CV75 Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 The word "experience" is a non-issue here. What I like to call "know," you seem to like to call "experience".It’s not that so much as that knowledge can have several valid spiritually-applicable meanings depending on context. Likewise, “things as they are” are not real to those who don’t experience / know / have faith in / believe in them (to their condemnation), and at the same time are real to those who do (to their exaltation). And then there are the degrees of glory to consider.the scriptural teaching suggests otherwise.You only assert such without explaining it except in the way I think I've captured below. But the scriptural teachings have been shown to support it.I don't know where you get that from.You use the scriptural teaching to show that “things as they are” are just as real to those who do not know / have faith in / believe in / experience them (to their condemnation) as to those who do (to their exaltation).
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 And as you can see by now, my remarks are most germane to this topic.Not so germane.Huh? Who asked?Nobody needed to! That was not just for you. I wanted others to know that I had not been neglecting the thread.
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 CFRI don't have one! It is a conclusion I have reached from my studies of the scriptures and various other sources which I consider to be reliable. I suppose the more correct answer is that I have references that I could share, but it would be difficult to formulate in a way that would be convincing to you.
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 So it is not actually independent after all.Not sure what you mean. Independent of what? Is there a reality that exists independent of me or you, or of either of us knowing it? I think there is. The fact that our existence is part of that reality cannot alter that fact.
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 It’s not that so much as that knowledge can have several valid spiritually-applicable meanings depending on context. Likewise, “things as they are” are not real to those who don’t experience / know / have faith in / believe in them (to their condemnation), and at the same time are real to those who do (to their exaltation). And then there are the degrees of glory to consider.But that is not the question. The question is whether they exist, or are real, in the absolute sense of the term. When scripture defines truth as things as they "are," it implies the existence of that reality in absolute terms, not relative to those who may or may not know it. It implies that those things are, independent of those who may not know / be aware of / experience / or believe in them.You only assert such without explaining it except in the way I think I've captured below. But the scriptural teachings have been shown to support it.You use the scriptural teaching to show that “things as they are” are just as real to those who do not know / have faith in / believe in / experience them (to their condemnation) as to those who do (to their exaltation).No. I use the scriptural teaching to show that "things as they are" are real in spite of those who my not know / have faith it / believe in / experience them.
Calm Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Not sure what you mean. Independent of what? Is there a reality that exists independent of me or you, or of either of us knowing it? I think there is. The fact that our existence is part of that reality cannot alter that fact.You said this:If you exist at all, then you are part of that reality, and therefore something that is "knowable as it is".Therefore any reality I know is not independent of me and I asked to you to demonstrate to me the existence of of a reality that was independent of me and you since you claimed that such a reality existed, see below:here exists a "reality" of some description which is independent of "us"
CV75 Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Not so germane.Nobody needed to! That was not just for you. I wanted others to know that I had not been neglecting the thread.Rather than snipe, just offer some really good arguments.
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 You said this:Therefore any reality I know is not independent of me and I asked to you to demonstrate to me the existence of of a reality that was independent of me and you since you claimed that such a reality existed, see below:The fact that God exists is a reality or truth that is independent of us knowing it or being there to know it. Is that a good example?
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Rather than snipe, just offer some really good arguments.Every post requires its own response. I think that I have already given some good arguments.
volgadon Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 The fact that God exists is a reality or truth that is independent of us knowing it or being there to know it. Is that a good example?What are intelligences?
CV75 Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) But that is not the question. The question is whether they exist, or are real, in the absolute sense of the term. When scripture defines truth as things as they "are," it implies the existence of that reality in absolute terms, not relative to those who may or may not know it. It implies that those things are, independent of those who may not know / be aware of / experience / or believe in them.No. I use the scriptural teaching to show that "things as they are" are real in spite of those who my not know / have faith it / believe in / experience them.The scriptures define truth as 1) knowledge of things as they are (and as they were, and as they are to come), not simply as “things as they are” (and as they were, and as they are to come) and 2) as Christ, who is not of this world and so is not in His perfection part and parcel to “things as they are,” at least in this world (D&C 1:31).Your argument needs to address the words “knowledge of” in the definiiton of truth, and how that translates into “absolute truth” as being the same for any estate and degree of glory or knowledge. Edited December 16, 2012 by CV75
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 What are intelligences?You need to provide some context. Not sure what you mean by "intelligences," or how it relates to my post.
