God is the truth, — Ali Hosein

Prove it.

Prove it.

@Corvus

Feel it to prove it.

Feel it to prove it. — Ali Hosein

You made the claim, therefore you must prove it. :)
Please prove the claim using your argument with reasoning and logical evidence.

Some people think God is real, and some people think God is unreal, and they are all correct?
@unenlightened

Regarding God, in my opinion, God is beyond reality and objective realities are manifestations of God, God is the truth, and objective realities are manifestations of truth.

In this context, Spinoza's view is significant.
He believed that everything that exists is in God and nothing can exist or be imagined without God. He also believed that God is the internal cause of all things.
Of course, this does not mean that I completely agree with Spinoza's point of view. — Ali Hosein

Are you saying they are all incorrect? You seemed to be saying earlier that everyone has their own reality, and they can be different. Now there seems to be one God and reality is in Him, and if that is the truth as you say, then all the other realities must surely be false.

Are you saying they are all incorrect? You seemed to be saying earlier that everyone has their own reality, and they can be different. Now there seems to be one God and reality is in Him, and if that is the truth as you say, then all the other realities must surely be false.

@unenlightened

You consider reality and truth to be the same, while the realities are different as I said before, because they are completely dependent on the perception of the beings of the truth, pay attention to the following explanation that I presented earlier:

Simply using the word reality cannot determine whether this concept is fake or not, more information is needed, that is, a concept that defines fakeness or not.
In my opinion, this concept can be "truth". Truth is an absolute concept, when we say that something exists, its existence is a truth shared by all of us equally.
Regardless of what a thing is, its existence is a common truth. In my opinion, the word reality refers to what is. When we ask something about reality, we must first answer the question of what is real.
Therefore, the fact of the existence of a thing is enough for it to be fake or not fake, but whether it happens or not and how it happens depends entirely on the entity that perceives that thing. That is, it depends on how it happens in our cognitive system.
The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us.

@Ali Hosein

In the above statement, I have mentioned that there is a truth that is absolute, but the realities are different based on the recognition of the truth by each entity according to its cognitive structure.
The reality is the manifestation of truth in the cognitive systems of beings, and not the violation of God's uniqueness as truth, and the contradiction between the unique truth and different realities.

@Corvus

In the above statement, I have mentioned that there is a truth that is absolute, but the realities are different based on the recognition of the truth by each entity according to its cognitive structure.
The reality is the manifestation of truth in the cognitive systems of beings, and not the violation of God's uniqueness as truth, and the contradiction between the unique truth and different realities. — Ali Hosein

But all that's just your reality. How do we know it's the truth?

Perhaps you have not noticed, but you are on a roundabout of positivity here, because you have not made room in your own reality for falsehood.

But all that's just your reality. How do we know it's the truth?

@unenlightened

It is true, these are my realities and not the truth, why? Because neither I, nor you, nor any other material being has access to the truth. But how do we know that there is a truth? From the effect that affects our cognitive system and It causes the emergence of realities. We do not create realities out of nothing, an effect affects our senses and realities emerge through our cognitive apparatus. (Probably, this can be taken from the combination of Leibniz's and Locke's views.)
The truth of this is an effect that originates from effecting.
I don't know what the truth is, but through the realities I can realize the existence of the truth, although I don't know what the nature of the truth is, but I know it exists.

Well i'm not very interested in your reality, so I'll leave it there, thanks.

No problem, you are free to like whatever reality you want.
:flower:

Truth is an absolute concept, when we say that something exists, its existence is a truth shared by all of us equally.
Regardless of what a thing is, its existence is a common truth.

You say that something exists. What is the evidence that something exists? For example, have you seen it, touched it, heard it, smelt it? Where was it, on the mountain, hill, in your garden, or in your room? What did it look like? What shape was it? Were you able to communicate with the object that you say that exists? What was the conversation you had with the existence?

