What makes you think that mankind has the faculty to assess truth? Green is merely human sensing of light's wave length. There is no such thing as green in REALITY! Also, what is green to you will appear to be a shade of gray to many many people. So are we really in the position to claim that what appears real to us is universally the truth? Not if we are to be honest about our human limiations. You have a lot more growing to do, sir, in the realm of intellectual honesty.
Dr. Moreland's definition of truth has been very effectively refuted. He seems to be unaware of this and this is very disappointing to see from such a prominent Christian apologist.
His definition of truth is the correspondence theory of truth, which many philosophers have criticized and most have abandoned since it can't account for every true statement. Wittgenstein elegantly shows this with his thought experiment "the beetle in the box".
does post-modernists debate over simple facts like a 2 inch line or 2+2=4? is that what post-modernists do...debate about everything?!!!! i need help with this confusing postmodern philosphy! someone please help me understand it better!!!
You really fold under questioning and can't keep your story straight. This is evidenced by your 3 contradictory statements below:
1. 'the clerk believes that you are the actual owner of the account based on her trust in the system. If she or the bank didn't believe this they would give you no money'
2. 'They believe that I am their client based on evidence'
3. 'prove that believe to be true using the laws of logic.'
You finally agree that truth can only be based on proven logic!
I am not playing devil's advocate, I just really dont understand what you are talking about. Proof is a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it.
(Proof is a formal series of statements showing that IF ....true)
Proof doesn't depend on whether IF something is true. Because that something also has to be proven true, and this is circular definition.
And this is obviously the case in the system of logic known as Quantum Logic, where proof does NOT depend on any prior condition of truth. The proof is intrinsic in the definition of the system's axioms.
You are injecting an 'observer' into the definition of proof. It is not necessarily the case. This is why you can't define it.
Bank example:
You can do banking transactions online without going to the bank. The banking system still does all the necessary verifications to prove that it is YOUR designated ID that is doing transactions.
Therefore, truth & proof has nothing to do with people and their beliefs!
Truth by definition is a concept used to identify the validity of a propositional statement. When the statement is proven to be true or false, then the statement is said to validated by proof.
Truth can ONLY be ascertained from PROOF. Without proof, there is NO truth; there can only be belief in this case.
Since truth can ONLY be ascertained from proof, therefore relative truth and absolute truth are impossible!
Yes my bank does believe that I am the account holder, because I am. So their believe would be true, because it corresponds with reality. I agree with most of what you said, truth is truth even if nobody believes it. But you say truth is proven by a system of logic. Can you prove this statement using a system of logic? If not how do we know its true?
(Yes my bank does believe that I am the account holder)
Wrong! No bank on this planet *believes* anybody is an account holder. If this was the case, anybody could walk into a bank claiming to be you, and based on belief (which you say) they would get your money.
Obviously, this is NOT the case as everybody's account would be compromized. You see, you believe this, that's why you cant prove it. And just one exception invalidates your statement.
This is the *system of logic* banks use for their assessment of anybodys claim to any money or account.
Once you pass the minimum requirements of their system of logic, you have been *verified* to be the account holder.
This is the PROOF of their system. And they are entitled to impose whatever security requirements they see fit to get their proof. You make sure you memorize this word and its implications in real life!
If your life is based solely on beliefs, you dont need proof.
If you disagree, then show just one rational exception to this case that cannot be refuted.
Only beliefs, opinions, subjectivity, etc. are excluded from this case.
You can subjectively deal with your peers based on belief. But all other objective aspects of society require you to conform to their system of proof.
And you obviously you DO without realizing it - you deal with employers, courts, banks, etc
(Can you prove this statement using a system of logic?)
YES! Using the system of Classical Logic, we verify that every objective aspect of human life which *requires validation*, that validation is obtained via the specific system of logic utilized by the domain in question. It is what it is, and its not what its not!
Systems of logic are used to validate truth scenarios within the MANY systems society has:
- academia (people's abilities confirmed via tests/marks/scores)
- employment (management hires you with validation based on resume & references. Then continually verifies your quality of work, otherwise you're fired)
....and so on...
every objective aspect of society functions by way of validation ie. their own system of logic & proof.
You are PART of this system yourself!!!!
