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.

 

What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Firewater
1 - What religious affiliation do you claim?

2 - What is your definition of the word "TRUTH"?

3 - How can you be certain that these "TRUTH"s, are indeed 100% fact? Or, are you?

4 - Why are you telling me? Right here? Right now?

5 - Tell me of your own aspirations, or plans, for the remainder of this lifetime.

Not even 24 hours of interogation could achieve an absolute certainty on the validity, or non-validity, of his claims. As they say, nothing in Life is certain but Death and taxes. But, his answers to these questions, and how he answered them, would be an extremely beneficial gauge.


These questions don't challenge the Truth that he claims to possess. Only his Truth can be seen as objective and testable. The man himself is just a man. He's got (essentially) a package, and his claim is that this package contains the Truth. Look at the package, and tell me how you authenticate it or debunk it.
edit on 1/5/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Firewater
 


Excellent.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So, no workable questions then. Okay.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

Anyway, I would only have one question for your prophet: How do you know? Depending on the person's answer, I would walk away or pursue a conversation. During that conversation, I may well have other questions about what I am being told. I really couldn't say in advance what those questions would be, since they depend on what the person says.

So, for example, Mohammed, how do you know? He tells me something about talking with the angel Gabriel. Not good enough, in my opinion.


That's one question, but if he's got any savvy whatsoever, his answer would probably seem credible enough. Considering the subject at hand, of course. Not easy to trip up a reasonably proficient huckster with such an open ended question.


Had he gotten past that question, then I would have listened to his stuff. At some point, I would surely have noticed that I had read much of it before, in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Since Mohammed adds little that is really new to what was already available to me, I would ask him about that. Unless he came up with something, I would resume my search.


Of course, you're assuming that the Truth is already covered within one of the Abrahamic religions. Can you responsibly make that assumption? What about a Hindu person he might meet? Does he also compare statements to what he's read within his own holy scriptural texts? Isn't there a more concrete area of inquiry that could be pursued? Why must it come down to religious or theological questions?


Maybe you were looking for something "hard" like "Is there a largest prime pair, and if so, what is it? Prove your answer." Meh, you know how prophets answer that sort of thing. "My truth is not the truth that can be revealed by reason..." blah, blah, blah.


I would think that if he responded with "My truth is not a truth that can be revealed by reason" to any question, then he would immediately reveal himself to be a fraud. Maybe he wouldn't know prime numbers, since math is pretty far down the existential chain from the foundations of reality, but questions that challenge his understanding of the nuts and bolts of raw existence might be a good place to start. After all, the basics have to be definite and concrete, or nothing at all could have emerged from those basics. And what is obvious is that plenty has emerged from those basics.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEasterThese questions don't challenge the Truth that he claims to possess. Only his Truth can be seen as objective and testable.


What is Truth?

What is the difference between Truth and reality?

Truth is a category of thought, an assessment of a 'thinker' about something that, ultimately, can only and must be observed.

So, what occurs, as an observation, prior to the assessment of a 'thinker' that that observation or 'something' is the "Truth"?

Does that fundamental observation--which will only later be assessed as the Truth--have to do with the physical reality or the conscious reality?

Is there a separation between the physical and conscious reality?

In other words, is the duality of physical/conscious of the very structure of reality itself, or is it a consequence or merely an artifact of the observation process itself? something like an electron being described as either a wave or a particle on the basis of the way that the physicist sets up the experiment.

In other words, is the duality intrinsic or is it merely an illusion?

Is it merely an artifact of the consciousness which is attempting to describe reality in the first place?

And is there any observation of reality which does not include either an artifact of thought or an artifact of emotion?

In other words, is there any other dimension of consciousness beyond the 'thinker' (and thoughts) and the "self" (and emotions) for the accurate description of reality and the origin of illusion?

Is "objective" necessarily equated with the Truth?

Or is Truth subjective?

In other words, is there an objective/subjective Truth beyond the objective Truth of the 'thinker' and the subjective Truth of the "self"?

Is there a difference between a Truth of the 'thinker' and a Truth of the heart?

Are Truths of the heart in any way testable at all?

(Can you prove to another than you are in love, for example?)

And are Truths of the intellect necessarily superior to Truths of the heart?

And is the annihilation of human civilization itself the ultimate and necessary consequence of the fact that it cannot be PROVEN that people should love one another?

Not one of these questions has anything whatsoever to do with the person that is being questioned.

