come from the Source of creation and is it correct, based on the requirements of the Source, in relation to the Source of creation provided for operating in the reality it created."
     
  2. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,803
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Does your method of determining truth produce results that are either identical or at least consistent with the results produced by scientific methods of determining truth?
     
  3. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Yes. That is why one has to make sure that they have the proper tools and that they know what is accepted as fact, and why, and what is based on speculation and why. Also, one would need to understand how the scientic method works and how experiments are conducted and how results are understood. That is also why one has to put aside the word "religion" since a religion doesn't have be consistant with reality as most humans see it.
     
  4. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,726
    Ratings:
    +4,266
    Religion:
    Spiritual but not religious
    That’s a heck of a lot of unfounded “ifs”. In fact your ideas contain so many assumptions about God I would argue you have only nominally tossed out religion.

    What is the point of tossing out merely the word religion, whilst ardently clinging to religion?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Jedster

    Jedster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    2,806
    Ratings:
    +2,176

    Wow, what an incredible nested-if statement.!

    Welcome to Rf, btw. Baruch Haba.
     
  6. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Actually, I never claimed that the "ifs" were founded; what expressed earlier takes into account the ifs could be wrong. I simply stated what a person would be looking to try and determine to be truth or not. For example, if a person continousely has proven to themselves that nothing created the reality that we are in then there is no need to develop anything else beyond that in within the realm of beleif and eventually religion.

    In fact, I haven't proposed a path towards a "god" as someone may or a path away from it. What I am proposing is that there may be no need to use the tools of the concept of a "god" or those of "religion" to determine what the truth of reality is. For example, assuming that something caused reality to exist doesn't automatically mean that a human concept of a "god" started the process. By like token every religious concept that have developed could be completely wrong just a much as they could be right. It could also be true that the reality is not based on what humans define as "religion" and thus a different term may have to be used. It depends of what is accepted as the definitions that people choose to emply. For example, it could be true that every concept of "religion" held by a group of people, for example, in a forum only covers their particular views, accepted or self-created, and by definition exculde a different set of realities or concepts.

    Thus, it is not a matter of "tossing" out a word. The point is that the word may not be sufficient or adequote to begin with for every situation.
     
  7. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Thanks. Good to be hear.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Here is another way of looking at it. Two religious people are argueing about the nature of what they call "god" and the authenticity of their "religions." Both of them agree that they beleive in a god and both of them claim to be a part of a religion.

    A person who does not claim to beleive in a god and does not self-define/or subscribe to the concepts that both sides claim to be "religious" in nature stumbles on the debate. The obvious first questions could be, "What is a god and what is a religion? Who says that your concepts of a "god" and "religion" are even based on reality? Also, who is to say that whatever created/or caused everything to exist would even agree with your terms and definitions?"
     
    #8 Ehav4Ever, Apr 30, 2020
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2020
  9. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Another point could be:

    Scenario: Fourteen religions debate about the point or the goal that their religion accomplishes in humanity and the world.

    A person not associated with any of them could ask, "What evidence do you have that a being/a force/or whatever it is that has the ability to create an entire universe cares about the things you claim about your religion? Even if you can come up with something you see as evidence what is the evidence that the Source of creation gave those goals and not some other ones instead? I.e. with 14 choices who is to say that all 14 can't be wrong and there is not another set of choices not apparent to the members of the 14 religions? In fact, if one wanted to come up with a truth table to determine the historical truth behind each of the 14's claims what components/facts/factors does one compare which are based on something that is empirical and logical?"
     
    #9 Ehav4Ever, Apr 30, 2020
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2020
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25,389
    Ratings:
    +10,872
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    It will take time for what you say to settle / register in my mind. However, welcome to Religious Forums, Baruch Haba. Yeah, Judaism has various views.
     
  11. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Greetings. Thanks for the welcome.

    Where it is true that Judiaism has numerous views on many topics all one has do with many of them is ask, "Is this view/concept/practice ancient, authentic, and authorative and according to who and how many ancient Jewish communities hold by it?"
     
  12. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,726
    Ratings:
    +4,266
    Religion:
    Spiritual but not religious
    If you want something both empirical and logical science seems to be the gold standard.

    I would suggest that there is so much diversity in religions it is much easier to examine the claims of each on a case by case basis rather than trying to work out some overgeneralised attempt at fitting all of them.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  13. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Exactly. Using a method akin to the scientific method is a way to determine what makes sense in reality with the goal that it must be empirical and logical. because reality has emperical and logical elements to it.

    Thus, a person could also put all religion aside and simply focus on what makes logical sense about the origin of the universe/reality based on their studies of how the world around them works.

    This could easily lead to a logical conclusion that all religion is incorrect or it could lead to something that is not currently defined by any religion or it could lead to a particular religion that when investigated using the the scientific method cotains historical facts that are empirical and logical. Further, it could lead to an abandonment of terms which do not adiquotely suite the reality as it continiously proves itself to be.
     
  14. bobhikes

    bobhikes AntiRepublican
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,809
    Ratings:
    +2,543
    The only tool you need to find the truth is an open mind.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  15. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,544
    Ratings:
    +3,249
    Religion:
    atheist
    I'm sorry, I considered what you wrote, but I don't understand what 'truth' you're attempting to determine.

    If there is a Source of all creation, that is itself not created, and it has defined what it is about and what it is not about then logically anything that contradicts the Source's definitions is false.