Only subjective aspects don't use logic & proof, like anything to do with one's opinions, beliefs, etc.
Are you really suggesting that banks don't believe their clients are account holders? When you walk into a bank and give them your account number the clerk believes that you are the actual owner of the account based on her trust in the system. If she or the bank didn't believe this they would give you no money. I think we maybe getting our wires crossed, before we go any further I think you need to define the word believe for me.
(banks don't believe their clients are account holders?)
Clients?
How does YOUR bank institution believe that I am their client?
AND when I walk into the institution impersonating YOU, will they give me money from your account WITHOUT verifying my identity via signatures, name, address, or whatever system of proof they use?
Is this the nonsense that you are alluding to?
Cause if it is, I would have taking all your money a loooooong time ago!
I really think you are missing the point. My point is, I can have a believe and then prove that believe to be true using the laws of logic. Its as simple as that.
They believe that I am their client based on evidence, signature, name, address, etc. After this information has been given, the bank rightly believes that I am the account holder. Of course they just don't believe that anyone is the account holder, they believe that the person who fits the criteria is the account holder. You seem to be avoiding my questions, do you really think that a bank would give away money to a person without believing that the person is the real account holder?
(I am their client based on evidence, signature, name, address, etc.)
Aha! So you DO fold under questioning! A wager will always change somebody's tune.
Exactly! Every time any individual requests a transaction on YOUR account, the bank will ALWAYS *validate* that person AND the transaction under their system of proof!
(They believe ...)
Well here is your pressing issue: How can you prove what they believe, when you CANT read their minds?
Get a letter from your bank in writing stating exactly what they BELIEVE.
Just make things fair and legit, if you can't post an image of that bank letter on the internet, then you will only have to PayPal me $500 US. This is a 20:1 hedge over me and MORE than fair. I am a gentleman of my word, I have a conscience, and I am always more than fair to my fellow brothers.
Do you agree with this more than fair (to you) gentleman's wager?
If yes, then your next post to me should indicate a web address where I can view this bank letter, as discussed, along with your PayPal account so I can deposit $10000 US in it.
If no, then you have proven that YOU don't believe your OWN statement, that bank transactions are based on belief, and all you are doing is lying and trolling around here.
You ask can I prove what I believe, whenever we are dealing with prove we have to work with percentages, what is mostly likely to be true. I mean there are very few things that we can prove to be 100% accurate, but we have to look at the evidence and ask what best explains it. For example I believe that the world is round, I have never been up to space and seen it for my self, but I believe it to be so because it best explains the data.
Pilate asked Jesus this same very question. Jesus gave him no reply and no defense of what was the truth. Pilate couldn't handle the truth if explained to him. There is one true God and one true savior. This is not up for debate. Believe it or you don't..
It's the truth of Jesus that will make you free. There are many "truths" about Jesus but there is only one truth about Jesus that will set you free. Matthew 7:21-23
No, Jesus is not the Truth. If it is, Jesus would have said, " I will make you free, instead of he said truth will make you free. This proves that there is a Truth which is not Jesus that will make you free.
True to theist form, Moreland attempts to reduce the complex observation of truth to a simple "black and white" concept and tuck it neatly into a comfortable little box. However, he fails to take into consideration that both truth and reality depend greatly on the observers perception. But, I suppose that this matters little to the mindless bleating sheep who couldnt be bothered to work these concepts out for themselves. Pathetic.
If he's going to belabor his explanation of correspondence theory, he might as well try to at least get it right. Truth is NOT the "matching relationship". Truth IS A PROPERTY OF A PROPOSITION (belief, assertion, statement, claim, etc) that applies IF the "matching relationship" holds. He's writing books about this, and he can't even get the most basic stuff right?
Who else thinks that we should give up on this whole truth concept,because thats really all it is,it's a concept people have come to accept. Lets start figuring out what beauty and love is. I mean, how much time do we really have left?
Truth is not defined. The definition he gives still allows for paradoxes.
There are more recent attempts, for example language/metalanguage approach (that is IMO more compatible with christianity: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways"), that avoid them and I would rather go that way.
