Ghandi on Truth

While searching for a symbol for Truth, I came across this quote:

I knew that Gandhi had said that “there is no god higher than truth”, but I didn’t know until I read this that he had preceded my duplicate conclusion by 50 years, equating the two so completely. While my ego may be deflated to a degree, it’s a great piece of ammunition to be able to point to such a world renowned figure with so much integrity and respect who also believed it.

To be honest, I suspected that someone along the line had to have said something like that, it’s a simple step from God is love to God is Truth & Truth is God (if you can put religion behind you), but at lest I can say that I believe my next step in the model for Truth with its aspects of natural law, justice, love and beauty, is original . So my ego is somewhat assuaged–I’m sure everyone is glad to understand.

BTW, a symbol for Truth.
Perhaps the asterisk

And then:

So Paineful, so that I understand better what you are trying to convey, Where does/doesn’t God fit into your thinking?

What names would you give for ‘truth’, ‘love’, etc?

What types of things are they?

I believe that there is a God that created the universe, but I don’t know that He did or even if He exists. If He does then He is the Truth. If He doesn’t, then that is the Truth. In either case, whatever that ultimate Truth is, that is God (the Big Kanuna in the Sky), or god–(that which is worshiped, idealized, or followed, e.g. as money, power, fame, sex, idols, Truth, as your primary pursuit.)

Pursuing an aspect of Truth, is the pursuit of Truth. If you spend your whole life attempting to spread love among men, then that is the pursuit of Truth. If you spend you whole life at scientific instruments or in brainstorming theories, then that is the pursuit of Truth. Etc.

As I stated in my IP and just now above, natural law, justice, love and beauty are aspects of Truth or ways that we may pursue it. I suspect there may be more, maybe 2 more. Just as there are 6 points of the asterisk’s center, and just so there are three primary colors and three of the opposites of those that form white light. But I’ll admit to being fanciful here, as it smacks of numerology. Sometimes there’s symmetry and sometimes there’s not. But I’ve also heard that there are supposed to be 4 primary colors to the eye but. In either case, the “light of Truth” is such a perfect analogy.

BTW, natural law and beauty are at the pure objective and pure subjective ends of the Truth spectrum respectively, while justice and love are blends between them.

Then you have agnostic leanings? What is it that makes you believe? I believe God created the universe too. As for tangible evidence, I have none. I have experienced things in my life that has cemented that belief. All I have are my testaments and my faith.

You say you believe. Does that entail a form of faith on your part? Is there something that has happened, unveiled itself or hinted a hypothesis which put you at mind in believing? Do you think there could be something that would dispose of your 'believing?

Fair questions to which I don’t have a certain answer, except that I have more than agnostic leanings. Everything is under an agnostic umbrella since we don’t know anything about God for sure.

For one, I believe in God based on what I think is an infinitesimal amount of teleological evidence in His favor. Also, it appears that the universe is indistinguishable from what would be an unimaginably powerful quantum computer[size=150]*[/size]. I can’t see how such a “computer” could exist without developing/having sentience. This doesn’t establish that God created the universe, but it would indicate that the universe is at least a part of God.

Finally, my belief in God is a form of hope; hope that there is a point to all this. To paraphrase Jesus, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and yet has no soul?”

And I have faith, just not blind faith. Faith is, or should be, the emotional engine that drives us to pursue the Truth through reason, not trying to “reason” how the square peg fits in the round hole. The universe is rational, either naturally or by design, and we can be thankful for that. Imagine living in an irrational (chaotic) universe. Why should we believe a prophet 2-3000 years ago who said that God spoke to him, instead of to everyone; not to mention how such supernatural intervention would undermine our free will? If there is a Word of God, it is written in the stars, and in the atoms–unalterable, rational and universal.


[size=150]*[/size] Imagine, a quantum computer universe would mean that our every “keystroke” is recorded, and retrievable.

If we are curious to know what “truth” is, I don’t see how equating it with “God” does anything to satisfy this curiosity. In fact, I think we are more clear as to what truth is than we are about what God is (if either can be said to exist). Truth, in logic, is better defined as disquotation. When we assert a sentence is true we’re just asserting that sentence. For example: “Mountains are bigger than hills” is true if and only if mountains are bigger than hills. That way, we can actually do away with “truth” and the inquiry into truth actually becomes an inquiry centered around the grounds we have for actually asserting that mountains are bigger than hills. (note: this has often been called the redundancy theory of truth)

Thanks Paineful for your explanations on your position about God. We may have sidestepped some misunderstandings during our previous posts early on. I now have a better picture of your thoughts. I wish we could have met face to face to have such discussions.

How did you come to your conclusions?

Since this is, then why isn’t this the point?

For me personally, the pen is much mightier than the tongue. I fancy myself in the mold of Paine meaning that my communications are very laborious and I often edit what I write numerous times. Verbal communication doesn’t offer me that luxury, leaving me something of a social cripple–and there’s no spellchecker :sunglasses:. But I appreciate the sentiment.

That natural law is purely objective and beauty art is purely subjective is definitive. I learned a long time ago that love is a decision heavily driven by the emotions, while justice is similar just with more weight on the rationality and less on the emotions. There may be more blended aspects, but I haven’t found one yet in 8 years of looking that isn’t just a segment of one of those two. They are all aspects of the One Whole Truth.

That Truth is God and God is Truth I know, because that is also definitive. The only reason so many people have a problem with it is because we don’t know that much of the Truth, and therefore not that much about God and that the God of a given religion might not be the One God. It requires doubt and facing the unknown without the answers we thought we had.

That God, if He exists, is a deist God is my belief founded on a total lack of reasonable evidence for a personal, intervening, revealed God, and, so far, a 100% natural universe.

May I humbly suggest the book illustrated above.

