Aletheia

Originally posted by josephw
So then what you're saying is God isn't Truth.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, that's a great job of cut and paste.

So then I am saying that for the time being the existense of the observer "god" is not proven.

By the way, every opinion of mine is a result of the evaluation of my mind on the basis of accurate scientific facts and evidence😵

Originally posted by black beetle
So then I am saying that for the time being the existense of the observer "god" is not proven.

By the way, every opinion of mine is a result of the evaluation of my mind on the basis of accurate scientific facts and evidence😵

Does everything have to be proven?

Does one have to do scientific evaluation to prove that air exists?

There is evidence for the existence of God, but because it doesn't pass the test of so called scientific evaluation the scientist/atheist doesn't believe it.

Perhaps it is beyond science to find proof. Maybe science is too limited.

Originally posted by josephw
Does everything have to be proven?

Does one have to do scientific evaluation to prove that air exists?

There is evidence for the existence of God, but because it doesn't pass the test of so called scientific evaluation the scientist/atheist doesn't believe it.

Perhaps it is beyond science to find proof. Maybe science is too limited.

When we are talking about theories of reality then yes, methinks they have to be accurate -and our criteria are science and philosophy, otherwise our theories are not solid.

"Air", "exists", every word and our language as a whole are elements of a map and not of the territory itself, therefore we communicate (we are communicating our personal truth as we perceive and evaluate it with our mind during our interaction with the physical world) by means of a convention. "Air exists" is our explanation of a specific result of a specific interaction between specific observers, and we are using this explanation as we please in order to dig into the nature of the physical world and into the reasoning of our own existence. So one has to proceed with a specific evaluation before s/he comes for the ever first time to the conclusion that the air does exist.
Now, due to the fact that until this very moment this is still a given element of reality we accept it as aletheia without being obliged to re-evaluate it as long as the circumstances and the conditions of our environment, along with our interaction with it, remain the same and relatively stable.

If there were evidence available for the existence of the observer "god" there were also evidence available for the existence of her/ his elements of reality. Since the supposed elements of reality of the observer "god" are completely inexpressible we can safely assume that this observer does not exist or, even if it exists, it remains so neutral (totally inexpressible) that it is like it does not exist.

If science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind are so limited that they must not be taken seriously, what exactly makes you think that the unjustified and nonsensical theories of reality that derive from the miscellaneous religious doctrines must be taken seriously?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
When we are talking about theories of reality then yes, methinks they have to be accurate -and our criteria are science and philosophy, otherwise our theories are not solid.

"Air", "exists", every word and our language as a whole are elements of a map and not of the territory itself, therefore we communicate (we are communicating our personal truth a ...[text shortened]... ty that derive from the miscellaneous religious doctrines must be taken seriously?
😵

What's so miscellaneous about "God created"?

I think it is apparent that science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind has led us astray of the path to true enlightenment.

Knowledge of God comes from God and not from the inventions of man.

Stuff that in your scientific pipe and smoke it. 😲 Don't take it personally please.

Originally posted by josephw
What's so miscellaneous about "God created"?

I think it is apparent that science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind has led us astray of the path to true enlightenment.

Knowledge of God comes from God and not from the inventions of man.

Stuff that in your scientific pipe and smoke it. 😲 Don't take it personally please.

"God created" (this and that ect etc) is merely an unjustified declaration.

Enlightenment just is, and either takes or takes not place -there is no "true" or "false" enlightenment; and science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind is all we have -the rest is delusion.

"Knowledge of God" is non existent because there are no elements of reality of the observer "god". Whatever you perceive as "knowledge" at this context is not knowledge at all.

I gave up smoking 8 years ago; and kindly please worry not, your humor cannot harm me😵

Originally posted by black beetle
"God created" (this and that ect etc) is merely an unjustified declaration.

Enlightenment just is, and either takes or takes not place -there is no "true" or "false" enlightenment; and science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind is all we have -the rest is delusion.

"Knowledge of God" is non existent because there are no elements of reality ...[text shortened]... ave up smoking 8 years ago; and kindly please worry not, your humor cannot harm me😵

No harm intended.

Originally posted by josephw
What's so miscellaneous about "God created"?

I think it is apparent that science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind has led us astray of the path to true enlightenment.

Knowledge of God comes from God and not from the inventions of man.

Stuff that in your scientific pipe and smoke it. 😲 Don't take it personally please.

"Sutff that in your scientific pipe and smoke it", niiiiiiccee!! 😛

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That's a question, not a comment, ATY.

It sounds profound, but I cannot see any substance to the quoted passage.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It sounds profound, but I cannot see any substance to the quoted passage.

Oh well.

Originally posted by Palynka
Concealed or disguised imply an agent. 😵

So?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So?

Chiefly, then, aletheia is the truth that first appears when something is seen or revealed. It is to take out of hiddenness to uncover.

When one agent first sees or reveals truth, then forcefully it must have been concealed or disguised by another agent. Contradiction. It cannot be the first.

Originally posted by Palynka

Chiefly, then, aletheia is the truth that first appears when something is seen or revealed. It is to take out of hiddenness to uncover.

When one agent first sees or reveals truth, then forcefully it must have been concealed or disguised by another agent. Contradiction. It cannot be the first.

Nope; when one agent (an individual, a person) first sees or reveals aletheia, then forcefully this aletheia of her/ his must have been concealed or disguised solely by herself/ himself due to her/ his ignorance, so the agent of her/ his previous inability to see/ reveal aletheia is just herself/ himself. No contradiction but just a shifting of the persons' point of attention😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Nope; when one agent (an individual, a person) first sees or reveals aletheia, then forcefully this aletheia of her/ his must have been concealed or disguised solely by herself/ himself due to her/ his ignorance, so the agent of her/ his previous inability to see/ reveal aletheia is just herself/ himself. No contradiction but just a shifting of the persons' point of attention😵

"solely by herself"? Obviously not because it was concealed from everybody else (and before that agent was even born) so, if anything, then everyone and everything has agency.

Does it mean anything to say that every thing in the universe has agency? What is agency then? Is it not a claim of responsibility?

Originally posted by Palynka
"solely by herself"? Obviously not because it was concealed from everybody else (and before that agent was even born) so, if anything, then everyone and everything has agency.

Does it mean anything to say that every thing in the universe has agency? What is agency then? Is it not a claim of responsibility?

The Prosocratic philosophers concluded that aletheia is a personal product of ones' interaction with the physical world, and that it arises at the world of the Ideas (Poppers' World 3). Then aletheia becomes an element of reality of one's theory of reality -and, due to the fact that a specific aletheia is then a non concealed element of reality, it cannot be forgotten.

This thesis is quite clear to me and I agree with this approach
😵

Originally posted by Palynka

Chiefly, then, aletheia is the truth that first appears when something is seen or revealed. It is to take out of hiddenness to uncover.

When one agent first sees or reveals truth, then forcefully it must have been concealed or disguised by another agent. Contradiction. It cannot be the first.

What he said.