I don't like to argue by reading lists so here's something else: On what grounds do we discount it? Everybody (religious or not) all treat their conscience (which is external to their will) as a prophet with perfect authority. Everybody listens to a "ghost".
Sociobiologists try to cancel this by saying that it is only camouflaged survival strategies, but this seems self refuting. After all, must not your reasoning powers be the same (and survival has no duty to truth).
No maurieer, that is not what he said. "Truth is a matching relationship between a thought (knowledge claim) and reality (the subject of the claim". Literally the first of his points.
Get your money back from The Dick Dawkins Dojo of Argument. The man is a swindler.
PeteUTonic, how many renowned universities ya got in Sweeden? And how many are in America?
this is not peculiar to j.p Moreland. this is Aristotle, the father of formal logic. Nobody who does not know him can claim to be versed in "logic". A complete defense of religious experience is impossible in this space. Denyse O'Leary's Spirtual Brain would be a good place to start. As for the "insanity" hypothesis for religious experience, read "the Three Christ of Ypsilanti" where you will find that two things are rather easy to separate. As for bush, believe no politican, anywhere.
What is logic? Logic, like truth, is in the mind of the beholder.
A believer in a personal god, which watches and listens to a believers(this is truth to them), every thought and action, every second of their life until they die, just so that this personal god can send them to it`s personal heaven for an afterlife of eternal worship.
For non-believers? There`s something for them too. An eternity in a fiery hell.
He's saying that truth is that which corresponds to reality. He's using the correct vs. incorrect concept of truth. That's a very narrow concept of truth and not one which is found in the bible.
Truth is more than that. Truth sets people free. How can a "correct fact" set someone free? True love... how can that be "that which corresponds to reality." True love is true, but it's not factually provable.
He's defining relativism - my personal evaluation of truth - instead of the TRUTH objectively Who is Almighty God existing outside of time and space Who became Incarnate in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ!
We are one who maked that Universe with Mindpower. Everything what you doing for other, you doing for yourself!
Everything is energy. mass dont change to energy. density energyconcentration changing all a time to not so density energyconcentration.
its mean that atoms nucleus expanding alla time and nucleus emit expanding energy, where is expanding electrons and expanding photons. And thats the way it is!
I can explain everything with one power! Look my, 1. Idea from Kuopio, video!
Aristotle put it this way (in the Metaphysics 1011b25):
"To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true."
Of course the dictatorship of relativism can get around what he says by saying that there's no ultimate reality, that "reality" is conditioned by one's perspective. Faithful subjects of this regime love sayings like this: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
So both "A" and "B" are correct? NO. I watched this a while ago and if I remember it correctly he states his assertion as follows: "reality makes it true not your thinking. Reality is the basis of truth" What you are saying is relativism.
Thats only half correct. you left out one part. The though must then be in line with what is (reality). Without this last step we are left with relativism and thats not what he is espousing.
Reality is the way i take it to be(his statement.)
So it depends on the chemical make-up in the brain. Try and reason with someone who has delusions of being controlled by a supernatural power. Like a God.
Interesting. I'm making a series of vids which are going to be directly attacking the view on truth which he espouses here. I have an interesting proof that the correspondence theory of truth makes in impossible to understand the Lord's Prayer :-) I hope I can finish it before you leave for your nuptials.
I will keep an eye open for it. If you can, also include what you think a better view of truth is In your mind. If you even think truth can be understood at all.
JP Moreland is a first class intellectual and his commitment to Christ is evident. I sincerely hope that those jokers who suppose they are proclaiming Christ while making no effort to ensure that their assertions are theologically accurate and philosophically adequate will stop, step aside, and listen to ambassadors like Moreland.
@TSIXLES: Is your whole statement you wrote just your opinion?
Or should WE take WHAT you said as being TRUE?
Bolagh 4 months ago
Yes the bank must verify you are the holder of the account. What about when
someone steals your ID?Electronically or otherwise, the bank takes the evidence
that the crook provides and verify that yes, the crook is the holder of the account.
Yes the Id has the crooks photo on it, along with all your relevant information.
