The Power Of A Witness

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 28 2004, 10:06 AM

You all talk as if there really were any such thing as an "absolute truth" of anything or that it is possible to "know" something in an absolute sense.

Cal,

When you say "You all" you talk as if you mean "absolutely" all of us. (I insert the smiley face here to indicate that I am spoofing you because you seem to be missing the point lately)

Please take note that when I first responded on this thread to Ray, I said:

"Ray,

There may be a fine philosophical point about whether or not we can ever "KNOW" anything but to the extent that anything is knowable, knowing how tree lying on the forest floor got there is one of the knowable things."

[Snow]

Hey Ray,

I had oinions for lunch today. Before leaving work I wondered if I had bad breath (I always kiss my wife when I get home) and thought I should brush my teeth before going home.

But, I just wasn't sure. I was frozen into inaction. Then I decided to exercise faith that I indeed needed to brush and then, because of my faith, I received true knowledge from the spirit that my breath was truly bad.

Guess you were right

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 28 2004, 11:06 AM

You all talk as if there really were any such thing as an "absolute truth" of anything or that it is possible to "know" something in an absolute sense.

I challenge both those assumptions: All truth is relative to your frame of reference and your condition in life--what is true for some, is not for others--.

The closest thing to some sort of "truth" is that "I perceive that I exist"--in other words we percieve that we percieve. Everything else are degrees of speculation--some things seem much more likely to be true than others, but I have yet heard anything that doesn't contain an element of uncertainty.

It seems some of us require certainty to maintain hope and confidence in the future--but this is a psychological trick we play on ourselves to avoid the pain of fear that comes from living in an uncertain world.

There is such a thing as absolute truth, just as there is also such a thing as relativity, and all truth is seen and understood with proper light and knowledge. In other words, truth can be defined as the way “things” are, or were, or will be, and with that understanding you should clearly see that all things are both relative and absolute.

For instance, am I writing this post? Yes, and that is absolute truth. Before I wrote this post I hadn’t written it, but it was then an absolute truth that I was going to write it. And now that I’ve written it, is also an absolute truth that I have written this post. This post, then, and the things written in this post, are also absolute truth, and there is nothing anybody will ever be able to do to change that…. even if this post gets edited sometime in the future.

[Deb]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 1 2004, 05:27 PM

For instance, am I writing this post?  Yes, and that is absolute truth.  Before I wrote this post I hadn’t written it, but it was then an absolute truth that I was going to write it.  And now that I’ve written it, is also an absolute truth that I have written this post.  This post, then, and the things written in this post, are also absolute truth, and there is nothing anybody will ever be able to do to change that…. even if this post gets edited sometime in the future. 

How can we be sure YOU are writing that post and not someone pretending to be you? I suppose it is absolutely true that SOMEONE wrote that post and sure it wasn't written before someone wrote it, but how can you say that the things written in the post are absolute truth?

Some would have you think that to tell the truth ineptly is to lie and that most arguments about the truth and falseness of concepts are really disagreements as to their importance. I think truth is relative to time, place, and person, and an absurd emphasis may be necessary today to make tomorrow's truth available. Yup, that's what I think anyway.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Deb@ Dec 3 2004, 12:19 PM

How can we be sure YOU are writing that post and not someone pretending to be you? I suppose it is absolutely true that SOMEONE wrote that post and sure it wasn't written before someone wrote it, but how can you say that the things written in the post are absolute truth?

You can be sure by knowing the truth, which is that I am the one who wrote it and that what I said is the truth. And whether you believe me or not, it’s still true. Are you going to try to tell me that it isn’t?

Some would have you think that to tell the truth ineptly is to lie and that most arguments about the truth and falseness of concepts are really disagreements as to their importance. I think truth is relative to time, place, and person, and an absurd emphasis may be necessary today to make tomorrow's truth available. Yup, that's what I think anyway.

I think I agree with you, but I’m not totally sure that I know what you mean.

[Ray]

I'm resurrecting one of my favorite threads to see if anyone has anything else to add. :)

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 3 2004, 03:23 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Deb@ Dec 3 2004, 12:19 PM

How can we be sure YOU are writing that post and not someone pretending to be you? I suppose it is absolutely true that SOMEONE wrote that post and sure it wasn't written before someone wrote it, but how can you say that the things written in the post are absolute truth?

You can be sure by knowing the truth, which is that I am the one who wrote it and that what I said is the truth. And whether you believe me or not, it’s still true. Are you going to try to tell me that it isn’t?