volgadon Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 You need to provide some context. Not sure what you mean by "intelligences," or how it relates to my post.See Abraham 3 and D&C 93. We were with God from the beginning, and indeed, before, as intelligence cannot be created nor made, it being the most eternal element of our being. So, your example isn't a very good anser to Cal's question. 1
mathonihah Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) The scriptures define truth as 1) knowledge of things as they are (and as they were, and as they are to come), not simply as “things as they are” (and as they were, and as they are to come) and 2) as Christ, who is not of this world and so is not in His perfection part and parcel to “things as they are,” at least in this world (D&C 1:31).Your argument needs to address the words “knowledge of” in the definiiton of truth, and how that translates into “absolute truth” as being the same for any estate and degree of glory or knowledge.I think that the central focus of the definition is on the phrase, "as they are ..." rather than on the word "knowledge". The word "knowledge" is also significant; but not as significant as the phrase, "as they are ...". The significance of the word "knowledge" is that it must be known, i.e. somebody must know it. It doesn't matter who. As long as there is one intelligent being in the universe that knows it, then it qualifies as a truth. And since God by definition is omniscient, that means that anything that God knows is truth; and anything he doesn't know, is not. So God becomes the embodiment of truth. This also provides the explanation for the second part of your post: Jesus being defined as "truth". He is defined as truth because he is the embodiment of that truth. He has "received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;" (D&C 93:26) and is able to impart that truth to us.Absolute truth has a meaning independent of who (else) knows it (apart from God). Absolute truth is what exists in the mind of God. It is irrelevant who else knows it (or doesn't). It is not affected by who else knows it (or doesn't), That reality is eternally unchanged and unchanging, regardless of how much of it, or to what extent of it, is revealed to someone else. Edited December 17, 2012 by mathonihah
mfbukowski Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 What if, as some physicists are starting to suspect, the universe is just a computer simulation?Ironically they are right because the only way they know anything about the universe is through computer simulations.They look into ultimate "reality" and all they see is themselves looking back."We see now as in a glass, darkly...." 1
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I was clear enough the first time around. If that is not sufficient enough for you, then I don't see what else I can say that would make it more so.You are exactly right and now he is luring you into the same repetition he pulled on me. I answered this entire line of argument already.
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Ok. Great. Let's take the first vision, for example.So, what do you mean that a witness is sufficient?In the case of the first vision, is having a witness of the first vision the same as experiencing it or is it confirmation of some description that corresponds to the first vision? Or something else?I'm asking if experience of the first vision itself must be involved in order to establish that you have true knowledge of the first vision, according to you or any source you cite, of course.And also, just to be clear. You deny the following line of logic is valid:The fallacy here Is that we CAN see the future, we just have to wait for it to appear.If you actually READ the BOM you will see that this is what happened- no one knew for sure it was going to happen- they took it on faith, until the signs actually happened.This whole thing is ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything. This is not my argument. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 But the argument in "Countering Korihor's Philosophy" is not quite that. The line of logic in the picture shows that the conclusion derived from premise 1 is correct. Its point is that if you apply reason correctly to that first false assumption, you must reject prophecy. The problem according to the article isn't after the first premise, it is the first premise.Nope. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Brainburn, In what way is spiritual experience and divine revelation not an experience?Exactly.He is throwing away 100 years of philosophy accepted by virtually everyone because he does not understand it. Virtually no one accepts correspondence anymore if they ever did- it is just inadequate as I have shown numerous times.In my opinion he should just be ignored. He doesn't know what he is talking about. I tried- 1
Calm Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 You are exactly right and now he is luring you into the same repetition he pulled on me. I answered this entire line of argument already.Yeah, but I thought I'd see if he repeat himself with someone else, especially if I kept it very, very simple. I think I am at least the third person.
