You can only get truth by observation and experience.
Is this proposition true? Did you arrive to that truth through observation and experience?
If those fail you, you will make a deception into truth
What tells you your observation and experience is more true than someone else's observation and experience? How do you evaluate who is closer to the objective truth of the matter and how do you even have knowledge of that objective truth under your worldview?
Doing things because you can is the only good reason to do stuff. Helping other, learning new things, making the world better, working hard just to sweat or just to look good and catch more pussy.
Ok, enough Andrew Tate for this guy. Just don't start reading the Quran now.
Searching for truth also means changing, because as you learn you get refine.
Is truth subject to change and if not how so when everything in the experienced world is constantly changing?
Unlike you, who prefers not to investigate or challenge their world view because it fits their truth for the lack of a better way.
Lol, all of my questions are at the meta level and are challenges to any worldview there is. My worldview can justify truth, knowledge and meaning through God's existence. You were the one who started talking about universal objective truth and I asked you how it is justified under your worldview. You answered "through observance and experience" which is basic bitch empiricism that has been refuted hundreds of years ago by the likes of Hume and Kant.
I know we have a soul because I can feel it, hear it, know it. And I've read enough NDE books to see many confirmations from other people too.
What if you're deluding yourself and you're just a complex organic mechanism of inputs and outputs? Can't feelings be deceiving? People feel they are the opposite sex - are they really?
I studied the bible for years. You are church talking to me. But what if God as you know it, is a not real?
Then you'd have to present me with a worldview that accounts for everything we assume in our reality. What would that alternative be, is it coherent, logical and are there good reasons to believe in it?
What if we were planted here and grown into a profitable crop, for entertainment as slave away and they enjoy our money. Religions might be created just to keep us from uniting across geographies.
That's a funny "what if" but it doesn't make up a worldview. The word "religion" literally translates to "to bind together" from latin. People unite over some conviction they hold in common. There are people united in their faith in Christ all over the globe. Common faith in something unites - lack of faith or everyone having a different belief system divides.
Logic, scientific method. These are tools you can use to determine truth for yourself. It's not some new age fag definition, truth is true from every angle.
Ones own truth isn't truth. It's just belief. Faith isn't truth. It's faith. It's true for you, but to someone else.
Where as in something that is true can be defined, and if we find new evidence that enhances that definition, or changes it completely, it doesn't mean that we wrong to try to find the truth.
I want to leave space that truth is not always known, and it's ok to admit only a vague understanding of the truth. But it's important to improve the understanding so that your world view is more accurate to the truth.
And ya, it can be turned upside down when you were not aware you were believing. Some people think belief will make truth. But it doesn't. Believe can be in something true or not.
Just because I can prove the earth is not globe, doesn't mean I have to provide a model that explains what earth is. Just because I prove viruses aren't contagious or harmful, doesn't mean I have to explain why you got sick. So if God isn't real, and I can't prove that, then I would also not need to provide a new worldview that makes you feel good.
We have to learn to be okay with the unknown, pursuing truth where we can. Accepting that some things are just never going to be known.
But for the simple things that we can determine with logic and observation and experience and everyone applies those tools will have to agree with something is true.
Science has been destroyed by the cabal and their media and their institutes. Consensus is easy on my things, but modern science isn't debated, it's just published. No one refutes and everyone has their own truth backed by science.
I don't think there is an achievable universal truth, but I did want to bring up how much we limit ourselves from truth with things like religions dogma. Or pseudoscience.
Logic, scientific method. These are tools you can use to determine truth for yourself. It's not some new age fag definition, truth is true from every angle.
How did you use logic and the scientific method to determine your worldview to be correct and that God not real?
Ones own truth isn't truth. It's just belief. Faith isn't truth. It's faith. It's true for you, but to someone else.
Is this statement your own truth or an objective truth?
So if God isn't real, and I can't prove that, then I would also not need to provide a new worldview that makes you feel good.
You're missing the point. There is a reason why you consider God not to be real - because you hold assumptions about the world being a certain way. Your worldview is the lens through which you observe the world and it determines what you consider to be possible, impossible, true, false, etc. That's why I go after the underlying assumptions about reality you have which are based on faith. No one can escape grounding their worldview on faith. I only argue on the worldview level because any other debates about God's existence lead to nowhere.
But for the simple things that we can determine with logic and observation and experience and everyone applies those tools will have to agree with something is true.
And what happens when people apply the same tools and arrive at different conclusions? We don't share the same conclusions. How is that reconciled?
