manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

This is rapidly ascending into ancient philosophy; Plato and Forms; Aristotle and the proper mean, etc., or physics and other sciences where successive approximations to some t***hs (not all by any means) may be found as time goes on. Softer sciences seem to have made progress towards establishing the t***h of the mind versus the brain and clinical treatments that work. Not so much in the science of economics, I believe. I also believe that social sciences are in almost total disarray,and are veering away from t***h.

debeda

Well...I'm trying to be simple. IE, when someone PURPOSELY propagates something they either do not have a clue about or know not to be fact, that is unt***hful.therefore NOT the t***h.

woodguru

Please, the ignorance runs so deep it's funny

debeda

Project Veritas is actually one of the few media outlets that actually does do investigative journalism.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I'm confused. Are you seeking the t***h of reality, or the reality of t***h?

What is absolute reality?

“What is reality?” is one of the great philosophical questions. To be fair, one could argue that it’s the core question of philosophy, religion, science, and so forth. To refine the question slightly, “Is there such a thing as ‘absolute’ reality, and, if so, what exactly is it?” Of course, trying to define reality is beyond a brief discussion, a single article, or even an entire ministry. It’s a subject literally beyond any one person. That being said, there are unique Christian perspectives on the nature of reality. These may not answer every question, but they can point us in better directions.

First of all, a common term used to reference reality is t***h. T***h is that which corresponds to reality—it is the word used to describe things that actually are as opposed to those things that are not. This is important in the context of discussing “absolute” reality, which is inevitably the same thing as absolute t***h. Reality (t***h) must, eventually, be absolute, or else there is no such thing as reality at all. If reality is not absolute—if there is no ultimate, single, all-encompassing t***h—then there is literally nothing else to discuss. All statements of all kinds would be equally valid or wholly invalid, and there would be no meaningful difference.

The very nature of the question “what is reality (t***h)” assumes a subject that can be defined by statements that are either true or false—accurate or inaccurate—real or unreal—actual or nonexistent. Even those who claim everything is relative must make an absolute statement about the way all things are. In other words, there is absolutely no escape from absolute reality and no denying some form of absolute t***h. A person who chooses to jettison that idea is simply operating outside of the bounds of logic.

With that in mind, we can refer to “absolute reality” either as “reality” or “t***h” and go from there. The Bible clearly espouses a belief in reality vs. fiction (Psalm 119:163) and that we can in fact know the difference (Proverbs 13:5; Ephesians 4:25). This has applications in spirituality, philosophy, and daily life. Some things are (they are true, they are real), and some things are not (they are false, they are not real) beyond personal opinion or knowledge.

Spiritually speaking, the idea of “t***h” implies that not all religious ideas can be true. Christ said He is “the Way, the T***h, and the Life” (John 14:6), and that statement necessarily means that claims contradictory to His cannot be true. This exclusivity is further supported by passages such as John 3:18 and John 3:36, which clearly state that those who reject Christ cannot hope for salvation. There is no “reality” in the idea of salvation apart from Christ.

Philosophically, the fact that the Bible references t***h is useful. Certain philosophical views question whether or not human beings are capable of really knowing what is real. According to the Bible, it is possible for a person to know the difference between t***h and falsehood (Zechariah 10:2) and between fact and fiction (Revelation 22:15). In particular, this is knowledge at an “ultimate” level, not merely on a personal, experiential level. We can, in fact, have insight into some aspect of absolute reality. Contrary to philosophies that claim man cannot know, such as solipsism, Scripture says we have a means to see at least some of the critical t***hs of absolute reality.

In daily life, the Bible’s stance on reality precludes ideas such as moral relativism. According to Scripture, moral t***h exists, and anything opposed to it is sin (Psalm 11:7; 19:9; James 4:17). One of the longest-running philosophical debates is over the difference between “abstract” realities and “concrete” realities. Concepts such as “length,” “happiness,” or “the number four” are not concrete themselves. However, they do have a meaningful connection to concrete things. Biblically speaking, the same is true of concepts such as justice, good, sin, and so forth. You cannot fill a jar with “good” in the same way you can fill a jar with sand, but that does not mean “good” is not true—or “real”—in a meaningful way.

