And this is in no way a theological discussion, as a matter of fact, my intent was to show that its OK for people to disagree and still be bothers in the end. We have met that on my part.
Absolutely, I agree completely and I'm glad that we can discuss this without having any such problems.
Sincock, Im gonna let it go after this one because I can clearly see that we have different views. Im not gonna try to change your mind on any of this and I dont feel as if youre trying to change mine. With that in mind, I believe that it would be a useless conversation/debate if we dont share a common starting point, and Im not knocking what you feel whether its right or wrong.
OK, you said...I mean that we can only ever be partially right because any truth as we perceive it can only be a part of the truth not the whole truth...I disagree with your statement in general because (ex. I see you rob a bank and the police ask me if you were the one who robbed the bank?) and I say "YES". Im not partially right, I'm 100% right and that would be the whole truth to that matter... I understand that there are some things within the whole truth that is imposible to know but it depends on the question...(ex. if the police asked me if you were wearing a gold watch when you robbed the bank?) Truth or not, there is no way that I would know the answer to that without me seeing it. So if you were wearing a gold watch it would be a part of the truth yet I wouldn't know. Even still, my answer would be..."I dont know"...and by answering that way...Im still telling the truth 100%. I have satisfied the criteria of that specific question and the truth.
Of course we have common ground: we are both humans, (I hope), living in this world in this time; that's enough common ground for me.
Yes, your response to the question is true as far as you see it but what I'm talking about is that there is a "truth" of the matter outside of what you see or know of it. Using your example of me robbing a bank, what exactly did you see? Did you see the man who tunnelled into the vault and took everything the night before? (hypothetically speaking). Perhaps there's more to the matter than what you know. the whole truth of the event includes what you saw, (me robbing the bank), and it also includes what was going on in my mind, what I was wearing, what was going on in other people's minds, etc etc etc.
You actually illustrate what I am talking about with your example: If I was wearing a gold watch there is no way of you knowing it so If I say I was wearing a gold watch and you say that you don't know then we are both right but have differing viewpoints of the matter. Unless you can give all details of the event you cannot be 100% right about what happened. You seeing me rob the bank is only part of what happened at that time in that place. You will be right from your viewpoint only.
Police can tell you that when questioning witnesses of crime that there will
always be directly contradicting statements and that often the truth is not grasped by any of them, (well at least the aspect of the truth that is relevant to the police's investigation). They will be all telling the "truth" but the truth is different for all of them due to their perception of what happened. The actual "truth" of the event includes what they saw and everything else as well.
I understand your point of being able to verify details and claim that the truth is known about that detail, ie the gold watch. This can lead us down the slippery slope of arguing over semantics: when you say a gold watch do you mean that the whole watch is gold? or just the case? Does your definition of gold include alloys which most objects that we call "gold" actually are? It's rare to find a watch that even in parts is 100% pure gold. So in saying that the watch is gold you may be correct, (if you saw it), but if I said that the watch is not gold I may also be correct because we see and understand what the watch is differently. Of course that doesn't change what the watch actually is.
Of course, in day to day mundane life we can reach a consensus and agree on points for the sake of practicality. We can probably agree on the point that we are both human, hopefully, and be satisfied with that. But what we mean when we say the word "human" may not be the same thing and what we actually are is probably more than what either of us can comprehend.
One other point...you said...If God is everything and everywhere then God is also what we perceive him/she/it as;...I personally dont think that God is everything...(ex. my shoe...though God may be the ultimate creator of everything, I dont believe that he is my shoe.) Now addressing that entire statement, in parenthesis you said...I'm just following a line of reasoning here...Reason doesn't tell me that God is what we percieve him/she/it as...even if God were everything and everywhere. Once again, perception doesn't make it true...you even said it yourself right here..."Like what you said below, my perception of you doesn't make you who you are."...I believe that both of us are in agreeance that perception has nothing to do with who God really is yet you still use perception as a way of determining who God is. That is making your line of reason, unreasonable IMO. In other words, I just cant conclude that God is what I perceieve him as (in the way that you're saying it).
I really do enjoy debating this with you but I "perceive" that there is no end to this debate because we don't share any common ground on the issue. I could be wrong on this so dont qoute me but i thought I read somewhere you saying that you don't believe in God...maybe not, Im not sure about that, nevertheless, that would be the common ground that I would need to go on with this. Please finalize my response with your own.
dac
haha. You are probably correct in surmising that there is no end to this debate but it is nevertheless interesting and I for one enjoy having my assumptions and beliefs challenged because that helps me to gain a better understanding, which is my aim in engaging in this discussion in the first place.
I think I have stated that I am not religious, which is true, but I do believe in God in a sense. I can almost guarantee that my idea of God is different from yours, no matter. If we start debating about the nature of God then that becomes a theological debate which it would be wise of both of us to avoid. Let it be said I have the utmost respect for your spiritual beliefs and do not desire to challenge them; spirituality is a very personal thing and no-one has the right to dictate what others should believe even if we think they are wrong. If someone is open to a discussion on those grounds then that is fine but it requires a great deal of tact, compassion and understanding to tackle these issues without causing offense.
Okay having said that let me answer your assertions:
Okay, our perception of what God is does not make what God is, agreed. However our perception of God's nature is a truth about God, not the whole truth mind you but it is nevertheless true. God is more than what we perceive him/her/it as but an aspect of God is how God manifests him/her/itself to us.
I believe that the truth about God, (aspects of the whole truth), have been revealed to people all over the world since time immemorial. A group of nomads wandering through the desert a few thousand years ago do not have a monopoly on the truth. All religions and spiritual philosophies understand God in different ways not because they are all wrong but because they are all right. They differ in how they perceive the eternal truth and I believe that at their core they are all describing the same thing. Our human nature colours how we perceive reality but it does not change what is real. When we find common ground between religions and each other we make a step closer to the ultimate truth. So I believe that we are all right but to find the ultimate truth we need to look beyond our limited perception of the truth.
That's at least where I'm coming from on this; maybe you can understand my position better from what I have written. Your beliefs are probably different and that's more than cool. I think at least we can avoid some misunderstanding if I let you know where I stand.
Respect.
