Truth never fully shows its face.

[The Atheist]

This is why God is the source of all truth-- or, effectively, truth.

That's certainly an opinion that theologians have been trying to support for a few thousand years.

Failed so far.

The interesting conundrum, to me, has always been that if god created everything - including Satan - how does a god of truth create not just lies, but the Father of Lies, as Satan is often called?

[NikolaiI]

How can god be "exactly reality" and also be a "higher reality"? And how can he also be of a "nature that we cannot conceive"?
As if there are three or four "realities." Which one is really real?

It's a mystery-- but haven't you had any experiences of truth? God is the truth, and also the creator of everything. God is a person, but God's nature is also an impersonal Brahman or reality-- it is the spiritual effulgence of God. It's basically what happens when you see beyond this life, then you will see it. Why do we try to bring it home? Because it's on a different level than anything else. There are different kinds of revelation, or...as some people might say, "eureka" moments. This is mainly what I'm talking about, and this reality is what that is. You ask what I mean by reality-- reality is the eternal, unborn base of existence. You may call it non-existence, or unborn, or reality. In any case, it is what the Buddhists say, that our search for enlightenment or reality...the only reason we don't know it or see it is because we are bewildered or conditioned into unblissful states. Why are we not absolutely full of knowledge, bliss, and peace? Well, for various reasons, but basically our conditioned attachments which create our suffering. So that's what I mean, the unborn, undefinable reality to which we return when we die, and from which we came into this world. Why is it higher? Because it is eternal.

Of course I do not have all the answers, but hopefully I have helped you understand what I meant.

Anyway, the reason I try to speak about it is because it is of such an astonishing nature, the kind of which, once you view, you realize is the most important thing to share, because it is a truth, that is just so incredible. I have actually seen a truth which is thousands of revelations beyond our normal conceptions. So that is what I'm trying to explain.

[mazHur]

In the words of Bertrand Russel

''he idea that "true" reality is never truly graspable by humans' sensory and cognitive equipment goes back at least to the works of Plato. There is, for instance, the distinction between appearances and reality. Show a three-year-old a red ball beneath a green filter and he will typically say that the ball is black, even though he had previously been given the ball to examine. Understanding of this appearance-reality distinction seems so necessary to everyday life that it is hard to imagine a society in which normal people would not acquire it. But the lesson is relatively new historically, such as the lesson of perspective in painting, or the intentional designing of optical illusions (such as the Ponzo illusion), or in the differing testimonies of eye-witnesses of the same event. The fact is that we all do not perceive the same things alike.''

for more go to
http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/socpsy-5.html

Truth is like a dream
some with eyes
see it while awake;
yet there are some with eyes
who dream in their sleeps;
Whatever they see
maybe true or false
but appears to b e true
on the canvass of mind.
Truth is always the same
only we perceive it differently
were truth not dreams
the blind would never dream!

[The Atheist]

In the words of Bertrand Russel

Now there was a smart bloke.

Pity more people don't read [or understand] him.

[NikolaiI]

The idea that "true" reality is never truly graspable by humans' sensory and cognitive equipment goes back at least to the works of Plato. There is, for instance, the distinction between appearances and reality. Show a three-year-old a red ball beneath a green filter and he will typically say that the ball is black, even though he had previously been given the ball to examine. Understanding of this appearance-reality distinction seems so necessary to everyday life that it is hard to imagine a society in which normal people would not acquire it. But the lesson is relatively new historically, such as the lesson of perspective in painting, or the intentional designing of optical illusions (such as the Ponzo illusion), or in the differing testimonies of eye-witnesses of the same event. The fact is that we all do not perceive the same things alike.

Plato's world of ideas, and ideas are, if anything, appearances. The world of idea, appearance, and illusion, is also that in which we live. We do not understand reality, because the nature of reality reflects God's nature; God's reality. God's existence is very simple to understand; on many levels, it is the answer, the solution. It is a solution, yet at the same time it is a single source, an ideal, a perfection: the smallest bit of God that we know, still exceeds our imagination in a way nothing else does. God is perfect health, God is happiness beyond happiness, God is perfect knowledge, God is perfect beauty; God is perfect in every quality. When I first thought of God, the first God I believed in, was a mix between the Buddha and Pascal's God. Sometime after I discovered Krishna, I thought "Krishna is like Buddha!" and then I realized immediately, that Buddha is like Krishna. Krishna is the original form, the original person, the absolute or supreme person, and absolute truth from which every other form emanates. God's body is complete transcendental bliss and knowledge, and is eternal. Krishna, the original form, wearing saffron. Krishna, whose beauty exceeds the universe.

So, in this way we have gone, from Plato to Krishna. While I have not read all of Plato, what I have read I will defend to my last breath. "The Cave" from The Republic is one of the most profound allegories for existence and spiritual emergence that I know of. It was enlightening to read, and surprising to come across, because I understood it.

"True" reality? Well, the sources I give for my opinion are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Vaishnavism, and different independent thinkers. In the Bhagavad-Gita, all of this is described in great detail; how there is a material energy-- this is what we live in-- and how there is also a spiritual energy, which consists of God, and all the spiritual sparks, or souls, in material and spiritual creation. Material creation consists of the conditioned souls, who are reincarnating according to their karma. Spiritual creation consists of God's body, and Vrndavan, where God lives.

[The Atheist]

... God's ... God's .... God's .....God ...God is ....God is ...God is ....God is ...God is ....God,....God .... God.......God's....God, .... God's .....God .....

Just curious here. You write very much in the manner of tracts I see handed out on street corners.

What do you hope to achieve by posting in this fashion?