The truth is the judgment you make with your mind, when you have evidence for proving your claim is doubtlessly matching with the reality at investigation.

If I read the detail of the evidence or argument that you supply with your claim, and if I judged it DOES make sense, or it is correct, right beyond reasonable doubt, then I will agree that your claim is true. If not, I will judge it false.

Before that, I will regard your claim as not making sense, because I don't understand what it is that you say that exists. I don't know what it is that you say that exists, and why it has to be truth, and why truth is absolute. I am not sure even what you mean by absolute at this stage.

What is the evidence that something exists? For example, have you seen it, touched it, heard it, smelt it? Where was it, on the mountain, hill, in your garden, or in your room? What did it look like? What shape was it? Were you able to communicate with the object that you say that exists? What was the conversation you had with the existence?

@Corvus

If you have paid attention to my talk about realities, you will realize that all realities are not objective or have no precedent outside of our mind. For example, a concept like force, can you tell exactly what force is, what it looks like, where it is. .. or a concept (hypothetical model) like the electron? (I suggest you refer to Leibniz's philosophy for a better understanding).
But if you are looking to find out what is the truth that affects us, I have to say sorry, in my opinion it is not possible, why? Because between you and the truth is a cognitive system consisting of the brain and the senses, which transforms every effect into a reality that you can understand, therefore access to the truth is not possible.

My reality is my mental and physical world accessible to me exclusively.  Your reality is your mental and physical world accessible to yourself exclusively.  They are totally separate worlds, therefore there is no point talking about reality.

If I talk about my reality bla bla ... then it is just imaginative propositions I am making to you. If you talk about your reality bla bla ... then it is just imaginative propositions you are making to me.

I don't have access to your world.  So it is meaningless to talk about the reality which is inaccessible to other beings.

Truth, from my definition, only emerges after our judgement on some proposition, facts or perception.  It is not some entity existing in the external physical world. Truth is a concept emerged from judgement.  So if X is true, then X must be a content of your judgement in the form of a proposition.  So when you say God is truth, it is your proposition.  You judge it as true or false.  Is God is Truth true or false? The proposition lacks reasons and evidence why God is truth. So you cannot make a judgment yet either true or false.  It still stands meaningless.

My friend, there are not only unique realities, some realities are common like "science".
So if we express a concept based on our common realities, they have more comprehensive validity. In my opinion, even the truth and falsity of propositions are based on accepted common realities (logical relations) and are only realities, not truth.
I do not claim that I have presented a completely scientific or philosophical argument, but I have tried to present a convincing argument to myself based on studies taken from accepted facts (by studying the opinions of some reliable scientific and philosophical people) and I presented it So that maybe it will be useful for people who agree with me or friends like you can help me with their criticisms to get a better understanding.

So if we express a concept based on our common realities, they have more comprehensive validity. In my opinion, even the truth and falsity of propositions are based on accepted common realities (logical relations) and are only realities, not truth. — Ali Hosein

You call them "common realities", and I call them as "language, logic and reasoning".

Thanks for presenting your own argument on the topic. Yes we can keep discussing trying to improve our knowledge and understanding on the world and ourselves by continuous studies, readings and discussions.

beyond reality — Ali Hosein

How do you know there is "beyond" (especially since it is "beyond" knowing)?

On what grounds do you assume "reality" has a boundary and therefore an exterior?

You mention Spinoza, but he teaches that reality (i.e. substance) is unbounded in time and space (i.e. eternal and infinite, respectively), therefore not transcended. Even if you do not agree with Spinoza, Ali, your notion of "beyond reality" seems as ad hoc and incoherent as 'north of the north pole' or '"up" on 2-d plane'.

I have used "beyond" here to mean beyond the limit of cognition and beyond our cognitive apparatus.
The boundary between reality and truth is our cognition and cognitive apparatus, our cognitive apparatus creates an internal reality from an external effect (truth) that affects the senses.
In my opinion, this border between reality and truth has been created by our senses and cognitive system.