Not all things are proven the same way though. If we argue whether it's raining we can check out the window and see. If we argue about universal concepts and the nature of reality the approach is different. I go the transcendental (meta) argument way and ask: what world does it take so that knowledge, the laws of logic, truth, etc are even possible? Which worldview can justify the things we both appeal to in our debate? You see, you can't escape from making a positive claim about reality.
I don't think there is an achievable universal truth, but I did want to bring up how much we limit ourselves from truth with things like religions dogma. Or pseudoscience.
"We shouldn't have dogmatic beliefs because they are limiting us" is a dogmatic belief itself. How do you know we're limiting ourselves, when you don't have access to universal truth? What if the religion's dogma is the truth? Is abiding by truth limiting oneself and should we not do that, because it makes us less free?
Note that this is pretty much the troonsgender argument: "Your socially constructed truth is oppressing my individual truth - who knows better what gender I am than myself?" This is what happens when perceived personal freedom, and not truth, is the ultimate virtue. This is exactly why the world is the way it is - because people don't love the Truth who is a divine person, but instead love themselves. Everyone thinks they're some sort of a mini-god and reject the universal truth for their relative truth leading to ultimate lolbertism (which is demonic): "I'll leave you being your own god and have your little truth, if you don't bother me being my own god and have mine." This is the greatest delusion of all times and people buy into this because of pride and lack of humility (that's how the snake seduced Eve in the garden). This is what they mean by diversity - a war on truth and meaning.
I can't see I'm right that God isn't real. Only that I think that God is misunderstood, there is a spirit, a soul.
I can't say with scientific method that God is not real. Doesn't mean god is real either. And I leave room for many other possibilities, You don't, and that's dogmatic.
You can't be right about why you think I think that God isn't real. I explained why just now that I don't know either way. The reason I think he is not real is because of objective observation. But of course I can't be certain. Just like you.
I was speaking of truths that we know objectively. Most people aren't aware of the truth, objectively. They adopt the truth through belief and groupthink, part of their traditional worldviews established when they were very young.
These aren't truths they might be your truth but that doesn't mean it's true So it's just a misnomer "your truth" is another word for belief. Im Speaking of facts that are commonly assumed to be conspiracies.
When we limit our knowledge by believing conspiracies can't be true then we exist in a world with more belief. You believe we're on a ball, You believe those stars see above are millions of miles away, And I like to ask what science shows that they're not. You're too afraid to ask. You don't want to know the truth. You want to label it as a conspiracy because it would rock your worldview and thus your truth is the limit of your reality, well actual truth is the true definition of reality
I understand that the definition of science is that there were going to be different conclusions to unexplained theories. But just because science supposedly cannot agree doesn't mean that they couldn't because of real reasons. it's manipulated by the institutes that control our knowledge.
So I know the truth about several important things in this world but I'm a very small minority. And I want to keep it that way. If the world really new when I knew it wouldn't work anymore. They would definitely cull the herd
Is this proposition true? Did you arrive to that truth through observation and experience?
What tells you your observation and experience is more true than someone else's observation and experience? How do you evaluate who is closer to the objective truth of the matter and how do you even have knowledge of that objective truth under your worldview?
Ok, enough Andrew Tate for this guy. Just don't start reading the Quran now.
Is truth subject to change and if not how so when everything in the experienced world is constantly changing?
Lol, all of my questions are at the meta level and are challenges to any worldview there is. My worldview can justify truth, knowledge and meaning through God's existence. You were the one who started talking about universal objective truth and I asked you how it is justified under your worldview. You answered "through observance and experience" which is basic bitch empiricism that has been refuted hundreds of years ago by the likes of Hume and Kant.
What if you're deluding yourself and you're just a complex organic mechanism of inputs and outputs? Can't feelings be deceiving? People feel they are the opposite sex - are they really?
Then you'd have to present me with a worldview that accounts for everything we assume in our reality. What would that alternative be, is it coherent, logical and are there good reasons to believe in it?
That's a funny "what if" but it doesn't make up a worldview. The word "religion" literally translates to "to bind together" from latin. People unite over some conviction they hold in common. There are people united in their faith in Christ all over the globe. Common faith in something unites - lack of faith or everyone having a different belief system divides.
Logic, scientific method. These are tools you can use to determine truth for yourself. It's not some new age fag definition, truth is true from every angle.
Ones own truth isn't truth. It's just belief. Faith isn't truth. It's faith. It's true for you, but to someone else.
Where as in something that is true can be defined, and if we find new evidence that enhances that definition, or changes it completely, it doesn't mean that we wrong to try to find the truth.
