what if everything you believed was wrong?

[bluetuesday]

I'll sum up my viewpoint succinctly: In terms of personal experience and consciousness, there cannot be an ultimate truth that cannot be transcended, because you'd have no way of knowing if you've reached an ultimate truth. So the search is destined to carry on until your consciousness ends.

 

what i find generally interesting about this whole argument is the question of logic.

 

you and i broadly agree that it can be argued nothing is real, so what we discuss after that is mental masturbation.

 

yet, the word logic keeps cropping up. it's as if logic is the benchmark and anything that doesn't measure up to what we broadly agree is logical and logically consistent, can be discounted when talking about universality or truth.

 

however, logic is a construct of the knowledge we both undertstand to be fallible and incomplete. you therefore cannot use logic logically to express a certainty. there are none. logic must therefore be a personal logic and since by extension there cannot be a universal logic, it's a useless tool.

 

god exists.

god doesn't exist.

 

one of those statements is true. not a personal truth, not a relative truth, just a truth. one might say whichever of those statements is true is an ultimate truth since both statements cannot be simultaneously true, or false.

 

but this is not about the existence (or not) of god. it's about accepting that some things are universally true. being able to determine which of the statements is true is irrelevant. we know one of them is. we therefore must concede that universal truth exists, even if we also determine that on anything more than a personal level, determining what is true is a matter of guesswork.

 

i see the spiritual path as a journey of self-transcendance without end. spiritually, there is no destination. there is only increasing awareness. there is only the gradual removal of doubt. i can best describe it as a knowingness, as a widening of perspective, as a sense of unity.

 

if you love someone, you know it. you can't prove it to anyone and why should you have to? i imagine you'd be pretty annoyed at their arrogance if someone told you what you knew to be true was just a delusion.

 

Why fill yourself with self-doubt and possible unhappiness by constantly reinforcing your own lack of conviction of your personal truths, which in turn is based upon a set of axioms that you DO have "faith" in...? It just seems counterintuitive to me.

 

you see self-doubt as a weakness, don't you? i know it as a strength.

 

i had to get to the point where i was willing to let go of all my old beliefs and reach for deeper understanding until i was ready to learn what i know now. you cannot learn by clinging on to what you believe is true. you can only learn by letting go and seeing what happens.

 

i am now like a woman with £10million in the bank, being told by you that the loss of a fiver might make me unhappy. what i have gained through being willing to lose everything cannot be measured. my happiness cannot be measured. my knowing deep within my soul that i am heading in the right direction cannot be measured.

 

you see, when i let go, the most astonishing thing happened. i can only fervently wish that one day you discover what it was.

[Nicholas]

we know that false statements can be stated with iron-clad logic. can illogical statements lead conversely to universal truth, if such truth exists?

 

( also: does God derive his power from our lack of knowledge about Him?)

[Nollipap]

god exists.

god doesn't exist.

 

one of those statements is true. not a personal truth, not a relative truth, just a truth. one might say whichever of those statements is true is an ultimate truth since both statements cannot be simultaneously true, or false.

 

but this is not about the existence (or not) of god. it's about accepting that some things are universally true. being able to determine which of the statements is true is irrelevant. we know one of them is. we therefore must concede that universal truth exists, even if we also determine that on anything more than a personal level, determining what is true is a matter of guesswork.

 

This is an excellent bit of writing. So let's delve a little deeper...

 

I agree 100% with your statement (although I'd like to reword it it somewhat - please object if you feel that I am misrepresenting your intent) that we should accept that reality posesses a certain fundamental "state", and that this "state" (and the constituent "components" thereof), represent a truth.

 

However, I would like to point out that your example contains a fundamental dichotomy, a true vs. false "state-possibility". It may be possible that opposites do not exist at all, and that a binary representation of a considered "constituent" may not be the correct view at all.

 

For all we know, we are seeing "truth" as a black-or-white state due to our limited perspective, a side-effect of our cognitive processes, perhaps.

 

It could be possible that both your statements are true, and/or false, at the same time. This counterintuitive statement results from the consideration that truth-state may not be axiomatic at all, but instead, probabalistic.

 

This has the implication that "truth" does not exist as a formal result of a boolean satisfiability problem. This implies that any acceptance of a certain "truth", turns the considered "truth" into an axiom. This, of course, is self-referential as to the existence of "truth" itself.

 

Thus, a view that truth does not exists, is axiomatic. The opposing view (yours), that it does exist, is just as axiomatic, and just as valid (or invalid), when taken in the larger context.

 

This is why I asked what your axioms are. Human cognition being what it is, we usually find that an analysis of our axioms, usually yields further atoms or axioms. Usually, our belief sets are not deterministic at all, but a finely interbalanced structure of mutually supporting atoms. Whether the axioms hold or not is besides the point, we need them in order to have a belief structure in the first place.