Michael Cecil
edit on 5-1-2011 by Michael Cecil because: clarification



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Well, here's a practical application of what I said about determining whether someone understands basic issues.

In this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... we have someone who is claiming "truth", in the usual ATS mode of "These are my predictions!" He claims that this is based on math, science and historical research.

A couple of pages in, I offered to check his maths for him (my public service duty) and I included a bit of a rant about people who think that an earthquake in California would result in much of the state "falling into the ocean", a common (and ignorant) statement, and one which the OP repeated. This wasn't really intended as a slam on him directly, but he took it as such, and commenced to argue with me.

Unfortunately, all that back and forth demonstrated was that he didn't know a dang thing about seismology and plate tectonics, that google is his research tool of choice, and that he lacks a basic understanding of both math and science. Now, all of the sudden, his "truths" are seen in a much different light.

Maths are not subjective, so someone who says that his opinion of his claims are more important than the facts of the issue can instantly be dismissed as goofy, because that's just not how the world works.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
If the person would look harmless enough (not a threatening psycho) - the sheer amusement would make me stop and listen. I stop ocassionally for Jehova's witnesses, for Mormons, for Bhaktas (Hare Krishnas) - it is interesting to witness how strong can a person be convinced in their fantastical version of the "Truth".

Otherwise - no questions - if a person would really possess this knowledge it should transcend verbal - ideational communication, if still "explained" inside this system, it would be limited; so it should be conveyed on a different, "more than ordinary consciousness" level - and in that way you would KNOW without doubts - and probably that would mean you would be no more - you cannot possess knowledge of what you are and exist in a limited state.
Imagine a TV set being communicated what it is - could it still be a TV set? Would it still be an inanimate mechanic object if we would in some inexplicable way convey it this little partial truth about what it is - namely - our creation, made for a specific purpose.

That brings another question - if we are so different from any holder of a broader "truth" as a TV set is from us - can "It" communicate with us at all?

Can we access this "truth" at all or are we limited to the perceptual world of our state of being - which some of us - like you - don't recognize as complete and satisfactory "truth" with a capital "T".

So - no questions - "it" would have to overwhelm me with KNOWING to convince me.

And the KNOWING should last, unlike KNOWING under influence of some "plant teachers" that seems so ABSOLUTE, but dissolves after the experience and the chemical influence of the plant.

Such a "person" or rather "entity" should convey his knowledge in such a way to make me stay in that state of bliss and absolute certainty - but that would also make the belief obsolete, since you would also KNOW with absolute certainty - the complete truth logically excludes any further doubt or questions - it is COMPLETE and WHOLE.

Looking back all that caps lock # I used looks wierd, but hey, it's a wierd forum. Hehehehehe...







Originally posted by NorEaster
I've been on this board for over a year, and I've encountered more versions of the Truth than I ever thought could exist. Each version has its advocates, and I assume that each advocate earnestly believes that his/her version of the Truth is the actual Truth. I also have to assume that each advocate took the time and effort to challenge their version of the Truth, and that each version was up to that challenge; succeeding in proving itself to be the Truth, as tested and accepted by the advocate. I can accept that each advocate tested their Truth, and that their Truth passed their test, but what I don't know is what constitutes a true challenge to such a premise as the Truth, especially when the Truth in question pertains to the full and complete nature of human existence.

So, I'm hoping that you folks can help me out a little.

I have one question, and I hope I can get a wide cross section of serious responses to it. And maybe it's not an easy question, or one that lends itself to a quick list of bullet points, but considering the issue it concerns, I think it's a question that deserves to be seen as important. Especially when you consider how a person's honest answer to it affects their view of reality and what they feel can possibly exist as true. So, here's the question.

If a man walked up to you (no one you've ever seen before, and there's nothing remarkable about this man either physically or in how his presence affects you viscerally) and he told you that he possesses the Truth about life, about reality, about the concept and/or existence of God, about humanity, and about why you (specifically) exist; what list of questions would you need this man to answer correctly, for you to take him seriously as someone who just might be the one guy who actually has that Truth?


  1. Now, keep in mind that in the past, people would expect such a man to have extraordinary abilities - to be able to perform "signs and wonders" as proof of his access to the Truth - but we all know now days that advanced technology enables the performance of "signs and wonders". Miracles can easily be the employment of advanced technology, and advanced technology isn't proof of anything other than access to advanced technology. Certainly not proof - not any longer - that a person possesses the Truth concerning the largest questions about what is real.