With that idea in mind, we can also distinguish between abstractions that exist and those that technically do not exist. Evil is one such abstraction. Sin is “real” in the same sense that “good” is real—but neither of them is concrete. That is, there is no physical particle or energy that God created as a unit of good or of sin. However, both are “real.” The difference is that sin, in and of itself, is defined only in terms of the absence of goodness. In other words, sin is only “real” in the sense that goodness is real, and sin is the lack of goodness.

In other words, God can create “good,” as an ideal or an abstraction, and sin can “exist” where there is a lack of goodness. This is not as convoluted as it sounds—we make the same distinction in physics. “Darkness” is an abstraction, but it corresponds to something real: the absence of light, which (depending on the sense we are using) is a real, physical thing made of photons. “Cold” is an abstraction, but it corresponds to the absence of heat—heat being a “real” thing. Neither darkness nor coldness exist in and of themselves; they are both defined entirely as a lack of something else. “Length” is not a substance or a concrete thing but is an abstraction with implications for the concrete world. “Shortness,” then, is only real in that it’s the lack of “length.”

As part of understanding the Bible’s stance on absolute reality, it’s critically important to separate the “reality” of experiences from the “reality” they are caused by. Human beings have the ability to use their minds to parse the difference between experiences and thoughts, in order to compare them to a more objective “reality.” This is not entirely intuitive; part of the uniqueness of human beings is the knowledge that our feelings and experiences are not always reliable (Jeremiah 17:9) and thus need to be compared to something objective (Romans 12:2; 1 John 4:1). This is not the same as solipsism, of course, since Christianity presumes that there is some actual, real point of comparison that we can know.

That, more or less, brings the idea of t***h, or “reality,” full-circle. According to Christianity, “absolute reality” is t***h, “t***h” is what actually exists and that corresponds to what is real, and the most important aspects of t***h are given to us by God. Reality can be known, and it applies to all aspects of our lives, according to the Bible.

There may not be a uniquely Christian definition of absolute reality, because virtually all people agree on what the term means. There is, however, a uniquely Christian perspective on reality, because not all people agree on what reality itself is.

No search for the T***h of our existence can succeed without the equal application of just five fields of knowledge (disciplines), and these are:
* Metaphysics - the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles, abstract concepts, such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time and space.
* Epistemology - the theory of knowledge with regard to its methods, validity and scope. It is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
* Ethics - the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
* Anthropology - the study of human societies and cultures and their development, the study of human biological and physiological characteristics and their evolution.
* Theology - the study of God and religious beliefs and theories when systematically developed.

Ignore any one of these disciplines and your search for t***h will fail.

Four fundamental questions have challenged mankind since men began thinking about such things:
* Origin - where did this all come from? How did we get here?
* Meaning - why are we here? What is the purpose for our existence?
* Morality - if there is a purpose for our existence, what are the rules necessary to fulfill that purpose?
* Destiny - if there is a purpose in all of this, where does it lead? To what end? Is there an end?

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

========================

Not to be facetious but my answer is YES! Both! Then too, you have posted a piece whose content I was thinking about posting myself! You really beat me to the punch! Again! Good show! I, too, use Got Questions.

Then there is the question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

federally indicted mattoid

Awww, is someone having a sad?

When you've listened to a conman for a few years, you too might have problems with reality. TM

debeda

Just keep listening to Bribem and company. Soon you won't be able to hold a thought in your head either

federally indicted mattoid

Well ... it would be nice to finally have something in common with my fellow countrymen of the R persuasion...

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Manning, If there was nothing, there would be no one, including you, to ask the question - or any question. ...nor would there be anyone to answer the question.