 

This is the key to recognising and understanding what you hold as true, and may answer the original question, which is "what if everything you believed was wrong", because removing a certain axiom from your belief structure, may cause it to topple entirely.

 

As a personal testimony to this idea, my personal belief structure used to have the classic Christian god as a fundamental axiom. Further exploration of the world around us, made me doubt this axiom, and when I decided to remove it, my whole cognitive structure collapsed, and in the process, a new one was rebuilt in its place.

 

However, one needs discipline when doing this, because you should never allow "negativist axioms" (e.g "God does not exist") to be used as bricks for your belief structure. Only positivist axioms are allowed, because you cannot logically argue a negative. This meant that I had to build a belief structure where the existence of god is irrelevant (no axioms exist stating whether that is true or not), and it's highly satisfying, if only at least, as a "personal truth".

 

Whether that question is true or not (on a personal level), is a result, not an axiom. If my belief structure could be considered a computational engine, then when asked the question whether god exists, it will yield the answer "undecidable, but probabalistically unlikely considering the available data". Whether this is correct or not, is of course utterly besides the point, as that cannot be determined on universal scale. It may be compared to other "answers", which yields further questions. You will recognise that what I'm describing is nothing other than the mechanics of human philosophy itself

 

As an aside, you could also consider a person's "intelligence" as a measure of how involved and process-complete that person's belief structure is. In other words, how complex it is in terms of axioms, and much of the belief structure's web-like complexity is used when considering an outcome to a question, that is fed into it.

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion.

[bluetuesday]

It could be possible that both your statements are true, and/or false, at the same time. This counterintuitive statement results from the consideration that truth-state may not be axiomatic at all, but instead, probabalistic.

 

which in turn supposes an axiom that probability can theoretically prove the existence of concurrent states, if i'm not mistaken.

 

schrodinger's cat was not both alive and dead. even with 50% probability of both states, only one state would be technically correct. until the cat was 100% dead it would be 100% alive. the states of life and death cannot simultaneously co-exist because one is the absence of the other. the same is true for light and dark and for truth and untruth. whether we label these states as opposites or whether you can make a case for half-light or a critical mass of truth, is something else.

 

This has the implication that "truth" does not exist as a formal result of a boolean satisfiability problem. This implies that any acceptance of a certain "truth", turns the considered "truth" into an axiom. This, of course, is self-referential as to the existence of "truth" itself.

 

Thus, a view that truth does not exists, is axiomatic. The opposing view (yours), that it does exist, is just as axiomatic, and just as valid (or invalid), when taken in the larger context.

 

so what's the big deal about axioms? are you saying that as soon as you formulate an idea into a personal truth, you stop being impartial and use that truth to back up anything you want to prove? i do wish you'd talk english.

 

IF that's what you're saying, where is your proof than axioms determine thought and belief patterns and not the other way around?

 

none of us experience the world in a vacuum. you seem to be saying that the very belief that the world CAN be experienced is an axiom, and therefore will colour your view of that experience. we could go back and back and tear down every belief structure. but we'd still hold to the axiom that structures could be torn down.

 

since you asked, my axioms about god are these.

 

the search for god is relevant.

human beings have free will to choose.

irrefutable evidence that god exists would undermine free will not to choose to believe in god.

god cannot be understood, god can only be experienced.

if god does not exist, he ought to.

humans search for meaning because they know intuitively there is more to the world than what can be experienced with the physical senses.

god is always more than can be comprehended.

 

This is the key to recognising and understanding what you hold as true, and may answer the original question, which is "what if everything you believed was wrong", because removing a certain axiom from your belief structure, may cause it to topple entirely.

 

As a personal testimony to this idea, my personal belief structure used to have the classic Christian god as a fundamental axiom. Further exploration of the world around us, made me doubt this axiom, and when I decided to remove it, my whole cognitive structure collapsed, and in the process, a new one was rebuilt in its place.

 

the classic christian god also used to be an axiom of mine. as did the fact that jesus was the only son of god.

 

but when i got to the point of being willing to discard my old beliefs in the search for truth, in essence when i was ready to say 'yes' to the question i asked in my original post, something became very clear to me. well, two things actually.

 

1. the concept of no longer believing in god was, is and always will be, preposterous. anyone who can stop can never have experienced god consciously. if you have experienced god consciously, unbelief becomes an impossibility. god is as real to me as anything else i have experienced on this planet.

 

2. being willing to question and discard my classical christian beliefs wasn't a big deal. because they were add-ons to the reality. they were a structure for it but they weren't it. the 'it' still remained when i had nothing to hang on it or shape it. my sense of god was not dependent upon the add-ons. god was independent of them. so the add-ons didn't matter. because i would rather be right and not know, than wrong and know. you know?

 

This meant that I had to build a belief structure where the existence of god is irrelevant (no axioms exist stating whether that is true or not), and it's highly satisfying, if only at least, as a "personal truth".

 

it may be satisfying intellectually. but you have not yet learned the lesson that there is vastly more to life than what can be experienced intellectually.