I'm looking for a list a specific questions - no more than 5 from anyone, just to focus the criteria a bit - that would make or break the argument that this man has the goods, and that this is a notion that deserves serious consideration. Just 5 or less questions that you'd require this man to fully and completely answer. Questions with answers that may not be provable (since they'd be answers that you couldn't Google, or else why bother asking them) but that would be pertinent to the subject at hand, and would either clash horribly with each other to prove this man to be wrong, or unite with each other to prove that something this man has is important to look into.

I honestly don't know what it takes to triage this effort, and would love some guidance. After all, not everyone has the opportunity to spend a dozen years or so studying under this discipline or that guru or some other religion, and there has to be some way that a learned seeker filters out the hits from the near misses. One truth is that having the right questions is the first step toward having the right answers. Can you help?

edit on 5-1-2011 by MrVortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by eight bits
 


That type of knowledge (what the OP is asking for) can only ever at best point to the thing.

So I am speaking about it here, not evading. I am stepping in as "the guy", although I understand you were addressing the OP.


edit on 5-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


If this guy walked around and around on me (personally) with this sort of vague invitation to cast off specifics and embrace the ether of communality, then I'd probaby walk off on him. Reality is real. If I step off a 20 story building, I will fall 200 ft (or so) and either die or be seriously damaged by the fact that I stepped off that building. No amount of emotional, spiritual and psychological development within myself will alter the nature of that 20 story plunge to the pavement below. It may alter my own experience of that plunge, but in the end, my corporeal husk will hit that pavement at a rate of 32 feet per second, and I will likely explode like a water balloon.

You can't "step in as the guy" since what he is claiming is extremely different than what your two posts have suggested. He is claiming to have the Truth about what is real and definable. What sits at the base of physical existence, and allows you to imagine all that you imagine and express all that you express. You're fully free to believe what you wish, and God love you for your positive gentility, but what allows you to believe anything at all is based on something that is necessarily objective and that lays the foundation for all that exists as static and/or dynamic.

I'm sorry, but this thread is designed to try and determine a workable approach to employ in the verification of a claim that too many people on this board, and in this world, make. The claim of ultimate Truth is one that can be quickly triaged, even if it can't be quickly debunked. The initial triage effort is probably the most important, and likely the easiest to implement in a cross-cultural manner. I appreciate your philosophy, but there are other threads for such proselytization efforts.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Maths are not subjective, so someone who says that his opinion of his claims are more important than the facts of the issue can instantly be dismissed as goofy, because that's just not how the world works.


Exactly. Now this is the direction I've been trying to get folks to begin looking. Now, considering that you may not be the person approached by this man, and that the series of questions should be employable by the average 21st century adult human being of reasonable intellect, what 5 questions would sufficiently balance against one another - along with requiring the answers to dovetail directly with a suite of objective facts that we already know to be true - that, if answered in a highly plausible manner, would establish an elevated level of initial credibility for the Truth that this man claims to have?

You're on the right path. Math may not be the answer, since most of foundational existence establishes the sub-structure that allows math to be what it is, but certainly elemental logic would be a valuable tool. Logic and empirical extrapolation associated with that logic.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MrVortex
 


Sort of a Gnostic way of seeing things. No workable questions then. No sweat.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



not impossible to put such a quick list of direct questions together.

But how? You appear to be asking for questions that, if answered, would reasonably lead one to accept as truth answers to all other questions. There's a fundamental problem here. If you ask questions you think you know the answer to, and you're simply looking to see if he gives the answer you expect...well, you might be wrong. Or you might be right. But if you're right, and you already know the answer...what reason do you have to believe this person has any special access to higher truth? After all, you'd be able to answer the question too. Or, you might ask questions you don't think you know the answer to. But then how do you evaluate the response? As suggested previously, even if one asks questions that one might reasonably expect no human to be capable of answering, but something that is nevertheless confirmable, if he is able to correctly answer such a question, you've simply demonstrated that he has access to information presumed unavailable to humanity. That doesn't necessarily mean he knows the answers to everything else, nor is it any gauruntee that he will be truthful even if he does.



the questions themselves have to work in congress
with one another to cross-confirm the claim

Certainly none of the questions proposed by anyone in this thread so far would qualify. Half of them could be answered by any human, and many of the others are impractical to verify.

Condemned0625's questions:

* 1. Who are you, exactly?

