God v Science

[coachn]

The basis for both good and evil is the Value that is being sought by the person who is doing the labeling. Common Values must be present for this tale to have its intended impact. Those who are in the discussion have yet to shake out what is considered valuable to all involved. This is why there is so much conflict in good-evil discourse.

At its Core: Good is what is considered Valuable. Evil is what is considered Destructive to what is Valued. And what is Valued by one person may not be Valued by others. Likewise, what is labeled good or evil by one person, may not be labeled the same by others. The core of this story is premised upon relative terms and how they are commonly used and abused in discourse.

The story is an excellent piece to learn by if one were to explore the premises, arguments and conclusions (logic) coupled with the use of Rhetorical manipulations used by its author.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

So you believe that for truth to exist, it must be based solely upon fact?

I would not say that.
Truth is exists independent of our knowledge of it; whether we are able to prove it, to establish it as fact, or not.

A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"

 

[coachn]

I would not say that.
Truth is exists independent of our knowledge of it; whether we are able to prove it, to establish it as fact, or not.

Some people believe for a truth to exist, it must be supported by facts. Some believe that, for truth to exist, one has only to recognize it independent of any supporting factuality.

I do not see all truths having to be supported by facts. There are some truths that transcend time and space and hence cannot be substantiated though physical facts.

Facts are based upon agreed and accepted descriptions of actualities. Truths are based upon described realities that may or may not be agreed upon. And truths are what we conclude once faced with either descriptions of actualities or realities.

A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"

Oh so many loaded directions my Brother. Back to facts and truths, two separate things, at least, for some of us...

Why would you not accept any truth, regardless of its source especially when it rings true for you? If it is a shared truth, and you know it to be such for you, then what matter does the source make? The problem that shall arise any time such a question is put forth pointing out a self-proclaimed authority is that you are already dismissing the source and hence the source's offered light due to that source's dismissed credibility. To dismiss the light because the source is dismissed is like throwing away gold just because it was first swallowed by a dog before it was delivered to you. Gold is gold, no matter how it comes to you. Even an idiot can offer light if you know how to listen properly.

Secondly, you shall always have a problem accepting offered light when you use the phrase "version of 'the truth'" to frame it first due to another dismissal implying such things are personal fabrication rather than conveyed realities, which, if you truly think about it, is the basis of all truths. The phrase "version of 'the truth'" redefines the word truth for all who listen to what is then offered.

Truth is conveyed reality. And all truth has to be taken within the context of its revelation for it to begin to be recognized, understood and accepted by those who hear it. Otherwise, it shall be dismissed because the listener has yet to first become properly receptive to it. This is why so much of truth is conveyed as good allegories. Good allegories have levels for everyone and everyone will listen at the level they have conditioned themselves to hear. And allegories are not based upon facts, but they do convey truths that are indisputable, at least to those able to hear them.

 

[Brother JC]

Your a member of 2 lodges ?

Four for me... (we should take this elsewhere if you want to continue the discussion).

 

[ARizo1011]

Four for me... (we should take this elsewhere if you want to continue the discussion).

What lodges brother? That's great that great that you are so active in masonry

 

[Levelhead]

In time . The lodge I am a member of is Hialeah-Opalocka and we eon a masonic building where we meet Thursdays. Now there is also a wonderful lodge that meets in our building in Tuesdays, and ever since I became a member and was regularly initiated an EA I would always go to Hurricane lodge 401 in Tuesdays because I wanted to be more active. I just loved being involved. When I lived in the southwest FL area I to visited the lodges in my district while I was only a candidate. The reason was because I had lived with a 33rd• mason and he was like a father to me and took me every where and I got to see what masonry was like. Ever since then I try to be as active as I can without over doing it. I not I'm just a FC and can't do much but traveling helps me with understanding the work when I get to see the degrees preformed in different lodges and of the fact that I walk into any lodge an the brethren will make me feel as of I'm home is just a wonderful feeling.. Knowing we have brothers all over

Seems like your in a good place. But remember you cant travel to other lodges alone unless you are accompanied by a master mason from your lodge.

When your raised then you may travel on your own!


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

Why would you not accept any truth, regardless of its source especially when it rings true for you?

Ah, but it was the "ring" that did it for me, not the source.

If it is a shared truth, and you know it to be such for you, then what matter does the source make?

Who said that the source matters? I did not. I am saying that, for the thinking person, any given source should not automatically be accepted as a fount of truth. An earnest search for truth demands effort. It can not be made through trust alone.

 

[coachn]

Ah, but it was the "ring" that did it for me, not the source.

Yes, so the acceptance of a truth has nothing to do with the source providing it?

Who said that the source matters? I did not. I am saying that, for the thinking person, any given source should not automatically be accepted as a fount of truth. An earnest search for truth demands effort. It can not be made through trust alone.

Oh. I was left with the impression by your statement:

A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"

that the source was important in accepting an offered truth.

Thank you for the clarification Bro.