About Spinoza, I am not sure that substance is the same as reality, because he believed that only two attributes "thought" and "dimension" can be perceived from the divine attributes. "Attributes" seems to fit my definition of reality better than substance.

The next issue is that the structural limitation of the cognitive system does not mean limited realities, when the external effect is unlimited, the realities derived from it will also be unlimited, so we due to the consider Impact that the external effect has on us We can perceive various realities.

Because neither I, nor you, nor any other material being has access to the truth. — Ali Hosein

Ah, we cannot have access to the truth. And so it follows that what anyone says must not be the truth, else we woudl have access to the truth. Yet since you said it, we have access to it.

It follows that what you have said is not the truth.

No my friend, acknowledging the existence of the truth does not mean knowing what it is, not having access to the truth means not knowing it and not its non-existence.

And I think it is correct that what someone says is not truth, but it is reality.

Perhaps it's a language issue, but to say that something is true, is to say that it is reality, it is what is the case.

To say that we cannot have the truth, is to contradict yourself. You can't consistently claim that you do and don't have access to the truth.

That is, your arguments are inconsistent.

if you read this my quote:

Reality is different from existence, existence precedes reality, but the existence that causes reality to occur is actual existence, not potential. If something exists and its existence is potential, it has not occurred until it is actual, and there is no talk of its reality. The condition of something being real is the occurrence of that thing that makes an impression on us.

@Ali Hosein

and this:

I think yes. The difference between existence and reality is relative and related to the thing in which the existence occurs. Many things may be in the universe that have potential existence and have not occurred in us as beings. And so for us, please note that "for us" are not real, but the fact that they are not real does not mean that they do not exist.

@Ali Hosein

Then you will realize that I differentiate between existence and reality. Existence is necessary and is related to truth and precedes reality.
Why? Because our cognitive system creates reality from an effect that affects us, and reality is a relative thing.
Therefore, if I say that we do not have access to the truth, it means that we do not have access to the "what" of the truth, because there is a border between us and the truth called the cognitive system, and this does not conflict with with "existence" as a truth attribute.
What I mean by "access" is the possibility of asking "what" and "why" about a thing.

I have used "beyond" here to mean beyond the limit of cognition and beyond our cognitive apparatus. — Ali Hosein

So what does that have to do with your phrase

beyond reality — Ali Hosein

which I took issue with in my previous post? "Cognitive apparatus" and "reality" are completely different, unrelated, concepts.

About Spinoza, I am not sure that substance is the same as reality ...

Well then, carefully re-read what Spinoza wrote (re: Ethics, I "Of God") because that is his point.

What's with this sudden concern of things beyond all possible experience or cognition? You do realize that it's literally beyond experience and cognition, so we can't say anything about it...

Yep, and there is a step further: that there is not anything beyond our experience and cognition - that the notion of a thing-in-itself doesn't get off the ground.

Ergo 'Kant —> Hegel —> Husserl' :sparkle:

Only Hegel comes with a whole new set of problems.

Indeed.

Depends on how it is formulated.

But even Kant - whatever you think of him - put strict limits on what could be said about it, which turns out to be extremely little.

And the little he does day does not go beyond all possible experience.

This last claim is fashionable in some mystic circles and whatnot. It's whatever, but, it's been a bit too popular recently, often without taking into account what is being said.

Hegel is a bit of a mess, imo. Others disagree.

Depends on how it is formulated. — Manuel

Yes, it's just a question of how you choose to talk about stuff; of grammar. So some folk choose a non-bivalent logic, such that there are propositions about the thing-in-itself that are neither true nor false. I prefer to stick with a bivalent logic, and say that there are no propositions about the thing-in-itself. I take this as discouraging mysticism.

I take this as discouraging mysticism. — Banno

Why discourage it?

Oh, be my guest. But making shite up is not philosophy.