I'm LordBucket, a member of ATS.

* 2. Can you prove your identity?

No.

* 3. Where did you come from?

Planet earth.

* 4. Can you prove your origin?

No.

* 5. What is the purpose of this information you call truth?

Information does not have "purpose." One may use information with purpose, but information itself is just information. If the question you intended to ask was really "what's your intent in sharing this information with me?" then the answer is either: because as a matter of personal aesthetics I find relating to others in mutually beneficial ways to be preferable than the alternatives" or, "because by giving you small grains of truth now, I may hope to trick you into accepting subsequent lies as truth also, so that I may manipulate you into a belief system from which it will be easy for me to prey upon you."

So there. I've answered all of Condemned0625's questions. Shall he now assume that anything else I tell him is neccesarily true or accurate? Why?

Or, let's look at greenorbs questions:

* 1. What caused the Big Bang?
The "Big Bang" is a colorful way of describing the "beginning" of time. But such a perspective would only be relevant for an observer confined within it. If you look at the desk your computer is sitting on, does it make sense to ask what "caused" the left edge of the desk? Does it make sense to look only at the left edge of the desk and assume it has special significance simply because you can't see the other edge? How does it make sense to look at only one edge of time and give it a special name and ask what caused it?

* 2. Is M-Theory correct?
First off, "String theory" is not really a theory. It's more of a way of looking at things. It makes no predictions, there's nothing about it to test...it's basically just a pretty way of describing things. "M theory" contributes little to an already non-predictive construct. In particular, dimensions are not a fundamental quality of the universe, nor are there a fixed number of them.

* 3. If the answer to 2 above is "no" then what is the nature and extent of the Universe(s)?
All possibility exists in potential.

* 4. How did intelligent life (humans) arise, i.e., design or chance?
Loosely speaking, both deliberate and random elements were in play. It is the nature of consciousness to manifest from complex forms. A designer may deliberately construct a specific form, but the consciosness that does or does not arise from it is its own being. Consciousness develops by the process of observing itself. This process cannot be perfomed by an other, any more than your neighbor could read a book to himself in order for you to become aware of a story within it.

* 5. Where are the non-human intelligent beings exactly in the Universe?
Everywhere in the universe. You just don't see them. Neither does your average colony of termites see humans, dogs, cats, birds, trees, fish or any number of other species you might say live "everywhere" on earth.

 

I've now answered two sets of five questions. Will you now worship me and assume I know everything about the universe?



Not easy, but not impossible to put such a quick list of direct questions together.

So then let's hear your list.

edit on 5-1-2011 by LordBucket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NorEasterThese questions don't challenge the Truth that he claims to possess. Only his Truth can be seen as objective and testable.


What is Truth?

What is the difference between Truth and reality?


These two are pretty good. That said, they'd be best included within the 2nd round of questions. We need to establish his Truth's credibility before we question him on the nature of truth.


So, what occurs, as an observation, prior to the assessment of a 'thinker' that that observation or 'something' is the "Truth"?

Does that fundamental observation--which will only later be assessed as the Truth--have to do with the physical reality or the conscious reality?


Good for the 2nd and 3rd rounds of inquiry.


Is there a separation between the physical and conscious reality?

In other words, is the duality of physical/conscious of the very structure of reality itself, or is it a consequence or merely an artifact of the observation process itself? something like an electron being described as either a wave or a particle on the basis of the way that the physicist sets up the experiment.

In other words, is the duality intrinsic or is it merely an illusion?

Is it merely an artifact of the consciousness which is attempting to describe reality in the first place?

And is there any observation of reality which does not include either an artifact of thought or an artifact of emotion?

In other words, is there any other dimension of consciousness beyond the 'thinker' (and thoughts) and the "self" (and emotions) for the accurate description of reality and the origin of illusion?

Is "objective" necessarily equated with the Truth?

Or is Truth subjective?

In other words, is there an objective/subjective Truth beyond the objective Truth of the 'thinker' and the subjective Truth of the "self"?

Is there a difference between a Truth of the 'thinker' and a Truth of the heart?

Are Truths of the heart in any way testable at all?

(Can you prove to another than you are in love, for example?)

And are Truths of the intellect necessarily superior to Truths of the heart?

And is the annihilation of human civilization itself the ultimate and necessary consequence of the fact that it cannot be PROVEN that people should love one another?

Not one of these questions has anything whatsoever to do with the person that is being questioned.

