On faith and religion

[burnt]

No problems its fun to discuss. Ill check out the film after.

Maybe it was a small rock? It's as plausible as the theory that Lucifer was an angel cast out of Heaven for defying God's brillance. There are historical texts that say the planet lucifer reflected light and was competing for the light of God -- which back then was the Sun.

People back then may have thought the sun is god. If there is anything within our solar system that deserves a god like title its the sun. But something else created the sun. The sun also has no personality which some people for some reason attribute to a god like entity.

I loved McKenna. I learned about DMT thanks to him in the mid-90s. I think it's kinda ironic for you to write that. There was some interesting correlations. Animals have a spirit, not a soul. How we have both is unknown, unless you know?

I like McKenna too but he did make up lots of what he said. He was often just speculating. Taking him too seriously can be confusing.

I don't understand the difference between spirit and soul and don't really see why humans would have one and animals wouldn't. Or any other form of life.

No, the truth can't be somewhere in between?

Sure. But science can answer things religion can't. Religion can't really answer anything. Subjective experience can but its objective analysis which puts it into context and gives it meaning to those who have not experienced it.

However it is we emerged -- we are based on God. We are not an accident. Some type of logic, order and intelligence created us. And what makes most sense to me is Lurian Kabbalah.

Natural selection seems to be how we got here. There is no reason to invoke any supernatural or god like being to explain life. Perhaps our universe but not life.

I admit I don't know much about jewish mysticism. But if you take the old testament as the main document for the jewish religion and hence what influence jewish mysticism I can't take it seriously because that book is just so utterly absurd. Just because they did some fancy math doesn't mean they know anything thats so special. Especially if it makes things up about lucifer being a large rock hitting the earth. I call those large rocks that hit the earth meteors.

Here's the truth -- when the Universal Hyperluminal Light created this world by distinguishing part of itself from itself, the essence of God itself entered the world. The Infinite Light existed in the sub-hyperluminal field for that period of time. Thus, Human Beings existed in a perfect state of the 50th Gate of Aun Suph before the Earth was created. Then the Light had to self-constrict and this is why we have Free Will and suffering. The myth of the Fall of Man is based on this but it is a lie, there was no original sin. The process was natural and good.

Hyperluminal light? Define that because I have no idea what you mean.

No single human being on earth KNOWS how the universe came into being. They may think they know but no one knows. How could they? No amount of jewish mystical mathematics can prove that some being with a personality created it.

It left this essence of perfection and either evolution brought us back to that point or some other protocol, such as the Tree of Life. Again, I don't know what "materialize" means but this is not nonsense.

Not believing it doesn't change the fact it's true.

How can you say its true? Its not based on anything except weird mathematics and old jewish religious texts? I don't care what mystical scholar wrote them. I don't take most of those people seriously because anyone who has done enough psychedelics knows the mental states that can be achieved by altered states of consciousness. Anyone who knows enough about the brain knows there are mechanisms by which the brain can create these states. Much like mental illness can make the unreal real and the real unreal. In other words mystics are really over rated if you know where they have been by having been there yourself.

Politics is not synonymous with opinon or relative truth. It's about Human Rights, namely your right to exist and your right to be left alone (i.e. the 4th Amendment). To keep it easy, the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence represents everything that is good in the world and the European Union, Economic Integration, Fabian socialism, Keynesian economics and Third Way economic/progressive fascism is everything that is wrong with the world.

I am pro liberty as well so I won't disagree with you there Although the U.S. constitution wasn't perfect. It left too many holes for future generations to misuse! It also forgot women and people who were not white.

These texts can teach your how to change reality with words and your mind.

Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir are not poorly written texts. The first is the Book of Creation, it says how the world was created. You know the patterns you see in hyperspace? It is from Sefer Yetzirah. It is anti-intellectual to criticize something without reading it first. Have you read Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir?

I don't need to read their entire works. Its pretty obvious I won't agree with them because they assume that the god of Israel created the world. They base all their logic assuming that's true. I don't believe in the god of Israel. There is no evidence that being exists.

Its like when a christian tells me I am being anti intellectual for not reading the bible. Well I don't need to be able to recite everything from the bible by heart to know that's its for the most part full of garbage with a few nice morals to it.

Let me make a few obvious objections just from wikipedia:

According to the Sefer Yetzirah, the first emanation from the spirit of God was the ruach (= "spirit," "air") that produced fire, which, in its turn, formed the genesis of water. In the beginning, however, these three substances had only a potential existence, and came into actual being only by means of the three letters; and as these are the principal parts of speech, so those three substances are the elements from which the cosmos has been formed.

This is completely absurd. You can't have fire or water without the particles that make them up. Hydrogen and oxygen. These things could not have existed during the early conditions (very very early) of the universe. That's science not mysticism and its being proven. Furthermore, sound is part of the electromagnetic spectrum which is really a frequency of photons. Before photons existed there could be no sound. If the universe was as dense as we think it may have been 14 or so billion years ago there would be no photons either. Photons could only form once it started.

However I don't really want to continue this discussion. Unless you can prove your god exists then I won't believe much of anything anyway. There is no point. Unless you want to learn something about evolution but you seem pretty convinced on your truth although its quite obvious its not the truth.

 

[Saidin]

This is fantastic. I have to think about this concept, very intriguing. I believe God is the Tetragrammaton for mathematical reasons not religious and I know this relates to tetrahedrons somehow.

There are answers to your questions. However, it's hard to make counter arguments to your statements. You aren't understanding what I am saying.

I very much appreciate the knowledge, wisdom and awareness of people here. You guys/girls are great. I love thinking about these things.

I agree with you, this is a great place for discussions of all types. Many intelligent and thoughtful people here who will test your thought processes, and open you up to new ideas.