[NikolaiI]

My purpose is to explain that God created every one of our desires. If we desire for the most satisfaction of our intellectual need or desire, God is behind that, if we to be satisfied in pleasure, be it of art, or anything, ultimately, God is the source of that. It is basically about life and death, and what happens when you die. Even though you do not know everything now, if you are thinking of God when you die, then you do know everything after you die. So even then question of forgetting God, that is given by God. So if you tell yourself God doesn't exists, and you believe He doesn't, then you will never know the difference, but actually this forgetfulness was bestowed by God.

[jgweed]

To say that"Plato's world of ideas, and ideas are, if anything, appearances," seems to be contrary to the general conception of Platonic Forms, which are anything BUT appearances. Individuals are such because of their "participation" in Forms, as an object is a chair because it participates in the (universal) "chairness." Presumably, the allegory of the cave illustrates that true knowledge is not sensible in nature (which gives us only "opinions" or "beliefs" as Plato illustrates in the preceeding doctrine of the divided line) , but only achieved by reason in its understanding of the Forms (the sun being a metaphor for the "good-itself" or the "good beyond being" or for the system of the Forms).
Cheers,
John

[NikolaiI]

To say that"Plato's world of ideas, and ideas are, if anything, appearances," seems to be contrary to the general conception of Platonic Forms, which are anything BUT appearances. Individuals are such because of their "participation" in Forms, as an object is a chair because it participates in the (universal) "chairness." Presumably, the allegory of the cave illustrates that true knowledge is not sensible in nature (which gives us only "opinions" or "beliefs" as Plato illustrates in the preceeding doctrine of the divided line) , but only achieved by reason in its understanding of the Forms (the sun being a metaphor for the "good-itself" or the "good beyond being" or for the system of the Forms).
Cheers,
John"

Thank you for such kindness in your answer!

I thought Plato's main ideas were that 1), the masses of humanity in general are stuck like prisoners, unaware of the reality, as well as the light which creates all their shadows, and 2), in certain extraordinary circumstances, we can raise ourselves above, and climb out of the cave, of ignorance-- these I mainly support by the passage "Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted."

and

"But whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world..."

So there some fancy words here like beatific, and that "the idea of good is the lord of light in this visible world..." so maybe he is stretching a bit, but I defend his views and find them accurate and revealing. It is quite similar to Buddhist and Hindu descriptions of Maya. Hindu especially is so deep and so rich in understanding-- more scientific than any other religion-- in its relationship to Maya, Maya's illusion, and all the elements which make up material nature.

So all in all, Plato's assertion comes down to saying "Most are all in illusion, but there is an idea of good which is like the sun, which is the source of what is true and what is good." To go back to the main topic of this thread, that idea of good is also the idea of truth, in the sense of an Absolute Truth, and it is my stance, which I will try to explain, that that Truth is God.

[The Atheist]

My purpose is to explain that God created every one of our desires.

Yep, this is what continues to trouble me.

According to that doctrine, god created the desire to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. God must therefore have been behind the desires of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Possibly not the most benevolent picture you could paint for a god who equates to truth and love.

[blazeofglory]

Yep, this is what continues to trouble me.

According to that doctrine, god created the desire to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. God must therefore have been behind the desires of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Possibly not the most benevolent picture you could paint for a god who equates to truth and love.

If really truth to be told God is out of all these attributes, good or bad. Good or bad are simply phenomena or something that has to do with forces of nature. Both relate to each other or coexist or subsist. Things happen as there is a force behind it. To discern whether it is a good or bad force falls within your domain, not God’s or nature’s for that matter.

Do not try to confute others with your radical ideas. Maybe what you argue originate from a source that too suffers limitations of its own. We all are learning. While I personally can not subscribe to any mythological ideas of godliness or the existence of God yet I am still unsure and do not agree to atheism as well.

I am seeking truth, and all are seeking truth. God is also a symbol and if people seek truth through God or taking God as a symbol that is their way.

What we lack is the capacity for understanding others

[The Atheist]

If really truth to be told God is out of all these attributes, good or bad. Good or bad are simply phenomena or something that has to do with forces of nature. Both relate to each other or coexist or subsist. Things happen as there is a force behind it. To discern whether it is a good or bad force falls within your domain, not God’s or nature’s for that matter.

Two issues with that - firstly, "good" and "bad" are both subjective and therefore can't be said to exist in any form, and as a determinist, I discount invisible, unquantifiable forces as illusory.

I am seeking truth, and all are seeking truth.

Can't agree. Anecdotally, I'd say that 80-90% of people never even consider it. I've met thousands of people in my life and the eternal verities occupy the thoughts of only a tiny fraction. I think this applies equally to religious and irreligious types - many just learn dogma by rote.

What we lack is the capacity for understanding others

As a generalisation, that's fair. Not sure what difference it makes.

[mazHur]

If Truth and Reality are the same then you can learn more about them from the foll article

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06...ty_tests_1.php

[NikolaiI]

Yep, this is what continues to trouble me.

According to that doctrine, god created the desire to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. God must therefore have been behind the desires of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Possibly not the most benevolent picture you could paint for a god who equates to truth and love.

"Doctrine"? You saw my next sentence, didn't you?

[The Atheist]

"Doctrine"? You saw my next sentence, didn't you?

Yes indeed. Don't tatke doctrine negatively - I'm using it to describe your way of seeing it.

If Truth and Reality are the same then you can learn more about them from the foll article

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06...ty_tests_1.php

They're not the same at all.

To find the truth, one needs to apply rationality, the first step of which is accepting that reality exists. Your link says that:

The classical world is real, and not only in your head. Solipsism hasn't really been a viable philosophical doctrine for decades, if not centuries.

I agree with that very, very strongly and have said as much a few times here lately.