I want to leave space that truth is not always known, and it's ok to admit only a vague understanding of the truth. But it's important to improve the understanding so that your world view is more accurate to the truth. And ya, it can be turned upside down when you were not aware you were believing. Some people think belief will make truth. But it doesn't. Believe can be in something true or not.
Just because I can prove the earth is not globe, doesn't mean I have to provide a model that explains what earth is. Just because I prove viruses aren't contagious or harmful, doesn't mean I have to explain why you got sick. So if God isn't real, and I can't prove that, then I would also not need to provide a new worldview that makes you feel good.
We have to learn to be okay with the unknown, pursuing truth where we can. Accepting that some things are just never going to be known.
But for the simple things that we can determine with logic and observation and experience and everyone applies those tools will have to agree with something is true.
Science has been destroyed by the cabal and their media and their institutes. Consensus is easy on my things, but modern science isn't debated, it's just published. No one refutes and everyone has their own truth backed by science.
I don't think there is an achievable universal truth, but I did want to bring up how much we limit ourselves from truth with things like religions dogma. Or pseudoscience.
How did you use logic and the scientific method to determine your worldview to be correct and that God not real?
Is this statement your own truth or an objective truth?
You're missing the point. There is a reason why you consider God not to be real - because you hold assumptions about the world being a certain way. Your worldview is the lens through which you observe the world and it determines what you consider to be possible, impossible, true, false, etc. That's why I go after the underlying assumptions about reality you have which are based on faith. No one can escape grounding their worldview on faith. I only argue on the worldview level because any other debates about God's existence lead to nowhere.
And what happens when people apply the same tools and arrive at different conclusions? We don't share the same conclusions. How is that reconciled?
Not all things are proven the same way though. If we argue whether it's raining we can check out the window and see. If we argue about universal concepts and the nature of reality the approach is different. I go the transcendental (meta) argument way and ask: what world does it take so that knowledge, the laws of logic, truth, etc are even possible? Which worldview can justify the things we both appeal to in our debate? You see, you can't escape from making a positive claim about reality.
"We shouldn't have dogmatic beliefs because they are limiting us" is a dogmatic belief itself. How do you know we're limiting ourselves, when you don't have access to universal truth? What if the religion's dogma is the truth? Is abiding by truth limiting oneself and should we not do that, because it makes us less free?
Note that this is pretty much the troonsgender argument: "Your socially constructed truth is oppressing my individual truth - who knows better what gender I am than myself?" This is what happens when perceived personal freedom, and not truth, is the ultimate virtue. This is exactly why the world is the way it is - because people don't love the Truth who is a divine person, but instead love themselves. Everyone thinks they're some sort of a mini-god and reject the universal truth for their relative truth leading to ultimate lolbertism (which is demonic): "I'll leave you being your own god and have your little truth, if you don't bother me being my own god and have mine." This is the greatest delusion of all times and people buy into this because of pride and lack of humility (that's how the snake seduced Eve in the garden). This is what they mean by diversity - a war on truth and meaning.
I can't see I'm right that God isn't real. Only that I think that God is misunderstood, there is a spirit, a soul.
I can't say with scientific method that God is not real. Doesn't mean god is real either. And I leave room for many other possibilities, You don't, and that's dogmatic.
You can't be right about why you think I think that God isn't real. I explained why just now that I don't know either way. The reason I think he is not real is because of objective observation. But of course I can't be certain. Just like you.
I was speaking of truths that we know objectively. Most people aren't aware of the truth, objectively. They adopt the truth through belief and groupthink, part of their traditional worldviews established when they were very young.
These aren't truths they might be your truth but that doesn't mean it's true So it's just a misnomer "your truth" is another word for belief. Im Speaking of facts that are commonly assumed to be conspiracies.
When we limit our knowledge by believing conspiracies can't be true then we exist in a world with more belief. You believe we're on a ball, You believe those stars see above are millions of miles away, And I like to ask what science shows that they're not. You're too afraid to ask. You don't want to know the truth. You want to label it as a conspiracy because it would rock your worldview and thus your truth is the limit of your reality, well actual truth is the true definition of reality
I understand that the definition of science is that there were going to be different conclusions to unexplained theories. But just because science supposedly cannot agree doesn't mean that they couldn't because of real reasons. it's manipulated by the institutes that control our knowledge.
So I know the truth about several important things in this world but I'm a very small minority. And I want to keep it that way. If the world really new when I knew it wouldn't work anymore. They would definitely cull the herd