But for some reason, the teller is not quite feeling ok with this. She
asks the crook,"What is your mothers maiden name?".OOOps, You
get a free ride to bubbas crib!
jossalv1 7 months ago
What makes you think that mankind has the faculty to assess truth? Green is merely human sensing of light's wave length. There is no such thing as green in REALITY! Also, what is green to you will appear to be a shade of gray to many many people. So are we really in the position to claim that what appears real to us is universally the truth? Not if we are to be honest about our human limiations. You have a lot more growing to do, sir, in the realm of intellectual honesty.
thre3eplus 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you had the truth in you, you would know that everything we see on this earth will be destroyed soon.
56IAM 10 months ago
Dr. Moreland's definition of truth has been very effectively refuted. He seems to be unaware of this and this is very disappointing to see from such a prominent Christian apologist.
Gijreb 1 year ago
Schrödinger's cat, is it dead or alive? The truth please.
Panopticonable 1 year ago 4
this is nonsense.
There is no truth, absolute, relative or otherwise.
When you say something is true you are just giving your personal opinion on the matter. Don't think so? Then tell me what truths you "know".
opinions on what is true or not are a dime a dozen.
tsixles 1 year ago
His definition of truth is the correspondence theory of truth, which many philosophers have criticized and most have abandoned since it can't account for every true statement. Wittgenstein elegantly shows this with his thought experiment "the beetle in the box".
Mig440 1 year ago 2
does post-modernists debate over simple facts like a 2 inch line or 2+2=4? is that what post-modernists do...debate about everything?!!!! i need help with this confusing postmodern philosphy! someone please help me understand it better!!!
856956sinewavetones 2 years ago
jp,
You really fold under questioning and can't keep your story straight. This is evidenced by your 3 contradictory statements below:
1. 'the clerk believes that you are the actual owner of the account based on her trust in the system. If she or the bank didn't believe this they would give you no money'
2. 'They believe that I am their client based on evidence'
3. 'prove that believe to be true using the laws of logic.'
You finally agree that truth can only be based on proven logic!
fatfist 2 years ago
I think we must be using a different language or something, lets make it simple. Would you please define the word proof for me.
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
(Would you please define the word proof for me)
Playing devil's advocate just for the sake of devil's advocate, won't get you anywhere in life.
You need to take charge and actually solve problems and define the words that make or break your argument.
Here is what you said earlier:
3. 'prove that believe to be true using the laws of logic.'
Homework:
Define this word proof that you spoke of in that sentence, so that it can be used CONSISTENTLY with examples in society.
fatfist 2 years ago
Let me give you a hint to help you out.
Hint: remember, each bank has their own verification system that outlines the set of logical rules in their system of transactional proof.
Eg.
- some require signature & photo id.
- others will additionally require bank card + pin, and fingerprint verification
- while others: iris verification
But that is what constitutes their proof. Proof is obviously not based on probability, belief, or human opinions, like you claimed earlier.
fatfist 2 years ago
I am not playing devil's advocate, I just really dont understand what you are talking about. Proof is a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it.
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
(Proof is a formal series of statements showing that IF ....true)
Proof doesn't depend on whether IF something is true. Because that something also has to be proven true, and this is circular definition.
And this is obviously the case in the system of logic known as Quantum Logic, where proof does NOT depend on any prior condition of truth. The proof is intrinsic in the definition of the system's axioms.
fatfist 2 years ago
(a formal series of statements showing )
Here's another hint to help you out:
You are injecting an 'observer' into the definition of proof. It is not necessarily the case. This is why you can't define it.
Bank example:
You can do banking transactions online without going to the bank. The banking system still does all the necessary verifications to prove that it is YOUR designated ID that is doing transactions.
Therefore, truth & proof has nothing to do with people and their beliefs!
fatfist 2 years ago
So what do you believe to be true about the nature of reality?
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
Truth hangs on the relationship between words, not between reality and subject.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
If you see a pen on a table, and I say to you "the pen is on the table," What makes that a true statement?
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
The linguistic construction of the identity of the objects (i.e. 'pen', 'table' ect...).
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Jesus makes it clear.
John 14:6 (New International Version) 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
ZerCKoRyn 2 years ago
you've missed the entire point.
rottenspectre 2 years ago
no i didnt
ZerCKoRyn 2 years ago
Truth by definition is a concept used to identify the validity of a propositional statement. When the statement is proven to be true or false, then the statement is said to validated by proof.