Michael Cecil
edit on 5-1-2011 by Michael Cecil because: clarification


They're all brilliant questions. They really are. Still, how do we discern whether this is the right man to ask such questions? We need a set of triage questions that work in a methodical manner to immediately set the poseurs off to the side.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by NorEaster
 



not impossible to put such a quick list of direct questions together.

But how? You appear to be asking for questions that, if answered, would reasonably lead one to accept as truth answers to all other questions. There's a fundamental problem here. If you ask questions you think you know the answer to, and you're simply looking to see if he gives the answer you expect...well, you might be wrong. Or you might be right. But if you're right, and you already know the answer...what reason do you have to believe this person has any special access to higher truth? After all, you'd be able to answer the question too. Or, you might ask questions you don't think you know the answer to. But then how do you evaluate the response? As suggested previously, even if one asks questions that one might reasonably expect no human to be capable of answering, but something that is nevertheless confirmable, if he is able to correctly answer such a question, you've simply demonstrated that he has access to information presumed unavailable to humanity. That doesn't necessarily mean he knows the answers to everything else, nor is it any gauruntee that he will be truthful even if he does.



the questions themselves have to work in congress
with one another to cross-confirm the claim

Certainly none of the questions proposed by anyone in this thread so far would qualify. Half of them could be answered by any human, and many of the others are impractical to verify.

Condemned0625's questions:

* 1. Who are you, exactly?

I'm LordBucket, a member of ATS.

* 2. Can you prove your identity?

No.

* 3. Where did you come from?

Planet earth.

* 4. Can you prove your origin?

No.

* 5. What is the purpose of this information you call truth?

Information does not have "purpose." One may use information with purpose, but information itself is just information. If the question you intended to ask was really "what's your intent in sharing this information with me?" then the answer is either: because as a matter of personal aesthetics I find relating to others in mutually beneficial ways to be preferable than the alternatives" or, "because by giving you small grains of truth now, I may hope to trick you into accepting subsequent lies as truth also, so that I may manipulate you into a belief system from which it will be easy for me to prey upon you."

So there. I've answered all of Condemned0625's questions. Shall he now assume that anything else I tell him is neccesarily true or accurate? Why?

Or, let's look at greenorbs questions:

* 1. What caused the Big Bang?
The "Big Bang" is a colorful way of describing the "beginning" of time. But such a perspective would only be relevant for an observer confined within it. If you look at the desk your computer is sitting on, does it make sense to ask what "caused" the left edge of the desk? Does it make sense to look only at the left edge of the desk and assume it has special significance simply because you can't see the other edge? How does it make sense to look at only one edge of time and give it a special name and ask what caused it?

* 2. Is M-Theory correct?
First off, "String theory" is not really a theory. It's more of a way of looking at things. It makes no predictions, there's nothing about it to test...it's basically just a pretty way of describing things. "M theory" contributes little to an already non-predictive construct. In particular, dimensions are not a fundamental quality of the universe, nor are there a fixed number of them.

* 3. If the answer to 2 above is "no" then what is the nature and extent of the Universe(s)?
All possibility exists in potential.

* 4. How did intelligent life (humans) arise, i.e., design or chance?
Loosely speaking, both deliberate and random elements were in play. It is the nature of consciousness to manifest from complex forms. A designer may deliberately construct a specific form, but the consciosness that does or does not arise from it is its own being. Consciousness develops by the process of observing itself. This process cannot be perfomed by an other, any more than your neighbor could read a book to himself in order for you to become aware of a story within it.

* 5. Where are the non-human intelligent beings exactly in the Universe?
Everywhere in the universe. You just don't see them. Neither does your average colony of termites see humans, dogs, cats, birds, trees, fish or any number of other species you might say live "everywhere" on earth.

 

I've now answered two sets of five questions. Will you now worship me and assume I know everything about the universe?


And this is the nature of the challenge - to craft a series of initial questions that, presented in tandem, cross-confirm one another while requiring the man's answers to intermesh with what we already know to be true about concrete and definable reality. Yes, it's not easy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.




Not easy, but not impossible to put such a quick list of direct questions together.

So then let's hear your list.

edit on 5-1-2011 by LordBucket because: (no reason given)


I listed some here, but I'm not happy with them. They don't cross-confirm to any real extent. Still the ramifications of some of the man's answers would be verifiable, even if not to the degree that I'd be happy with. I'm asking here because I'm having difficulty with this effort.

reply to post by NorEaster
 



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by adjensen

Maths are not subjective, so someone who says that his opinion of his claims are more important than the facts of the issue can instantly be dismissed as goofy, because that's just not how the world works.


