Well, my intent is to tell the truth, by making factual statements. If your intent is to tell the truth, you should likewise stick to factual statements.
Ok that is something (as I see it), we can work with.
Refined by that spirit that makes you determine that facts = truth
No this does not follow for facts =/= truth, but sometimes co-align. They are not interchangeable.
What “spirit” are you talking about?
Protection
Get past this linguistic bullshit. “Truth” is a vague notion about unknowable spiritual something-or-the-other. The truth is the opposite of falsehood, and interestingly enough, the spiritual truth is not the opposite some spiritual falsehood, because the spiritual truth is not knowable. Hence, you cannot make assertive statements about “Truth”, because there is no way to determine whether or not those statements are accurate.
“Truth” might as well be a koan, because you cannot know it, or even know whether you can know it.
My head hurts.
Can you define “Truth” in a way that will not cause us to ask you to define the words you used to define “Truth”?
Banana.
I don’t think he can. kanicbird’s other posts, like this one,
seem to suggest that he or she views “Truth” as some sort of Platonic ideal, attained not through mundane methods such as logic or empirical reasoning, but by a spiritual gnosis. If so, then his or her “Truth” is just as nonfalsifiable, and thus just as subjective, as his or her “God”. Again, like the OP’s Facebook disputant, circular reasoning.
Of course, this is not necessarily kanicbird’s position, just what it sounds like to me.
He asked what spirit was involved, I took it as his personal spirit in which he made the replies. I got he is operating with a spirit of protection of his heart. As I understand it it is the reason he opposes the spiritual, it offers him protection. Knowing this the truth of TOWP’s statement can be filterer, meaning that he is trying to prevent the spiritual from being known.
I’ll try
Truth is the intent of God.
The word God gets messy however, as we are part of God and thus part of truth. This means our intent can alter reality.
So, the answer to my question is no.
Again without some transcendence of this world, either to God or to inner self, which is God, there is no knowing truth.
If you think I’m a guy who “opposes the spiritual,” then you’ve quite possibly mistaken me for someone else; I pray – sincerely and in Hebrew – just like the next guy, and have no interest in “trying to prevent the spiritual from being known”
Truth is God, and God is part of truth? How does this define either term? This is just saying that “A = B and B = A”, which tells us nothing about what A and B are, except in reference to each other.
Or even knowing whether transcendence will lead to knowledge of this mysterious “truth”.
Worse, the first is a statement of equivalence, but the second is a statement indicating a subset. Maybe it’s an improper subset. But that would make God improper, which cannot be. By definition.
Truth is beauty. Beauty is in love with the Beast. The Daily Beast is a web site. Which is often beautiful. The conclusion is obvious, and left as an exercise for the student.
You just blew my mind. :eek:
And how do you know this?
What? He… I said… he just done told you, son!
You’re built too low.
He keeps chuckin’ em and you keep duckin’ em.
Oh, hell no. Beauty is ~4.2GeV with a -1/3 EM charge, Truth is more like 173GeV with a +2/3 EM charge. They are complementary and, theoretically could combine to form some sort of obscure, short-lived baryon, but they are neither equivalent nor opposite.