Truth can ONLY be ascertained from PROOF. Without proof, there is NO truth; there can only be belief in this case.
Since truth can ONLY be ascertained from proof, therefore relative truth and absolute truth are impossible!
fatfist 2 years ago
@fatfist
You said, "Since truth can ONLY be ascertained from proof, therefore relative truth and absolute truth are impossible! "
Do you believe this statement is true?
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
jp,
What does belief have to do with truth?
Does your bank *believe* you are the account holder when they let you make a withdrawl?
If you believe something to be the case, it is because you don't have a truth for it.
There is NO provision for belief in any truth.
Truth is an objective criterion. It is proven via a system of logic.
We don't determine truth by asking for a show of hands, or by counting votes in a ballot box. That is all subjective nonsense based on opinions.
fatfist 2 years ago
Yes my bank does believe that I am the account holder, because I am. So their believe would be true, because it corresponds with reality. I agree with most of what you said, truth is truth even if nobody believes it. But you say truth is proven by a system of logic. Can you prove this statement using a system of logic? If not how do we know its true?
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
(Yes my bank does believe that I am the account holder)
Wrong! No bank on this planet *believes* anybody is an account holder. If this was the case, anybody could walk into a bank claiming to be you, and based on belief (which you say) they would get your money.
Obviously, this is NOT the case as everybody's account would be compromized. You see, you believe this, that's why you cant prove it. And just one exception invalidates your statement.
fatfist 2 years ago
All banks ask for a minimum: account no. and signature verification with their file.
But today, many banks additionally ask for: bank card + PIN verification and Photo ID
And the trend with some banks (and all banks in the future) is additionally: finger print imaging verification.
Banks don't risk their billions to belief. Banks validate ALL claims via their system of logic before moving any money. This system is called PROOF.
fatfist 2 years ago
This is the *system of logic* banks use for their assessment of anybodys claim to any money or account.
Once you pass the minimum requirements of their system of logic, you have been *verified* to be the account holder.
This is the PROOF of their system. And they are entitled to impose whatever security requirements they see fit to get their proof. You make sure you memorize this word and its implications in real life!
If your life is based solely on beliefs, you dont need proof.
fatfist 2 years ago
(So their believe would be true, because it corresponds with reality)
Wrong! Their 'verification' PROVES it to be true. Beliefs never require verification (ie. proof).
It is impossible to prove a belief. Why? Because we cannot read people's minds to determine what they believe.
So this proves that your statement (bank believes you) is totally false!
How can your prove they 'believe' you? Did you read their minds? Read my mind then....tell me WHAT number I am thinking of right now.
fatfist 2 years ago
(truth is proven by a system of logic)
Obviously always! No exceptions!
If you disagree, then show just one rational exception to this case that cannot be refuted.
Only beliefs, opinions, subjectivity, etc. are excluded from this case.
You can subjectively deal with your peers based on belief. But all other objective aspects of society require you to conform to their system of proof.
And you obviously you DO without realizing it - you deal with employers, courts, banks, etc
fatfist 2 years ago
(Can you prove this statement using a system of logic?)
YES! Using the system of Classical Logic, we verify that every objective aspect of human life which *requires validation*, that validation is obtained via the specific system of logic utilized by the domain in question. It is what it is, and its not what its not!
Systems of logic are used to validate truth scenarios within the MANY systems society has:
- banks (verification of person)
- courts (beyond reasonable doubt)
fatfist 2 years ago
- academia (people's abilities confirmed via tests/marks/scores)
- employment (management hires you with validation based on resume & references. Then continually verifies your quality of work, otherwise you're fired)
....and so on...
every objective aspect of society functions by way of validation ie. their own system of logic & proof.
You are PART of this system yourself!!!!
Only subjective aspects don't use logic & proof, like anything to do with one's opinions, beliefs, etc.
fatfist 2 years ago
Are you really suggesting that banks don't believe their clients are account holders? When you walk into a bank and give them your account number the clerk believes that you are the actual owner of the account based on her trust in the system. If she or the bank didn't believe this they would give you no money. I think we maybe getting our wires crossed, before we go any further I think you need to define the word believe for me.
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
(banks don't believe their clients are account holders?)
