XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: JerryC@adelphia.net   
      
   I like what you are saying Laura. All sorts of things pop into my mind as I   
   read. Like when you say "if there is a god" to me implied that you must have   
   a definition of god in order to ask if it exists. If your definition is that   
   god is the superset of existence outside of which no thing exists, then gods   
   existence is not questioned because the word "existance" is in the def.. If   
   you define god as the cause of all things, then you can say that god causes   
   all things. If you define god as being indefinable, then we will indeed   
   never be able to define god. I notice that many use the term loosely and   
   drift in their definitions as they speak. The same applies to the word   
   "truth".   
      
   I love to play games in my own head both poetically and intellectually such   
   as this: All sensation are sensations of self. We can never be aware of   
   anything outside of this. So to those who say that self is omnipresent, I   
   can see it. Or that self is god or god is soul or god created self or self   
   created god or mind creates truth or manufactures the universe or that we   
   are the fruit of the earth or that the earth is an invention of the mind. To   
   all these things I say I can see it!   
      
   Thanx for responding to my little post   
      
   JerryC   
      
      
   "Laura"  wrote in message   
   news:1115883177.332268.326920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > JerryC wrote:   
   >> I agree with what you have said here.   
   >>   
   >> Absolute truth needs no defense nor does it need amplification.   
   >>   
   >> We may disagree in our opinions as to what the truth may be but from   
   > this   
   >> post i can see that we agree that whatever it is, it cannot be   
   > denied. (or   
   >> something like that)   
   >>   
   > That is, of course, assuming that there is such a thing as *the* truth,   
   > and if there is, is a human being capable of ever knowing it? :-)   
   > It seems reasonable to me that the truth (as in the highest, most   
   > perfect, absolute truth), if it does exist, must be wholly beyond the   
   > grasp of a mere human being, with all the imperfection that entails.   
   > I don't believe a human being can know "the truth", even if it does   
   > exist, just as we can never really know if there is a God. We may have   
   > experiences that tell us that there is, but we can never fully trust   
   > our experiences, or indeed our memories of our experiences. The very   
   > faculty with which we experience and remember is prone to both error   
   > and embellishment - it happens all the time. We are not even capable of   
   > seeing the world we live in as it truly is - what we perceive is   
   > limited by the senses and the brain that interprets their signals, and   
   > even the prior conditioning of that brain, so how could we possibly   
   > know the full truth about everything?   
   > Paradoxically enough, despite believing this, I continue to search for   
   > the truth :-)   
   >   
   > Anyway, no, absolute truth needs no defense. However, people claiming   
   > to know it do need a very very good defense, and they never seem to   
   > have one :-)   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)