It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NorEaster
Evidence, reason, testable claims.
I'm not going to just accept anything without evidence, I'm not going to accept anything that cannot be supported by reason, and I'm not going to accept a claim so profound if it is entirely untestable.
Simple as that.
Originally posted by Condemned0625
1. Who are you, exactly?
2. Can you prove your identity?
3. Where did you come from?
4. Can you prove your origin?
5. What is the purpose of this information you call truth?
Then I would tell him to tell me everything and go on from there.
Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
On a personal note....I'd ask where was I before this life experience? What brought me here? Where will I go after this life? Please explain the cycle of life and death and who or what controls it. What religion or philosophy on earth best represents God's intentions ?
Originally posted by adjensen
Though you've defined what this person claims to know, it's still kind of vague. What is "the truth" about God, for instance?
The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.
The only things I would ask would be:
1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.
The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."
If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by NorEaster
The truth would lie in his statements, not in our ability to drill him.
If he has the Truth, then we would recognize it as universal. I think it would appear as clarification, as simple, and something we realize we must have known all along, and it would make perfect sense.
If he has "the truth", and wanted to make it known to you he would, so qualifying questions and his resume would not be on your agenda.
imo.
Originally posted by NorEaster
The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.
The identity of the person should never enter into the determination. This is where human beings get redirected. Cult of personality, is what they call it. Adolph Hitler had his entire personal history suppressed in order to create himself as unique and someone who could be anointed. Identity is a trap in this sort of situation.
The only things I would ask would be:
1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.
The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."
The man in question may not be remarkable in any sense whatsoever, and may have only (only?) been presented with the specifics of reality in a macro sense. Certainly yoiu're not expecting him to also possess your personal information. After all, if this man was given the inner workings of reality, why would that information include your personal history? Do you think this man would have to be a psychic?
If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.
What would be that validation criteria? That's what I'm looking for. Your validation criteria.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by NorEaster
The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.
The identity of the person should never enter into the determination. This is where human beings get redirected. Cult of personality, is what they call it. Adolph Hitler had his entire personal history suppressed in order to create himself as unique and someone who could be anointed. Identity is a trap in this sort of situation.
I disagree, because if someone is saying that their basis for the claims they are making is some personal enlightenment, then who they are is the only means by which their credibility can be evaluated.
There is, for example, a prolific poster on ATS who makes claims such as these -- he knows the truth, he has been given prophecy by God, and so forth. However, upon looking into him as a person, and the things that he writes, it becomes evident that he is mentally ill and suffers from delusional thinking, so one would be foolish to put any faith in what he says.
Cults exist because people are willing to accept the word of someone that they are enlightened, solely on the basis of their word. I don't buy that.
The only things I would ask would be:
1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.
The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."
The man in question may not be remarkable in any sense whatsoever, and may have only (only?) been presented with the specifics of reality in a macro sense. Certainly yoiu're not expecting him to also possess your personal information. After all, if this man was given the inner workings of reality, why would that information include your personal history? Do you think this man would have to be a psychic?
Well, in the OP, you said "about why you (specifically) exist", so I assumed that this meant that he would have information specific to me, and should therefore know something about me that he should not. If he can't demonstrate that, I would question what he would claim about why I, specifically, exist.
If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.
What would be that validation criteria? That's what I'm looking for. Your validation criteria.
I have my own perception of truth, of course. For me to accept that someone's truth which contradicts mine is correct, I would need to be convinced first that I am wrong, and secondly, that they are right. That is not an easy thing to do, hence the point that I would need something other than "I thought this up" or "It came in a dream" or something along those lines.
How did this person come by this information, and why them, rather than someone else? How does this information fit into the generally accepted view of reality, and if it doesn't, or it conflicts, why does their perspective make more sense than the accepted view, and why has it only been revealed now?
Some of the most brilliant minds in history have been focused on these matters for thousands of years. I think it highly unlikely (though possible) that some random guy in 2011 spent time meditating, and suddenly discovered a truth that had eluded everyone before him, but for which there is no basis apart from him claiming it to be true.edit on 4-1-2011 by adjensen because: dropped word
Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
I would assume there are various levels of truth that would be either irrelevant or beyond comprehension.
If the truth of existence were to the effect that we are essentially "meat" computers and our web access is currently somewhat limited, and if I were to accept that as a valid answer I would then be more interested in how to build my "creds" for better access and then be curious as to what services and peripherals were available. But if I were only more interested in how we came about it would be paramount to learning not only how our processors worked, the type of components that comprised the unit, but also how to make those semi-conductor devices. If I were a real "truth geek" I would want to know more about my bios and operating system or at least be wanting to experiment with other browsers. By then I might realize there are a number of "truths" and know that I would just have to find the best truth to fit my own needs.
An encounter with such a man might be satisfied by seeing he was content and at control over his own life and environment, and if such an encounter were to be truly fulfilling it would be because he could convey those "secrets" to me that would enable me to find my own contentment and happiness with ease. But I would also realize if I could bypass all undersired experiences I might relegate myself to a rather dull existence without opportunity to grow.
The "whole truth" may be more than I really care to know. I may find I just enjoy the challenge of playing the game, learning to play better, and knowing that would be all the truth I really desire.
edit on 4-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)edit on 4-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)edit on 4-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Interesting thoughts my friend,
I have followed many teachers of truths in my day. I supposed I have worked out a pretty reasonable test to ensure they are what they preach.
Do they live their truth?
Do they expect worship for their truth?
Do they expect obedience for their truth?
Do they expect reward for their truth?
Once they have passed these four tests, there are no questions to ask. In passing the tests they have demonstrated the way for one to find the truth on their own.
With Love,
Your Brother
Originally posted by NorEaster
What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by NorEaster
What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?
Does it bring me closer to mankind, or does it cause division.
If it causes division, it is a liar.
With Love,
Your Brother