Clients?
How does YOUR bank institution believe that I am their client?
AND when I walk into the institution impersonating YOU, will they give me money from your account WITHOUT verifying my identity via signatures, name, address, or whatever system of proof they use?
Is this the nonsense that you are alluding to?
Cause if it is, I would have taking all your money a loooooong time ago!
fatfist 2 years ago
(If she or the bank didn't believe this they would give you no money)
If fact, we can settle this issue RIGHT NOW!
Please go into your branch and get the bank manager to give you a signed letter w/ bank's letterhead indicating the following:
1. They do NOT prove their clients identities for transactions.
2. ALL of the bank's transactions are based on belief only, and not on any system of verification.
When you post this letter on your blog, I will give you $10,000 US.
Go ahead!
fatfist 2 years ago
(define the word believe)
belief: a proposition which cannot be verified via any system of logical proof.
Eg. The person presently at the teller's booth is Jeff Smith, the owner of account #12345 at bank ABC Inc.
If this statement cannot be PROVEN by bank, they wont process your withdrawl. End of story!!
Belief takes no part in this transaction.
If you say otherwise, get the letter from your bank confirming what you said, and I will PayPal you $10,000 US.
Let's do it!
fatfist 2 years ago
I really think you are missing the point. My point is, I can have a believe and then prove that believe to be true using the laws of logic. Its as simple as that.
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
They believe that I am their client based on evidence, signature, name, address, etc. After this information has been given, the bank rightly believes that I am the account holder. Of course they just don't believe that anyone is the account holder, they believe that the person who fits the criteria is the account holder. You seem to be avoiding my questions, do you really think that a bank would give away money to a person without believing that the person is the real account holder?
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
(I am their client based on evidence, signature, name, address, etc.)
Aha! So you DO fold under questioning! A wager will always change somebody's tune.
Exactly! Every time any individual requests a transaction on YOUR account, the bank will ALWAYS *validate* that person AND the transaction under their system of proof!
(They believe ...)
Well here is your pressing issue: How can you prove what they believe, when you CANT read their minds?
Can you prove what you believe?
fatfist 2 years ago
Like I said jp,
Get a letter from your bank in writing stating exactly what they BELIEVE.
Just make things fair and legit, if you can't post an image of that bank letter on the internet, then you will only have to PayPal me $500 US. This is a 20:1 hedge over me and MORE than fair. I am a gentleman of my word, I have a conscience, and I am always more than fair to my fellow brothers.
fatfist 2 years ago
Do you agree with this more than fair (to you) gentleman's wager?
If yes, then your next post to me should indicate a web address where I can view this bank letter, as discussed, along with your PayPal account so I can deposit $10000 US in it.
If no, then you have proven that YOU don't believe your OWN statement, that bank transactions are based on belief, and all you are doing is lying and trolling around here.
fatfist 2 years ago
This is the only surefire way to prove YOUR belief to us - by way of a wager.
If you don't accept the wager, then it proves that you have NO belief in what you parrot.
Reading minds has no role here!
fatfist 2 years ago
You ask can I prove what I believe, whenever we are dealing with prove we have to work with percentages, what is mostly likely to be true. I mean there are very few things that we can prove to be 100% accurate, but we have to look at the evidence and ask what best explains it. For example I believe that the world is round, I have never been up to space and seen it for my self, but I believe it to be so because it best explains the data.
JpAiMpEeSr 2 years ago
(I mean there are very few things that we can prove to be 100% accurate)
Proof has NOTHING to do with 100% of anything!!
It has to do with the SYSTEM that DEFINES it.
Like your bank!
You told me HOW they verify every transaction you do. That is their proof.
Other banks also require bank pin numbers and/or fingerprint or iris verification.
So you don't accept the wager, huh?
fatfist 2 years ago
Pilate asked Jesus this same very question. Jesus gave him no reply and no defense of what was the truth. Pilate couldn't handle the truth if explained to him. There is one true God and one true savior. This is not up for debate. Believe it or you don't..
saved03 2 years ago
Comment removed
veriteo 2 years ago
Truth is one that will make you free.