Wishes without substance in rational effort and a basis in reality are another form of blind irrational faith.

I will read the book.

So God has only 6 aspects and is therefore finite.

Who created Him in your theory?

When you say that the universe is natural I assume you mean that to be not a creation of God?

Painful…God is Truth and Truth is God is called Absolutism.

Why?

If one believes that God created everything and is part of everything, then why would God not be natural?

God is only seemingly not natural to the overt daily life of human experience.
If God is and is all that is claimed, then God is definitely natural; as a mother is natural for the baby.

  1. Because Ghandi is a pantheist and it appears that the original poster is promoting his pantheistic ideas.
  2. I am aware.

I don’t understand how that’s a response to the question I asked. I wasn’t referring to the mechanics of hoping itself, but instead to what is ‘wished’ for. In terms of how it brings meaning to life, that is.

In other words, why is it a problem to have this be the point? If the human mind has the capacity for hope – as it obviously does – and we use that capacity to find meaning, then why isn’t it preferable to instead have ‘hope’ that today will be a good day…or that we’ll find better ways today to build a more secure and prosperous future for our children and their children?

Experience has shown me that there’s no limit to the meaning and purpose to be found in this. Which is why I don’t understand the need for seeking beyond to the idea of the supernatural, or for choosing belief in that in order to find meaning and purpose through hoping that eventually we’ll be supernatural, too.

I can understand the mindset of people who need to come to terms with a specific belief in a First Cause in order to feel more comfortable with Being, because it’s very unsettling to explore in depth the question ‘why something rather than nothing?’. But the hope in the supernatural seems to me a lack of connection with the here and now, fueled by an emphasis on assuring oneself that meaning can only be found by targeting one’s hope on eternal existence in a state of perfection that transcends what humans could ever accomplish (said perfection being mostly a construct that eliminates whatever one thinks sucks about this life, anyway). I don’t understand why that’s even necessary. It’s so full and meaningful here, now, sans the possibility of eventual, and eternal, perfection. Other than assuaging our plain old accursed fear of death, what’s the need?

I know you didn’t ask me but I’m going to give my thoughts anyway.

The reason that there has been so much strife in the past is that there has not been a unified spirit of faith in the hearts of men to guide their endeavours.

The League of Nations failed for example because its members were divided in desire and had no faith in each other to achieve a common purpose.

Faith (and I am talking about common trust in your fellow man as much as I am talking about ‘higher’ faith in God) is absolutely required to progress mankinds endeavours.

If you don’t trust your neighbour you don’t lend him your money.

Common trust in your fellow man absolutely requires faith in a supernatural guiding force.

If it doesn’t then there is no substantial understanding of the deeper value of our brothers/sisters, and the absense of a spiritual faith in our fellows will result in a cahnged alliegance to whatever suits us materially.

Spiritual forces govern material forces and an ignorance of spiritual forces is a submission to material ones.

A supernatural guiding force is necessary.

Philosophy isn’t enough.

Well first, the Jews got it right, God is One, or at least there is only one Truth, but with an infinite number of ways to pursue it. Aspects, 4, 6, or everhowmany, are just convenient guideposts that help (me at least) organize our thinking, and explain how Truth can encompass both the objective and subjective at the same time.

As for who created God, or how He came to be, I don’t have a clue. I don’t even know that He exists as a supernatural spirit or that He wasn’t created with the universe. In any case, the human mind (at least mine), can’t comprehend something that’s “always been”. I figure I’ve got enough to do just pursuing the Truth in this universe. And even as big as the universe is, we appear to be isolated here in order that we have a (simple?) rational environment.

No, it is actually rational to assume that a supernatural God could create a natural, rational universe. The catch is that God can not then interfere in the natural universe in a supernatural way without making it un-natural or supernatural, and irrational from our perspective at least.

No philosophy isn’t enough, but it is necessary. Otherwise, how can we even approach understanding Truth.

Above all we are responsible for our own avoidance of being evil. But evil will always exist, and it seems to be able to reach the upper levels of government so much more easily, due in large part to the apathy of the people, and the skill of the evil in deception and ruthlessness. Our job isn’t to have faith in our leaders or the leaders of other countries, it is to hold their feet to the fire and insist on integrity. In that you are indeed right that we need to unify our spirits. We are the only guiding force, God can/will only watch us exercise our free will. Such has it ever been, in this universe.

I thought that was a political reference, but I suppose it could be used in that way too.

I misunderstood what you meant by this.

Yes, I agree that we should make the most of this life in this world, and since we don’t have any indication whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, we have little choice. But for me at least, the possibility/hope that I may be able to build on what I accomplished here and participate/contribute after this is additional motivation to get it right here. Imagine if we were certain that this is all there is, only to be followed by oblivion. Wouldn’t you feel different? Are you sure you would be as motivated without hope of there being a point to your life, instead of the possibility that your efforts would be appreciated and provide fulfillment in an afterlife?

And you’re looking at things from an existence in what are most likely pretty decent living conditions. What would so many poor, wretched, oppressed people in the world have without hope of something more–after.

  1. OK I agree there is only one absolute truth that can manifest itself in an infinite number of ways.
  2. I would agree that He has always been. It is not possible for there to be any other explanation.
  3. OK I agree that it is possible for God to create a natural universe, it is natural that He could do so. Howver this would make the esssence of the material universe spiritual.
  4. I agree that philosophy isn’t enough but is necessary.
  5. We should avoid not reflecting the qualities of God. However I would argue that if the only absolute existence (God) is good then ‘evil’ is only a lack of His force of goodness and is therefore not a force of its own.
  6. I would argue that God id the only guiding force and that God can intervene in an essentially spiritual material existence. In my view He would intervene when He feels like it.

Overall there is a lot of convergence in our beliefs which is refreshing.