But comments like this show the superficiality of your thinking my friend. For example, your next comment….
…pretty much trips you up. First, it’s odd that someone who has done deep and extensive research into truth consistently posts links to SEP and Wikipedia. These are fine sources for the amateur like me, but are introductory explanations. Second, you infer the surprisingly thin (for someone of your reported depth of understanding) proposal that unless the view of truth I present is consistent in most or all of its significant points with those in SEP it is not actually about truth at all. This is just an attempt to use standing notions of truth as rules you wish to force on one, as though thinking outside the box somehow leads only to error–as evidenced in the following:
I gently suggest that your reasoning needs considerable further thought to shore up its ramshackle foundations.
Actually, it is not. I draw content from the concepts and ideas of those I find meaningful. You appear to discount Avicenna on the sole basis that he was Muslim [a theist], therefore his metaphysics can’t be true. But this presupposes the unproven proposition that God does not exist. Posting things like this might be why others respond to you the way they do. Food for thought.
-
Impossible things have no information. Minds can only grasp information; thus any information the mind is able to grasp has passed the first and fundamental test for its possession of existence of some sort.
-
The evidence of this is to carefully consider the impossibility of a square triangle. The mind can only grasp square and triangle because each of these singly possess information. But beyond this, the mind slams shut when “square triangle” is presented because “square triangle” is an impossibility. Impossibilities possess no information.
-
The signifier “God” is one of the most—arguably the most—objectively discussed concepts in history. The sheer weight of this evidence flatly denies legitimacy to placing “God” in the realm of impossibilities, as you have so often recklessly done. What remains is to determine what sort of existence the information “God” might be, but that’s a separate discussion, not relevant to the question of God being an impossibility.
Think the above over carefully , Prismatic…when finished you can give me a million thanks.
One of the interesting things to me about the power of prescriptive truth as presented in the op lies in its predictive abilities. For example, using the principles laid out there, one can, with some degree of accuracy, predict how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear. I run into this in discussions with fellow Christians all the time. And there have been many times in my own past I have toed the line and stubbornly defended “truths” I thought were fundamental, only to have them rather painfully eroded over time and replaced by higher truths I fought to keep out of my worldview. The analytical methods that can be drawn from the op might even suitably anticipate forthcoming responses in this thread.
It’s also interesting to me that the principles noted in the op are tied closely to views and practices in various fields of psychology. For example, psychoanalysis is typically aimed at bringing patients to recognize and deal with (prescriptive) truths they don’t want to embrace. In the spiritual mechanics of truth, this has a very strong theoretical correspondence to the gradual restoration of some degree of falsity in the value content of the individual to a true state, suggesting at least some degree of capacity for human means of prescriptive value renovation—something traditionally thought in theological circles to be wholly beyond our abilities.