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) I don't really know what you mean by "out there".I mean you cannot KNOW a reality independent of what is KNOWABLE, and you can only know what you can experience. It is very straightforward, no tricks.Knowledge of things "as they are" means there exists a "reality" of some description which is independent of "us" being thereBut you cannot KNOW THAT precisely because the minute you DO it is no longer independent of your knowing it!!! Read that sentence again and again until it sinks in!You only know what you CAN KNOW and the set of all "things" you CAN KNOW does NOT include the set of things "independent of what you can know"!There is no way out of it- it is simple and direct logic. It is totally inescapable., or knowing it. That reality exists, whether we "know" it or not, or are even there to know (or experience) it or notYou ASSERT that "it exists" and I understand what you mean- but you cannot KNOW that "it exists". You cannot know what you cannot know.. To my way of understanding, knowing things "as they are" means becoming cognizant of that "reality," and knowing what it is,You cannot know what you cannot know. You cannot know what is independent of what you can know.and knowing it as it is, and knowing that we know it as it is.You cannot know what you cannot know.The problem I have with your analysis of the situation is that you appear to reject the existence of that reality, or of our ability of knowing it,You cannot know what you cannot know. I am not repeating it to be obnoxious- I just want you to see this post as I see it.and knowing that we know it; whereas the scriptural teaching seems to suggest otherwise.AhFinally we get somewhere.No it doesn't say that. Absolutely nowhere does it say we cannot know what we cannot know. Note that I am not saying nor will I ever say that we cannot know things by spiritual experience.Spiritual experience is experience just as valid as scientific experience is. Edited December 17, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Yeah, but I thought I'd see if he repeat himself with someone else, especially if I kept it very, very simple. I think I am at least the third person.Troll.
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 The fallacy here Is that we CAN see the future, we just have to wait for it to appear.Note that there is a difference between seeing a VISION of the future and seeing the future.You can have a spiritual VISION of what will happen in the future, and have certainty that that spiritual experience was "true" because God told you it was true, but that is not SEEING THE FUTURE.If I have such a vision, it is subjective knowledge that I may be certain of. You may have God reveal to you that my vision of the future is "true" or perhaps he will give you a vision of the future confirming mine.But others do not "know the future" because I had a vision. They might accept it on faith, in an Alma 32 sense and allow it to grow into certainty so it can be said to be "known".But that is not "seeing the future". A vision of the future is not the future- it is a vision of it.That doesn't seem horribly complicated.
CV75 Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I think that the central focus of the definition is on the phrase, "as they are ..." rather than on the word "knowledge". The word "knowledge" is also significant; but not as significant as the phrase, "as they are ...". The significance of the word "knowledge" is that it must be known, i.e. somebody must know it. It doesn't matter who. As long as there is one intelligent being in the universe that knows it, then it qualifies as a truth. And since God by definition is omniscient, that means that anything that God knows is truth; and anything he doesn't know, is not. So God becomes the embodiment of truth. This also provides the explanation for the second part of your post: Jesus being defined as "truth". He is defined as truth because he is the embodiment of that truth. He has "received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;" (D&C 93:26) and is able to impart that truth to us.Absolute truth has a meaning independent of who (else) knows it (apart from God). Absolute truth is what exists in the mind of God. It is irrelevant who else knows it (or doesn't). It is not affected by who else knows it (or doesn't), That reality is eternally unchanged and unchanging, regardless of how much of it, or to what extent of it, is revealed to someone else.The operable word is clearly knowledge: “And truth is knowledge…” The phrase that follows, “of things [etc.]…,” describes that knowledge and what it consists of.Your position is dependent upon an incomplete description of the properties (as you are leaving out two of the three) of the very thing you are claiming to define, while throwing out the actual definition. If you are basing your position on a scriptural definition, you really need to be using the full definition. Becuase of this, your definition of “omniscience” is suspect, so an appeal to that principle doesn’t help your case.As you say, that a thing is known means it is true (note that its truth is in the knolwledge of it, which is according to the scriptural definition, not yours), and God being the embodiment of truth means He corresponds to nothing but Himself.
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 That reality is associated with anything that has an existence in the universe of possibilities, including you and me. If you exist at all, then you are part of that reality, and therefore something that is "knowable as it is".Oh man. There are a few problems here, besides being question-begging.
Recommended Posts