Some would have you think that to tell the truth ineptly is to lie and that most arguments about the truth and falseness of concepts are really disagreements as to their importance. I think truth is relative to time, place, and person, and an absurd emphasis may be necessary today to make tomorrow's truth available. Yup, that's what I think anyway.

I think I agree with you, but I’m not totally sure that I know what you mean.

←

[matilda]

Okay this was discussed a long time ago, but it was just reinterduced by Ray and so I went into it and read it. This is my take on it.

When your in the forest you see a tree, you see the tree fall, you hear the tree fall and you can feel the tree fall.

Faith is that you know when you leave the forest, trees will still fall even though you don't see them, the falling tree will still make a sound even though you don't hear it, and the tree will still vibrate the ground even though you don't feel it. Thus creating the faith within yourself that it will all take place even though you don't use your senses and become a witness to it you still know it took place or will take place.

Faith is senses and beyond your senses. Things do take place even if we don't witness it and the building of our faith is that we at times became a witness to it. (Whatever IT is in our lives)>

[hunnibear]

Since no one is around to see or hear a tree falling, one must just assume since trees do sometimes fall- that it could certainly have happened. So say you are desperate for firewood. The only place to get it is in the forest, so you are hoping a tree fell sometime. You're freezing your butt off. You don't KNOW if there's a fallen tree, but what if there IS? There is no sure way to know until you get to the forest to look.

[Ray]

Heh, but if you don't see a tree that has fallen does that mean that no tree has fallen?

[Traveler]

Heh, but if you don't see a tree that has fallen does that mean that no tree has fallen?

I believe you are not understanding the question. If you are unaware of a tree or trees falling in the forest then your paradigm of things cannot make an accurate account of them falling or not falling. The question then is: How can one become aware of trees falling or not falling?

One method is the scientific method. In this method one makes as guess or theory if you will and from that guess or theory assumptions follow. Using the assumptions one then predicts what then would be found in the forest to demonstrate if the trees are falling or not falling. But science goes beyond this simple test in that the theory and assumptions are also open to discussion among other to examine, discuss and test. At each point the view and opinion must be verified by more than one source and the results recorded.

The theories and assumptions that are reproducible gain broader acceptance in time and the theories and assumptions which are not reproducible tend to become less acceptable over time.

Although I prefer the scientific method over most others there are some flaws. That is that the view of information can taint all levels. For example if all are convinced that dinosaurs are cold blooded then everyone will tend to bend the information to accept that as fact. This happened for over 80 years. It was not until opposing views were brought in that the possibility of warm blooded dinosaurs was shown.

It is this concept of opposition that is important. If one is correct the truth becomes more obvious but if in error the flaw become more and more difficult to define and defend.

The Traveler

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Heh, but if you don't see a tree that has fallen does that mean that no tree has fallen?

I believe you are not understanding the question.

While you may choose to believe that, that is not the case, and just in case my witness may help you, I will share what I saw and responded to.

hunnibear stated: There is no sure way to know <trees are falling in the forest> until you get to the forest to look.

I then stated: … but if you don't see a tree that has fallen does that mean that no tree has fallen?

Or in other words, going into the forest to look for trees that have fallen does not mean that you will see a tree that has fallen, because there are several reasons a person may not see a tree that has fallen even if they are looking.

I hope that now helps you to understand that I did know what I was saying, and I also knew what hunnibear was saying.

If you are unaware of a tree or trees falling in the forest then your paradigm of things cannot make an accurate account of them falling or not falling.

Or in other words, if you don’t know trees are falling in the forest, then you cannot truly know whether or not trees are falling, and thus the power of your witness will be weak.

The question then is: How can one become aware of trees falling or not falling?

Yes, Traveler, that would then be the question, but also try to realize that I was using this idea to illustrate the power of a witness.

One method is the scientific method. In this method one makes as guess or theory if you will and from that guess or theory assumptions follow. Using the assumptions one then predicts what then would be found in the forest to demonstrate if the trees are falling or not falling. But science goes beyond this simple test in that the theory and assumptions are also open to discussion among others to examine, discuss and test. At each point the view and opinion must be verified by more than one source and the results recorded.

Yes, and if you don’t mind if I re-word what you just said a little bit, in other words, using the scientific method, people can make guesses or theories, and from those guesses and theories they can make assumptions, and from those assumptions they can make predictions, and they can open the issue to discussion among others who can also examine, discuss and test the assumptions with them. And at each point the views and opinions can be verified by more than one source and the results can then be recorded.