Exactly. Now this is the direction I've been trying to get folks to begin looking. Now, considering that you may not be the person approached by this man, and that the series of questions should be employable by the average 21st century adult human being of reasonable intellect, what 5 questions would sufficiently balance against one another - along with requiring the answers to dovetail directly with a suite of objective facts that we already know to be true - that, if answered in a highly plausible manner, would establish an elevated level of initial credibility for the Truth that this man claims to have?

You're on the right path. Math may not be the answer, since most of foundational existence establishes the sub-structure that allows math to be what it is, but certainly elemental logic would be a valuable tool. Logic and empirical extrapolation associated with that logic.


Again, you are labouring under the belief that five questions (or fifteen or fifty) would be sufficient in all instances, but my point is the opposite -- the inquiries are necessarily unique to the person and the claims being made. Without a specific instance, with specific claims, what you ask is likely impossible, because the validation needs to come out of what is claimed.

In other words, there are no generic questions (or even suppositions) that can apply across the board. The ability to discern what a reasonable line of questioning that demonstrates credibility or lack thereof (again, I think that you'd be hard pressed to ask anything that would demonstrate "truth", so you're left with discerning what someone's credibility is) would be the role of the person who is interacting with the specific individual making claims.

As with LordBucket, I would be curious to know what the point of this is, and what your questions might be.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
truth?...... 5 questions to ask to find out if this dude has " the truth "

Any man can have the truth......

The truth is some thing you believe in.......

Everyone has belief in the truth........

I could ask any 5 questions to anyone..... the questions aren't the point.... nor is the man..... it's whether i believe or have belief in the answers.

That why, to me, the truth is not worth the paper it's not printed on.......

Facts, on the other hand....... thats a different kettle of fish.......
Fact doesn't require you to believe in it......it's still a fact......

and that..... is a fact.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrVortex
 


Sort of a Gnostic way of seeing things. No workable questions then. No sweat.


Nope. If the person knows "THE TRUTH" it must be self revelatory and evident beyond doubt. Any additional explanations should be obsolete or it is not the complete truth. It is quite possible that we cannot comprehend it at all, but I doubt logical debate with such a "truth holder" would bring you anything more than circling around in loops of argument. And think of it that way - anything you can form as an ideation is limited by your perceptual apparatus - each last detail of the world must be processed by you or it doesn't exist (for you) - so can you really "recieve" the complete "Truth" that way? Or must you abandon this "filter" if it is possible at all?

Yep, you can say Gnostic, but you limit my enquiring position with a label that doesn't explain it completely and I wouldn't do that to myself or anyone else.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I listed some here, but I'm not happy with them. They don't cross-confirm to any real extent. Still the ramifications of some of the man's answers would be verifiable, even if not to the degree that I'd be happy with. I'm asking here because I'm having difficulty with this effort.

1. How do you make your living?
2. Do you obey the law of the land?
3. How do you make sure you stay healthy?
Number three is the toughest one to answer.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Well if this person would be of superior nature to us, IE knows what happens when you die, everything about the universe including the unknown to us, then I would ask what the real model of physics would look like without the human misunderstandings, if he could prove to us a new model of science that turns out to be tested and confirmed, then I would surely sit and listen to anything else he has to say.

Or perhaps have him uncover lost info that is hidden in a tomb or ruins that is yet to be found



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Whatever it is, you're unlikely to recognize it until it runs up and bites you in the a$$.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
If this guy walked around and around on me (personally) with this sort of vague invitation to cast off specifics and embrace the ether of communality, then I'd probaby walk off on him. Reality is real. If I step off a 20 story building, I will fall 200 ft (or so) and either die or be seriously damaged by the fact that I stepped off that building. No amount of emotional, spiritual and psychological development within myself will alter the nature of that 20 story plunge to the pavement below. It may alter my own experience of that plunge, but in the end, my corporeal husk will hit that pavement at a rate of 32 feet per second, and I will likely explode like a water balloon.

Just so long as I did not push you!

Sounds to me like you're looking for a quantum physicst with a grand unified theory of quantum gravity, in which case, I am definitely not your guy.

However, it may be worth considering that that's all just "civil infrastructure".. not "the truth".



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join