Truth is Timeless

[jag]

That is why you fail.

Jag, you might stick to the discussion of the ideas… and not worry about anyone's personal salvation or not…

Far be it from me to pass judgement on any one. It was just levity.

jag

[austintorn@aol.com]

levity

The lightheartedness, high spirits, vivacity, liveliness, cheerfulness, cheeriness, humor, gaiety, fun, jocularity, hilarity, frivolity, amusement, mirth, laughter, merriment, glee, comedy, wit, wittiness, jollity, joviality was not apparent. ha-ha.

Jag, maybe you should just buy the beer and bee happy we saved you from guessing and estimating [making up] truth without facts…

That, indeed, has been a focus around ToeQuest lately, for many didn't even realize that they made things up [or took it as Gospel from others who had].

It's only human, as the mind always wants to know… but can't always… but has to… but it doesn't compute… so… invention was the child of necessity.

[Mikal]

Hi Jag....your brevity with words in the face of tough debate is admirable...


Mikal

[mkirkpatrick]

Truth is LIFE expressed within consciousness and unfolding within the pulsations
of Willfull intent.




regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Michael ... you old pommy/turkish delight. Hows things with you ??

I agree with the first half of your post, but what is wilful intent ??

cool bananas ... greg

[dolly]

Hi all. Just a personal opinion but I tend to think of facts as ever changing through growth/experience, whereas truth.....is well true. Again this is just an opinion formed through limited experiences. Peace Dolly

[mkirkpatrick]

Michael ... you old pommy/turkish delight. Hows things with you ??

I agree with the first half of your post, but what is wilful intent ??

cool bananas ... greg

Greg my dear Aussie bastard friend,wilful intent is the Will of the Absolute who
"intends" life becomes expressed in relative temporal space and unfolds within a
sequence of evolutionary pressures.
From unconsciousness through to self aware consciousness.



regards michael.

[jag]

Quote:
"jag, maybe you should just buy the beer and be happy we saved you from guessing and estimating [making up] truth without facts...

Hi Austin,

Gee...thanks for the vote of confidence.lol,lol. I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel yet.

jag

[jag]

This is gonna be interesting ...... !!!!

Can you show me a fact that is not true, or a truth that is not a fact ..... ???

Go on, give it a go, I'm really interested ...... lol. If you can, and you can pick 1, or 2, or 3 unbiased posters as judges, I'll send you a six-pack of beer .... but if you can't .... you send me a six-pack.

Done deal ????

cool bananas ... greg :twisted

Hi Greg,

Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true, they would get in one another's way so badly that the work would be greatly delayed. But I don't think that this is a legal argument....lol,lol

I do not consider myself to be a scientist. That is why I said "I would not presume to define truth." Defining truth is better left to the experts.....Which brings me to my point....
Clearly truth exists without being experimentally or mathematically proven. There is truth that is not yet a fact or else what are scientists looking for? They are looking for truth...IMHO. The alternative is that you are makeing it up as you go along. I don't think the scientific community believes that when there is a breakthrough, however small, that they have created a piece of the universe. But, rather, that they have defined another small piece of the truth. I believe this is a legal difference.

As far as showing you a fact that is not true, the proof is in the puddin'. I'm sure we all agree that, in the past, there have been things that were accepted as fact that turned out not to be true....the earth is flat....I'm also sure that today there are things that are accepted as fact that are not entirely true. When the TOE is found and the truth is more fully comprehended and defined, some of the things that are accepted as fact will fall away and be remembered only as facts that were not true. I wish I could point them out to you. Maybe there would be a Nobel Prize in it for me...

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood" The Anamals

jag

[Graybeard]

Hi Greg,

I do not consider myself to be a scientist. That is why I said "I would not presume to define truth." Defining truth is better left to the experts.....Which brings me to my point....
Clearly truth exists without being experimentally or mathematically proven.

There is truth that is not yet a fact or else what are scientists looking for? They are looking for truth...IMHO. The alternative is that you are making it up as you go along. I don't think the scientific community believes that when there is a breakthrough, however small, that they have created a piece of the universe. But, rather, that they have defined another small piece of the truth. I believe this is a legal difference.

As far as showing you a fact that is not true, the proof is in the puddin'. I'm sure we all agree that, in the past, there have been things that were accepted as fact that turned out not to be true....the earth is flat....I'm also sure that today there are things that are accepted as fact that are not entirely true. When the TOE is found and the truth is more fully comprehended and defined, some of the things that are accepted as fact will fall away and be remembered only as facts that were not true. I wish I could point them out to you. Maybe there would be a Nobel Prize in it for me...

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood" The Anamals

jag

Hi Jag .... when I first read this I thought 'Holy Cow, Batman .. I really am up for a 6-Pack'

You have made a really good point. But on reflection, I think that Truth and Facts are eternal.

Some Truth/Fact is obviously unknown. I don't know if I can legally use an adjective with truth: eg: Unknown Truth or Unknown Fact ...

But a simple example would be Newtons discovery of the Universal Law of Gravity, or Darwins Laws of Natural Selection. Prior to the birth of Newton (or Darwin) these truths/facts still existed and were inseparable ... they were still true, always were. Our discovery of them only 'recognises' them, nothing more.

What do you think ? I think you made a good point and I'm willing to call it a draw semantically. But up to you, we can ask someone else to arbitrate.

Also ... regarding 'facts' that turned out to be untrue ... they were never really facts, just our incorrect perceptions. Once again I think we will become bogged in semantics

cool bananas ... greg