And to apply that to this issue of whether or not trees are falling in the forest, people can make guesses or theories about whether or not trees are falling in the forest, and from those guesses and theories they can make assumptions about whether or not trees are falling in the forest, predicting what would be found in the forest to demonstrate if the trees are falling or not falling, and they can open the issue to discussion among others who can also examine, discuss and test the assumptions with them. And at each point the views and opinions can be verified by more than one source and the results can then be recorded.

Or in other words, using the scientific method, we can come up with all sorts of guesses and theories and statements and discussions about whether or not trees are actually falling in a forest, and at each point of discussion the views and opinions can either be verified <or dismissed> by more than one source of information <or witness> and the results can then be recorded.

Or in other words, using the scientific method, we can come up with all sorts of guesses and theories and statements and discussions about whether or not the <power of a witness> either verifies or denies the fact that trees are actually falling in a forest, and at each point of discussion the <power of a witness> can either be verified <or dismissed> by other sources of information <or witnesses> and the results can then be recorded.

The theories and assumptions that are reproducible gain broader acceptance in time and the theories and assumptions which are not reproducible tend to become less acceptable over time.

Or in other words, the theories and assumptions of a witness that can be reproduced and verified by other witnesses will gain broader acceptance over time, while the theories and assumptions of a witness that can not be reproduced and verified by other witnesses will tend to become less acceptable over time.

Or in other words, the greater the witness concerning the fact that trees are actually falling in a forest, the easier it will be for others to believe it based on the scientific method of discovery, but the weaker the witness concerning the fact that trees are actually falling in a forest, the easier it will be for others to not believe it based on the scientific method of discovery.

But consider this thought for a moment.

If only one person knew for a fact that trees are falling in the forest, and everybody else on Earth believed they were NOT fallling, it really wouldn’t matter how many people didn’t believe it, because the trees are actually falling.

Although I prefer the scientific method over most others there are some flaws. That is that the view of information can taint all levels.

As I noted above.

It is this concept of opposition that is important. If one is correct the truth becomes more obvious but if in error the flaw become more and more difficult to define and defend.

I would rather say that knowing the truth is what is important, despite what the opposition will tell you. And the way to know the truth is not by accepting what other people tell you, but by becoming a witness yourself.

And btw, as I have said before, I do know for a fact that trees are falling in the forest, even though I haven’t physically seen them falling, without any outside force making them fall, and the way I know that is through Faith… which means that I have seen and can see with my “spiritual” senses what I have not seen and cannot see with my “physical” senses... at least not at this particular time.

[Traveler]

I would rather say that knowing the truth is what is important, despite what the opposition will tell you. And the way to know the truth is not by accepting what other people tell you, but by becoming a witness yourself.

And btw, as I have said before, I do know for a fact that trees are falling in the forest, even though I haven’t physically seen them falling, without any outside force making them fall, and the way I know that is through Faith… which means that I have seen and can see with my “spiritual” senses what I have not seen and cannot see with my “physical” senses... at least not at this particular time.

This discussion also begs the question of which is the truth. What is or that what is perceived to be true. I would slightly alter your current paradigm if you will listen. Using the concept of trees falling or not falling in the forest - We begin by accumulating information. From this accumulation of information we begin to formulate an opinion which becomes our paradigm or theory (or hypostasis). A witness is a kind of information.

I think at this point we disagree slightly on faith. I believe faith is the motivation to put our paradigm or theory to the test as well as our information. It appears to me that your concept of faith is to think that your are right. My personal concept of faith is that belief or thinking is not faith. It is not faith until someone alters their behavior for the specific purpose of testing a concept. If someone is not willing to explorer the extents of their concept, I do not believe that they have faith in that concept. Part of this exploration is a consideration of opposition information and opinion. This is my concept of “exercising faith” to be willing to test.

An example of this concept – I do not believe someone has “Faith” in Jesus Christ until they are willing to alter their lives to test the Christian paradigm. This corresponds with the notion that if someone claims to have faith in Christ but does not keep the commandments they are a liar and the truth is not in them. I am not a believer in “It sounds good therefore I believe paradigm”.

Now we do not have to be stupid in our testing. Some things in life do not need to be repeated. We do not need to do something over and over again to see if something different will happen. And even if you saw a tree fall in a forest it is still wise to test and verify what you thought you saw. You might find out that trees do not just fall but there are other things acting on the trees (like termites) that took them down.

I believe truth is not a place at which you arrive but rather a method of travel - Thus I am The Traveler

The Traveler

[Ray]

Traveler,

As I have stated over and over again in other posts, faith is another word for assurance, and I use Faith with a capital F to refer to an assurance from God.

So yes, when God gives us His assurance that something is true, it should definitely motivate us to know and do what He tells us by giving us His assurance.