"This is the question Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) posed in regards to the origin of the universe as a part of his argument for the existence of God.

Here is a brief and simplified explanation of what has come to be known as the Leibniz Contingency Argument, or the Leibniz Cosmological Argument (cosmology being the study of the origin of the cosmos, or universe).

The logic of the argument goes like this:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

As with all such logical arguments, if the premises are true (points 1-3), than the conclusion must be true (point 4). The question is whether or not the first three points or more likely to be true than they are false.

Certainly everyone would agree that the universe exists, so at least we are safe with point number 3.

But what about points 1 and 2? Is it accurate to say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence and that the sole explanation for the existence of the universe is God?

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

In our everyday experiences, we expect there to be an explanation for the things we encounter. Common illustrations of this given are wandering in the woods and discovering a pocket watch.

We would not be intellectually satisfied with saying that the pocket watch is just there. We would explain its existence by concluding that it was left there by someone.

Or imagine how incredulous you would be if you were being told that Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than intentionally carved!

Or better yet, think of a simpler example. If you encounter tire tracks in the mud, you would immediately come to the conclusion that a vehicle had passed through. Even a simple, somewhat sloppy pattern in the wet dirt is enough for you to begin seeking an explanation outside of natural causes. (See Tire Track Apologetics for more on this example).

Whether it is muddy tire tracks, a massive sculpture, or the entire universe, we rightly expect that things which exist have an explanation.

But wouldn’t this mean God needs an explanation outside of Himself? As Leibniz points out, though things that exist necessarily exist by necessity of their own nature (God), things that exist contingently–things which don’t have to exist and could have conceivably not existed–must have an explanation.

This is the reason for his initial question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Unlike God, who has always existed in and of Himself, there is no reason to assume that the universe had to exist. and therefore its existence is contingent on being caused to exist. As such, it requires an explanation.

Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

So if everything that exists requires an explanation, or cause, for its existence (point 1) and if the universe exists (point 3), what is the most likely explanation?

For the universe to exist contingently, argues Leibniz, it must have an external explanation. And if the universe has a cause, it follows that the cause cannot be a part of the universe.

Instead, the explanation for the universe must be both “non-physical and immaterial.” It must be outside of the universe, beyond space and time.

Since non-intelligent, abstract objects cannot cause anything to exist, the options for how the universe came to be becomes limited to that which is non-physical, immaterial, exists necessarily and outside of space and time. In a word: God.

Those who reject the Contingency or Cosmological Argument typically do so in disagreeing with this second premise. They are not satisfied that the only acceptable explanation for the universe is God. Some, like the philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), asked “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?”1

To that, many apologists would reply that for the universe to be that which exists necessarily it would have to be eternal. Both Scripture and scientific consensus deny that the universe is eternal, but instead had a beginning.

Since the universe began to exist as a point in time, and “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” this objection to premise 2 is addressed.2

Conclusion

Though this logical argument may not be received as air-tight, undeniable evidence for God’s existence by a skeptic, it is nevertheless a strong apologetic that has stood the test of time.

However, the Leibniz Contingency Argument clearly is not formulated to present the God of the Bible as the one true God.

Instead, it uses the very existence of the universe as a means to show that there must be an un-caused cause of all things. It argues that there must be a Creator of the universe. There must be a God.

It is special revelation, the Old and New Testaments as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, which ultimately points people to God the Father and Jesus Christ, His Son."


1 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9

2 For more on this, see the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, B) The universe began to exist, and C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument

federally indicted mattoid

In terms everyone can understand. Carl Sagan from an era of yore.

https://youtu.be/ADqBLaTpAKM

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Carl Sagan was incorrect, and he's dead.

God is alive, and His Word stands.

Wonttakeitanymore

I read epic times or wnd! And a few others! It disgusts me to real some of these zombies diatribe or drivel! Hard to believe these people are human! That’s why I cl them Zombies! Trying to spend less time observing, it’s way too sad!