    IF what you said above IS true, then the additional points you made might made logical sense. But IF there ISN'T a source of all creation that is itself not created that dictates the correct mindset and development for its creations then nothing that follows makes sense. So until you can find a way to determine that your initial point actually IS true, you can't really hope to determine any other truths.
     
  16. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Maybe.
     
  17. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    For the sake of the conversions on a number threads on this forum. One can consider, "What is reality and how did it come about? How should one manage themselves within the reality that they perceive around them?"

    Yet, a person can come up with any set of things they are trying to determine as to what is true.

    It is not a truth that I am personally trying to determine it is a set of concepts I am presenting after reading some of the debates on this forum.

    Exactly.

    For example, finding out that the there is no "source of all creation that is itself not created that dictates the correct mindset and development for its creations" could mean several different things:
    1. There is no reason to come/pursue any particular conclusion since there is no pressure to do so. I.e. no threat or lacking for not spending one's time doing anything in relation to the thing that caused reality to exist.
    2. Maybe the source of the universe/reality is itself created by something else so one may need to go further and determine if "its" creator is accessiable and has expectations.
    3. Thus, if the first is not true then one is free to spend their time as they please with no real need to contemplate the others issues. They can if they want but there is pressure to come to a correct conclusion or any conclusion at all. Also, the conclusion itself is not important.
    4. Lastly, it could also mean that the source of creation made things, or kick started the process, and left the process to itself with no concerns for the process or the results of the process. I.e. if planets and stars don't have to consider or come to certain proper conclusions or actions then why would a species that is so miniscule compared to them have to?
    That being said, one of the questions that person who is persuing anything, in terms of truth in reality, they may have to consider their long term and short term goals. They may also have to consider how far they are willing to go to prove out what is true. They may also have to be honest with what they know, find, as well a what they don't know and what they haven't found.

    For example, it could be that a person is looking find something that is only found in Madascar. If they haven't physically done the best they can to scour the earth then may not even know that what they are searching for is in Madascar. Even if they get to Madascar they may need to learn some languages, history, and culture in order to be able to interact with the locals and gain access to what they are searching for. They may go through a process of getting wrong information or misunderstanding what they have been told. They may find themselves lost with maps that are not accurate or they may find that the older maps are more accurate than the newer ones or the reverse. It may require them to climb high mountains and swim across dangerous lakes and it may also require to let go of baggage that they packed for their journey which are of no use or are to heavy to bear.

    At the end of the day they may decide that all of that is not worth it and they may never take up such a journey. They may decide to go some place that does not have what they are looking and never leads them to Madagascar. They may try it and never develop the surival skills to to make it to the goal. They could take a wrong step and that could be the thing that stops them in their tracks. They could also persist through all of the hardships and make it to their goal. Yet, the journey is their own and there are some people who are naturals at the process and there are some who have to fight every step of the way.

    Thanks for the great comment.
     
  18. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,544
    Ratings:
    +3,249
    Religion:
    atheist
    It just seems to me that you're putting the cart before the horse. Before you can reach any conclusions about truth based on the notion that there was a creator being, it seems to me that you first need to determine the truth of the creator being claim. And if there is no evidence to support the notion of a creator being, it seems like a rather futile exercise to try and determine truths based on that unverified claim.
     
  19. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Greetings. There is a difference between saying there is a "creator being" (as you stated) and a "source of creation" (as I stated). My statements were of a "source of creation" not that it could be termed as a "being."

    Simply saying there is a source of creation doesn't imply that what ever jump started the process of "creation" or "reality" is sentient in any human styled way. It is simply determing that there is something that exists and something that was the source of the existance. That would take research which, either can be deduced by research, logic, experimentation, etc. or it cannot. That is included in the first step.

    I.e. if there was a "source of creation" it doesn't automatically make it logical or epirical in a sense so that one could say "it has defined what it is about and what it is not about." Maybe the source is not something that can be termed as a being but then again maybe it is. If it could be termed as "something" that has purpose/will/direction maybe it left no definition that any human could ever find or ascertain and maybe it did. The first process a person has first assumed that "something" caused there to be a process that resulted in reality because the person experiences something and the person themselves didn't start the process.
     
  20. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,544
    Ratings:
    +3,249
    Religion:
    atheist

    1. If there is a Source of all creation, that is itself not created, and it has defined what it is about and what it is not about then logically anything that contradicts the Source's definitions is false.
    2. If said Source of creation has dictated the correct mindset and development for its creations then it is logical that anything that contradicts it would be not only false but useless.
    3. If said Source of creation has in the past revealed the correct method of thinking and actions that helps one operates in the reality that was created then it would stand to reason that anything that contradicts it would have no real short term or long term benefit for any intellegent/sentiant creation.
    4. Based on #3 it would also stand to reason that anything given by said Source of creation would be more beneficial and more based on reality than something created by a thing that is itself created; i.e. a resultant of creation is not compariable in its logic when compared to the logic of the Source.
    5. If said Source of creation intended to have the above information be kept and passed on throughout the generations among some of its creations then it would stand to reason that the delivery method would have to be in a way where the information would be kept, preserved, and available in a way where false concepts or fabrications could be easily indentified and avoided.
    I'm afraid that most of your points after point 1 assumes that this Source actually IS a sentient being and not just some mindless natural phenomena. For instance, only a sentient being can 'dictate a correct mindset or development.' And only a sentient being can 'intend' to have information kept or passed on.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...