Or in other words, by Faith we can know all things, as God gives us His assurance through the power of the Holy Ghost, and this even includes the abiliity to know that trees are falling in the forest without ever physically seeing them fall.

Now, please go back and re-read my other posts in this thread before trying to discuss this any further with me, so that I don't have to try to repeat everything I have already said to you and others who will listen.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

As I have stated over and over again in other posts, faith is another word for assurance, and I use Faith with a capital F to refer to an assurance from God.

So yes, when God gives us His assurance that something is true, it should definitely motivate us to know and do what He tells us by giving us His assurance.

Or in other words, by Faith we can know all things, as God gives us His assurance through the power of the Holy Ghost, and this even includes the abiliity to know that trees are falling in the forest without ever physically seeing them fall.

Now, please go back and re-read my other posts in this thread before trying to discuss this any further with me, so that I don't have to try to repeat everything I have already said to you and others who will listen.

I am aware of your point of view. I have been attempting to show you a slightly different point of view. One that requires a trial of faith (and exercise in faith) before obtaining the assurance you speak of. But you seem to be quite happy with the point of view that you have - which I have not quite been able to experience.

The Traveler

[john doe]

oops

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Traveler,

As I have stated over and over again in other posts, faith is another word for assurance, and I use Faith with a capital F to refer to an assurance from God.

So yes, when God gives us His assurance that something is true, it should definitely motivate us to know and do what He tells us by giving us His assurance.

Or in other words, by Faith we can know all things, as God gives us His assurance through the power of the Holy Ghost, and this even includes the abiliity to know that trees are falling in the forest without ever physically seeing them fall.

Now, please go back and re-read my other posts in this thread before trying to discuss this any further with me, so that I don't have to try to repeat everything I have already said to you and others who will listen.

I am aware of your point of view. I have been attempting to show you a slightly different point of view. One that requires a trial of faith (and exercise in faith) before obtaining the assurance you speak of. But you seem to be quite happy with the point of view that you have - which I have not quite been able to experience.

The Traveler

Traveler,

I know for a fact that YOU have received assurances from God, so I don't know why you would have trouble admitting that.

And btw, to help make sure that you and other people understand me correctly, "the point of view that I have" is the point of view that allows me to see that we all need to seek guidance from God and what He can assure us to be true or "feel sure" about, instead of merely accepting what other people believe and feel sure about.

Or in other words, seeking an assurance from God is the FIRST step we should make before "feeling sure" about our beliefs, while having our own faith or assurance that He can answer us, rather than simply accepting what other people tell us. And while seeking to receive our own assurance from God we should be sincerely interested in receiving and applying His answer to both "know" and "do" what He "tells" us.

And btw, I particularly liked Elder Bednar's comments in this last general conference about how receiving and living by assurances from God is or at least should be the norm for all of us latter-day saints.

[Ray]

I’m resurrecting this old thread for the same reason I resurrected another thread… to try to show others that someone who uses reasoning alone can’t prove anything or make someone else believe what they know … even on a more basic issue like whether or not trees are actually falling in forests when we don’t see them, and without any outside force making them fall… because this old thread has many other comments from people who thought they could prove their point.

Or in other words, I’m trying to show that if or when person A discusses an idea with person B while person A uses reasoning alone, person A can’t cause person B to believe what person A knows to be true unless person B also receives his/her knowledge from God, because none of the reasoning we can use to support our beliefs can cause anyone else to believe us.

And why am I doing this, you might ask?

To simply ask others why THEY continue to have discussions with other people to share what they think or believe they know, while knowing that no amount of talking with other people can make them believe or accept what you say… unless God assures or tells that person that what you have said is really the truth?

Or, for those who think they can convince someone of something else they know to be true, while using reasoning alone (without God’s help) to convince them of the truth, I’m challenging you or anyone else to convince me that anything you say is really the truth, and I’ll offer a few examples for those who want to try using reasoning alone.

Example A: Prove whether or not there really is a true in God in heaven.

Example B: Prove whether or not Jesus was and now still is the Christ.

Example C: Prove whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who saw God.

Example D: Prove whether or not the Book of Mormon is a book inspired by God that Joseph Smith translated through the power of God.

Example E: Prove whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now the only true church of God on this Earth with God’s authority to share the gospel with others.

Example F: Prove whether or not the Holy Spirit has inspired you to help you know what you know and that what you know is really the truth.

Example G: Prove whether or not you really know ME using all I have already told you.

Or if you can think of anything else that is true please feel free to use those as examples.