Read verse John 8:31-32 "Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "......; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
It's the Truth that will make you free and NOT Jesus.
netelsg 2 years ago
It's the truth of Jesus that will make you free. There are many "truths" about Jesus but there is only one truth about Jesus that will set you free. Matthew 7:21-23
saved03 2 years ago
No, Jesus is not the Truth. If it is, Jesus would have said, " I will make you free, instead of he said truth will make you free. This proves that there is a Truth which is not Jesus that will make you free.
netelsg 2 years ago
Tell me what John 14:6 says about Jesus and get back with me. You'll see that Jesus is the Truth.
saved03 2 years ago
I already know this verse. Many christians mentioned it.
Unfortunately, most of them misunderstood this verse meaning.
Go to my website to see my explanation of this verse.
netelsg 2 years ago
Jesus says "I" & "Me" is NOT referring to Jesus himself.
netelsg 2 years ago
Dude....talk about something that matters.....like famine....or Christ -
Arkbear 2 years ago
Wow, this is a load of shit. It's like he's training people to be stupid.
ramdillian 2 years ago
Awesome, JP is the truth! ;)
jesushugger 2 years ago
True to theist form, Moreland attempts to reduce the complex observation of truth to a simple "black and white" concept and tuck it neatly into a comfortable little box. However, he fails to take into consideration that both truth and reality depend greatly on the observers perception. But, I suppose that this matters little to the mindless bleating sheep who couldnt be bothered to work these concepts out for themselves. Pathetic.
mediocreman74 2 years ago
He says "reality is the way you take it to be".
Believing and living by this this selfish/foolish principle is why mankind has had problems since the beginning.
kub73158 2 years ago
This is retarded.
pepamethodman 3 years ago
If he's going to belabor his explanation of correspondence theory, he might as well try to at least get it right. Truth is NOT the "matching relationship". Truth IS A PROPERTY OF A PROPOSITION (belief, assertion, statement, claim, etc) that applies IF the "matching relationship" holds. He's writing books about this, and he can't even get the most basic stuff right?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Who else thinks that we should give up on this whole truth concept,because thats really all it is,it's a concept people have come to accept. Lets start figuring out what beauty and love is. I mean, how much time do we really have left?
brickwindow26 3 years ago
Truth is not defined. The definition he gives still allows for paradoxes.
There are more recent attempts, for example language/metalanguage approach (that is IMO more compatible with christianity: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways"), that avoid them and I would rather go that way.
MarcinP2 3 years ago
I have also not read the thread carefully and reproduced teologen's comment about Aristotle. I be dumb.
mencius121 3 years ago
I don't like to argue by reading lists so here's something else: On what grounds do we discount it? Everybody (religious or not) all treat their conscience (which is external to their will) as a prophet with perfect authority. Everybody listens to a "ghost".
Sociobiologists try to cancel this by saying that it is only camouflaged survival strategies, but this seems self refuting. After all, must not your reasoning powers be the same (and survival has no duty to truth).
mencius121 3 years ago
No maurieer, that is not what he said. "Truth is a matching relationship between a thought (knowledge claim) and reality (the subject of the claim". Literally the first of his points.
Get your money back from The Dick Dawkins Dojo of Argument. The man is a swindler.
PeteUTonic, how many renowned universities ya got in Sweeden? And how many are in America?
mencius121 3 years ago
mencius121
"" "Truth is a matching relationship between a thought (knowledge claim) and reality (the subject of the claim".""
Tell this to your president Bush who talks to Jesus.
If Bush is to be believed, then every deluded person i meet who talks to Jesus is to be believed.
maurieer 3 years ago
this is not peculiar to j.p Moreland. this is Aristotle, the father of formal logic. Nobody who does not know him can claim to be versed in "logic". A complete defense of religious experience is impossible in this space. Denyse O'Leary's Spirtual Brain would be a good place to start. As for the "insanity" hypothesis for religious experience, read "the Three Christ of Ypsilanti" where you will find that two things are rather easy to separate. As for bush, believe no politican, anywhere.
mencius121 3 years ago
mencius121,
This begs the question:
What is logic? Logic, like truth, is in the mind of the beholder.
A believer in a personal god, which watches and listens to a believers(this is truth to them), every thought and action, every second of their life until they die, just so that this personal god can send them to it`s personal heaven for an afterlife of eternal worship.