 

If my belief structure could be considered a computational engine, then when asked the question whether god exists, it will yield the answer "undecidable, but probabalistically unlikely considering the available data".

 

then it has not considered the available data. a few years ago a scientist called dr stephen unwin started with the assumption of a 50/50 chance of god existing and then used bayes' theory to calculate the probability of an omnipotent being. guess what?

 

As an aside, you could also consider a person's "intelligence" as a measure of how involved and process-complete that person's belief structure is. In other words, how complex it is in terms of axioms, and much of the belief structure's web-like complexity is used when considering an outcome to a question, that is fed into it.

 

i guess that depends on the parameters you use to measure intelligence. certainly it is not intelligent to believe without questioning. but neither is it intelligent to reduce everything to theoretical arguments stating that nothing can be either proved nor disproved. not to mention the lack of imagination both of these states display.

 

to question a belief is to look for an answer. to find an answer is to stop questioning. i believe it is only those who never stop questioning who are truly intelligent. although by my own rationale, i continue to question that.

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion.

 

are we discussing something? oh sorry, i just thought we were showing how many long words we knew.

[Nicholas]

if god does not exist, he ought to.

 

[blind_otter]

 

are we discussing something? oh sorry, i just thought we were showing how many long words we knew.

 

 

"I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy."

 

Fred Hoyle

[bluetuesday]

can illogical statements lead conversely to universal truth, if such truth exists?

 

i don't see why not, if such truth exists. i guess illogical statements could lead to truth in a refining, process of elimiation sort of way. i believe learning to recognise what is illogical has helped me to grow, spiritually, towards a truer truth. is this what you meant?

 

( also: does God derive his power from our lack of knowledge about Him?)

 

if he does he must be very powerful indeed.

[Nicholas]

i believe learning to recognise what is illogical has helped me to grow, spiritually, towards a truer truth.

 

is truth your goal?

 

lately i've felt like i'm just along for the ride.

[Guest]

Ask God what you need to know, He is always there and always has been.

satan is who makes you have doubts, so for everyone's sake tell satan to clear off!

[bluetuesday]

is truth your goal?

 

no. oneness is my goal. but truth is the way to oneness, so i guess truth is more like a free kick just outside the penalty area.

 

people just along for the ride get to see what the driver misses. it's never a waste.

[Guest]

the search for god is relevant.

...

irrefutable evidence that god exists would undermine free will not to choose to believe in god.

god cannot be understood, god can only be experienced.

if god does not exist, he ought to.

humans search for meaning because they know intuitively there is more to the world than what can be experienced with the physical senses.

god is always more than can be comprehended.

 

These are all explanations, not axioms. The only axiom is this one:

 

human beings have free will to choose.

 

I'm not so certain that you distinguish between your axioms and your set of questions that you require validation for.

[bluetuesday]

...that you require validation for.

 

:laugh:

 

thanks for the chat. i always learn something from you. x

[Guest]

:laugh:

 

thanks for the chat. i always learn something from you. x

 

Your behaviour certainly doesn't represent that of a humble "seeker of truth".

 

You are not seeking truth. You are seeking validation for your set of beliefs, and you do not recognise the difference.

 

A good day to you.

[bluetuesday]

Your behaviour certainly doesn't represent that of a humble "seeker of truth".

 

You are not seeking truth. You are seeking validation for your set of beliefs, and you do not recognise the difference.

 

A good day to you.

 

see? i TOLD you i always learn something!!

 

today i learned that because you see your beliefs as logical, you are unwilling to see them challenged in any way. so when i don't validate or accept those beliefs, instead of facing the possibility that there might be holes in your thinking, you decide you don't want to talk anymore.

 

if i made you feel uncomfortable, ask yourself why. my lack of belief in your beliefs shouldn't threaten or affect you in any way. if it does, perhaps YOUR beliefs are the problem, not mine.

 

if you knew me, you would know that my spiritual beliefs today are very different from when i first joined the shack, for example. the reason they are different is that i AM a seeker of the truth and i am unafraid to take an impartial and objective look at what i believe and challenge it.

 

it is through challenging it that my beliefs changed. and i continue to challenge what i believe. i don't expect to believe exactly what i believe today in ten years' time. if i do, something will be wrong. i hope to have grown in understanding. rigid, unbending belief is for spiritually dead people. i am alive, and so is my consciousness and understanding. it is anything but rigid.

 

but i need no validation whatsoever for what i believe and i don't worry or get insecure when people don't believe what i do. neither do i feel irritated when people don't share my beliefs. i am on this path alone and the only person i am answerable to, is me.

 

yes, i know i don't fit into a neat little box of how you think i should be. again, not my problem. i am happy, i am fulfilled and i am doing what's right for me. that is all i want for myself and i wholeheartedly wish you the same sort of success.

 

have a great life. and i mean that sincerely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you may of course answer if you want the last word.