And btw, if others come to the same conclusion I have come to regarding how to share what they believe and know, I think we will all be able to see that all we can do is share what we believe and know along with our testimony of how we learned those things while then leaving others alone to either accept or reject what we know is the truth while hoping they will learn for themselves from God … knowing that any further “discussion” is pointless until they can see what they do not see or did not see when we actually shared our true knowledge.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

To simply ask others why THEY continue to have discussions with other people to share what they think or believe they know, while knowing that no amount of talking with other people can make them believe or accept what you say

See my other response to your other resurrected thread. Fellowship. Stimulation. Information. It's not like someone can only discuss something if they're trying to prove they're right. We understand your point. Got it. Duly noted. Filed away. I do become rather annoyed by this constant "prayer trumps discussion, why discuss so much, you can't prove truth, God alone can reveal truth" statement that has become your digital fingerprint. You don't have to discuss if you don't want...but please stop posting this point over and over in every thread. Please, we get it!

knowing that any further “discussion” is pointless until they can see what they do not see or did not see when we actually shared our true knowledge.

Is Ray talking in a digital cave? The echo even jumps across threads!!! I swear I've heard this somewhere else...

[Ray]

Do you truly enjoy having fellowship with people who do not accept knowledge from you as you try to share knowledge from God?

And what type of stimulation do you actually feel when people don’t want to know what you know about God, as you to try to talk with them while sharing your knowledge that you have accepted from God?

And of what value is information when it conflicts with that knowledge that you have accepted from God?

You’re not the same as me, and I’m not the same as you, but we all can get knowledge from God.

And btw, I really don’t care if you’ve become “annoyed” by hearing me share what I think, if sharing my thoughts will somehow help you to know what I know about God.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Do you truly enjoy having fellowship with people who do not accept knowledge from you...

Yep, I love 'em all. We have the same Father after all.

...what...stimulation do you...feel when people don’t want to know what you know about God

Just because someone disagrees with me doesn't mean they don't want to learn more about my beliefs. As for the stimulation, that's personal.

And of what value is information when it conflicts with that knowledge that you have accepted from God?

I value the opportunity it gives me to inspect my beliefs inside and out, and grasp their truth more firmly. Not saying you have to. Repeat: Not saying you have to.

...I...don’t care if you’ve become “annoyed” by...what I think, if sharing my thoughts will somehow help you to know what I know about God.

See Ray, that's how I view discussing stuff with people not of my religious persuasion. I'm not annoyed when they disagree with me...I just want them to have a chance to know what I know. I plant the seed, maybe water it...but I don't jump up and down on the ground trying to force the seed to germinate. I walk away and plant other seeds. And I enjoy it. :) Okay, discussion over.

[Ray]

I just want <others> to have a chance to know what I know. I plant the seed, maybe water it...but I don't jump up and down on the ground trying to force the seed to germinate. I walk away and plant other seeds. And I enjoy it. :) Okay, discussion over.

That's what I do too, ApostleKnight. And I'll now go plant seeds somewhere else. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Do you truly enjoy having fellowship with people who do not accept knowledge from you as you try to share knowledge from God? And what type of stimulation do you actually feel when people don’t want to know what you know about God, as you to try to talk with them while sharing your knowledge that you have accepted from God? And of what value is information when it conflicts with that knowledge that you have accepted from God? You’re not the same as me, and I’m not the same as you, but we all can get knowledge from God. And btw, I really don’t care if you’ve become “annoyed” by hearing me share what I think, if sharing my thoughts will somehow help you to know what I know about God.

Bottom-line: Ray, if you believe your efforts are wasted, and that the Heavenly Father's precious gospel is being squandered by these conversations, stop. ApostleKnight, if you believe that gospel is being shared, seeds are being planted, and that there are blessings from these interfaith discussions (and even the intrafaith ones), then carry on.

Maybe you're both right, and the Heavenly Father has different callings for each of you?

[Ray]

Or maybe one of us still needs to learn what the other one of us already knows.

You do know I believe in becoming "one" with God now, don't you?

And btw, Tommy, I do not believe that my efforts with you have been wasted as I have tried to share my knowledge with you, but I do believe you and I have come to the point where what I can now tell you about God and the truth is not new... and you have now chosen not to accept much of what I told you.

[prisonchaplain]

You do know I believe in becoming "one" with God now, don't you?

Ray, can you elaborate on this? For example, we know that the Heavenly Father addressed the Son as God, and commanded the angels to worship Him. Do you believe that after glorification, the Father will address you as God and command the angels to worship you?

[Ray]

If or when I truly become "one" with them, Yes.