For non-believers? There`s something for them too. An eternity in a fiery hell.
This is truth to a religious person.
maurieer 3 years ago
He's saying that truth is that which corresponds to reality. He's using the correct vs. incorrect concept of truth. That's a very narrow concept of truth and not one which is found in the bible.
Truth is more than that. Truth sets people free. How can a "correct fact" set someone free? True love... how can that be "that which corresponds to reality." True love is true, but it's not factually provable.
randplaty 3 years ago
He's defining relativism - my personal evaluation of truth - instead of the TRUTH objectively Who is Almighty God existing outside of time and space Who became Incarnate in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ!
JudithMatta 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are one who maked that Universe with Mindpower. Everything what you doing for other, you doing for yourself!
Everything is energy. mass dont change to energy. density energyconcentration changing all a time to not so density energyconcentration.
its mean that atoms nucleus expanding alla time and nucleus emit expanding energy, where is expanding electrons and expanding photons. And thats the way it is!
I can explain everything with one power! Look my, 1. Idea from Kuopio, video!
Etimespace 3 years ago
Americans shouldn't go into academia...
PeteUtonic 4 years ago
What an ignorant human being.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
yo wut drug is dis guy on boyz get me sum of dat green grass hes talkin about!
A7XsUxOrZ 4 years ago
cryingross you already commented.
In an indirect form your saying this is bogus.
duly10 4 years ago
I can't comment on this video because maybe it was just an illusion and I don't really have a computer in front of me with this video playing.
cryingross 4 years ago
Aristotle put it this way (in the Metaphysics 1011b25):
"To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true."
teologen 4 years ago
Of course the dictatorship of relativism can get around what he says by saying that there's no ultimate reality, that "reality" is conditioned by one's perspective. Faithful subjects of this regime love sayings like this: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Jitpring 4 years ago
Plato laid all of this out.
Jitpring 4 years ago
What about when you can't link something directly to reality. What if it's something that only exists with a leap of faith. (maybe like...GOD)
elvis32z 4 years ago
JP Moreland stated: Truth is: When things are
the way one takes,believes or thinks them to be.
Therefore: "A" believes the bible to be true
and "B" believes the bible to be false.
Conclusion: Both "A" and "B" are right in their thinking or believing.
maurieer 4 years ago
So both "A" and "B" are correct? NO. I watched this a while ago and if I remember it correctly he states his assertion as follows: "reality makes it true not your thinking. Reality is the basis of truth" What you are saying is relativism.
elvis32z 4 years ago 3
Thats only half correct. you left out one part. The though must then be in line with what is (reality). Without this last step we are left with relativism and thats not what he is espousing.
TheBibleMatters 4 years ago
Reality is the way i take it to be(his statement.)
So it depends on the chemical make-up in the brain. Try and reason with someone who has delusions of being controlled by a supernatural power. Like a God.
maurieer 4 years ago
Or someone who thinks something that needs interpretation like science can objectively define truth and is the be all end all of discussion.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Jesus didn't use the correspondence theory of truth, he used the "I AM" theory of truth.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Jesus, was, like the ultimate postmodernist because he claimed all truth was relative to him :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
As a side note Randy this is the guy I'm hoping to study under in the next two years.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Interesting. I'm making a series of vids which are going to be directly attacking the view on truth which he espouses here. I have an interesting proof that the correspondence theory of truth makes in impossible to understand the Lord's Prayer :-) I hope I can finish it before you leave for your nuptials.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I will keep an eye open for it. If you can, also include what you think a better view of truth is In your mind. If you even think truth can be understood at all.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Ahhhh gotta love Morley. This guy is one in a million if you ever get to meet him.
Veritas48 4 years ago
I bet Moreland get's the chicks!
illdropya 4 years ago
JP Moreland is a first class intellectual and his commitment to Christ is evident. I sincerely hope that those jokers who suppose they are proclaiming Christ while making no effort to ensure that their assertions are theologically accurate and philosophically adequate will stop, step aside, and listen to ambassadors like Moreland.
ElephantAndCross 4 years ago
Jp Moreland is the most underated christian
thinker on Earth in my opinion.
grandconjunct 4 years ago