Chap wrote:Would you not agree that the proposition "The number of thinking subjects in the world is zero" would be true, whether or not that proposition is present to any conscious and thinking mind?
In the condition where you and I exist to contemplate this hypothetical proposition, yeah.
Were this hypothetical to actually exist, it would be a sort of division by zero if you will.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:Having knowledge is a description of a person's relationship to a thing. Your definition of truth fails to divorce it from the human perception rather than a way of stating something about a thing itself that gives it the characteristics of being true independent of perception.
Under your description, it isn't something one might define as capital "T" truth like MG requested I answer if I believed in it. It's a way of saying a person's perception of a thing matches some other condition.
You did not pay close enough attention to the definition. Here it is again, with the important bits highlighted:
D&C 93:
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
If you are looking for objectivity in the definition, the highlighted bits provide the objectivity. That is what makes it independent of someone's "perception" of what is true. It defines truth itself as it is, not as how one might "perceive" it to be.
honorentheos wrote:The scripture didn't say truth is things as they are, were, and are to come. It said it is knowledge of these conditions.
The word "truth" is meaningful only in the context of "knowledge". "Truth" is something that can be "known". Outside of cognition, "truth" has no objective meaning or even existence. If something is not "known" by anyone and cannot be "known," then it is not "truth" and cannot even exist. What is not "known" by anyone (including God) does not exist. The word "truth" invariably implies "knowablity". Outside of "knowablity" there is no truth either. Truth intrinsically is "knowable". There is no "truth" outside of that which can be "known". Hence the D&C definition: truth=knowledge. Man does not know all truth. But there is a Being who does know all truth, or all that can be known. Hence "truth" becomes synonymous with "knowledge". There is no "truth" that is not known or cannot be known.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
honorentheos wrote:The scripture didn't say truth is things as they are, were, and are to come. It said it is knowledge of these conditions.
The word "truth" is meaningful only in the context of "knowledge". "Truth" is something that can be "known". Outside of cognition, "truth" has no objective meaning or even existence. If something is not "known" by anyone and cannot be "known," then it is not "truth" and cannot even exist. What is not "known" by anyone (including God) does not exist. The word "truth" invariably implies "knowablity". Outside of "knowablity" there is not truth either. Truth intrinsically is "knowable". There is no "truth" outside of that which can be "known". Hence the D&C definition: truth=knowledge. Man does not know all truth. But there is a Being who does know all truth, or all that can be known. Hence "truth" becomes synonymous with "knowledge". There is no "truth" that is not known or cannot be known.
Exactly. (Except the existance part. Not sure why existance disappears without perception. It may not have meaning in a way that we think about existance being tied to meaning but I don't see a reason to say existance itself demands perception. Anyway.)
And since human perception is limited, subjective and flawed, I think that should help MG understand that while I many accept and use a concept of truth I can't conceive of something deserving a capital "T".
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:Hence "truth" becomes synonymous with "knowledge".
Nope, at least not the way those words are used by normal educated people. Truth is a property of (some) propositions. Knowledge is not.
Whether either word is or is not written with an upper-case initial letter changes nothing.
It remains to be shown (as opposed to be assumed or asserted) that a knowing subject must be involved in order for a proposition to be true.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Nope, at least not the way those words are used by normal educated people. Truth is a property of (some) propositions. Knowledge is not.
Whether either word is or is not written with an upper-case initial letter changes nothing.
It remains to be shown (as opposed to be assumed or asserted) that a knowing subject must be involved in order for a proposition to be true.
Your own hypothetical proposition demands someone to percieve it's truth value to be called true. It could be said to be true in the sense as long as there are thinking beings to think it but this isn't a satisfied condition once it is actually realized.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Chap wrote:Nope, at least not the way those words are used by normal educated people. Truth is a property of (some) propositions. Knowledge is not.
Whether either word is or is not written with an upper-case initial letter changes nothing.
It remains to be shown (as opposed to be assumed or asserted) that a knowing subject must be involved in order for a proposition to be true.
Your own hypothetical proposition demands someone to percieve it's truth value to be called true. It could be said to be true in the sense as long as there are thinking beings to think it but this isn't a satisfied condition once it is actually realized.
Sorry, what hypothetical proposition? I assume you think there is one in the material you quoted. But I can't see one. You seem to be simply reasserting the claim that for a proposition to be true, it has to be held by a thinking subject. But where have you proved that?
I really think we need a separate thread for this discussion - this thread was supposed to be about whether the Book of Mormon was Man-Made or God-Given.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Sorry, what hypothetical proposition? I assume you think there is one in the material you quoted. But I can't see one. You seem to be simply reasserting the claim that for a proposition to be true, it has to be held by a thinking subject. But where have you proved that?
I really think we need a separate thread for this discussion - this thread was supposed to be about whether the Book of Mormon was Man-Made or God-Given.
The idea of a proposition independent of the proposer is a rather radical concept itself that ought to be demonstrated before being accepted. MG and z are at least being consistent when they assign this to God.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
But don't you think in any case that this kind of discussion should proceed (if it is to proceed) on another thread?
This thread is supposed to be about the origins of the Book of Mormon.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.