Here is the reference I mentioned about the Hebrew Alphabet. If you find that chapter interesting, I suggest reading the entire book (free online). It blends science, spirtuality and history very well, and paints a compelling picture of what existence is all about. It may answer questions, and certainly pose more, but isn't that all we can ask of material while we are searching for our own truths?

Science and the Scriptures

Science and the Scriptures. Souls of Distortion Awakening chapter 11

www.soulsofdistortion.nl

I am not understanding what you are saying, because you are coming from a perspective of deep knowledge of a particular type of mysticism I am not familiar with. My limited knowledge of the Kabbalha is that it is based on the Torah, and was formulated by Rabbis. The Torah, while containing some good ideas, is not relevant to my own connection to the divine, whether mathmatical or in any other form. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are amazing documents, probably the best ever written to attempt to give indivuduals the rights to pursue their own measure of happiness. But they don't always work, and are often completely ignored/pushed aside when convienient. We have seen ample evidence of that in recent years, not to mention slavery or womens rights.

As I have said, you have found a truth that resonates with you, and that is all that matters.

I too have found a truth, which I believe explains the nature and structure of existence, from subatomic particles to the higher dimensions, who we are, why we are here, and where we are going. I cannot prove it, anymore than anyone else on this planet can prove the true nature of existence. It just resonates with me and feels right. Understanding Divine Truth is not necessary in order to evolve spiritually, as it is unknowable, that is the whole purpose. One must seek, and in seeking one gets closer to the divine, in whatever form it ulitmately takes. I could be wrong, I only have faith and my willingness to be open to new ideas to see me though the confusion.

I know there are answers to my questions. I have asked many questions, and gotten many answers, but those answers ALWAYS lead to more questioins. That is how I know I am on the right path.

Though if there was one word to describe it all, I have the suspicion that we would both pick the same one...

Love

 

[Saidin]

Thank you for your kind words Aegle and DMTtripin, much appreciated.

It has been a while since I've been to India, and never got a chance to make it to the monestaries, but I have been to Nepal a couple of times. On a recent trip I spent a day at the Tengboche Monestary at around 11,000 ft. They were preparing for a festival in the coming weeks and were working on a sand Mandala. I spent hours listening to their chanting and watching them carefully placing the sand in intricate designs. Such beauty and harmony, and the knowledge that when the festival was done they would dump it in the river, the ultimate affirmation that all life is impermenant.

If you haven't been, and can spend the time, I highly recommed trekking in the Himalaya. Each day and each step is a walk amongnst the mysteries of existence. One feels both infinitely small among 25000ft+ mountians, as well as connected to the entirety of the universe. The people and experiences along the way will change you forever.

Namaste

 

[Aegle]

Thank you for your kind words Aegle and DMTtripin, much appreciated.

It has been a while since I've been to India, and never got a chance to make it to the monestaries, but I have been to Nepal a couple of times. On a recent trip I spent a day at the Tengboche Monestary at around 11,000 ft. They were preparing for a festival in the coming weeks and were working on a sand Mandala. I spent hours listening to their chanting and watching them carefully placing the sand in intricate designs. Such beauty and harmony, and the knowledge that when the festival was done they would dump it in the river, the ultimate affirmation that all life is impermenant.

If you haven't been, and can spend the time, I highly recommed trekking in the Himalaya. Each day and each step is a walk amongnst the mysteries of existence. One feels both infinitely small among 25000ft+ mountians, as well as connected to the entirety of the universe. The people and experiences along the way will change you forever.

Namaste

No worries Saidin. Nepal is breath taking, I love sand mandalas they are so beautiful i actually have some sand from one some monks made its some of the most awesome colourful sand. Impermanence is a vital philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism. I would really love to go to the Himalayas it would be a very special and necessary journey for me to make. I would also loved to go to Tibet but since the Chinese occupation it hasn't been the same and its better to visit India instead there's far more freedom in India for the monks.


Beautiful and inspiring post Sadin :d

Much Peace and Compassion

 

[Saidin]

Watch the first 20 minutes of this film, it's impressive:
Kymatica - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6736722752013377089

However it is we emerged -- we are based on God. We are not an accident. Some type of logic, order and intelligence created us. And what makes most sense to me is Lurian Kabbalah.

Here's the truth --

It left this essence of perfection and either evolution brought us back to that point or some other protocol, such as the Tree of Life. Again, I don't know what "materialize" means but this is not nonsense.

Not believing it doesn't change the fact it's true.

I just watched Kymatica, and really enjoyed it. It encompases some of my beliefs very well as I have come to some of the same conculsions myself from many different directions.

I think you have missed the whole point of that film though...



"People will tell you, this is good information, this is bad information, and I have to wonder...What makes anyone an authority figure enough to say something is true or false? And why are you denying or accepting anything based on the suggeston of another person? Why arent you making that decision for yourself. Information is information. There is no such thing as good information or bad informatiion. Its all what you do with it. I say let everything be your bible. Give every piece of information, every person, every event or situation an honest and open mind. Because it is then your responsibility to respond to it in the way you choose. Not following the herd, not following convention, its your responsibility. Its at that point when no matter how many people tell you're wrong or right, you are not dependent upon their approval. If we at least question our own actions, question our own thought processes and make a conscious decision to what we feel is right every single day that's what i believe to be divinity. That is true shamanism. That to me is what it really feels like to be alive."



You have to decide for yourself what meaning is, and never let anyone or anything make that decision for you. We all have our own truth, make it work for you by always keeping an open mind to new ideas, and refuse to be boxed into a corner by someone else's take on truth.

 

[33]

Also, I never said God had a personality. burnt, it's impossible for me to counter your arguments because you are colluding one idea with another. There is nothing religious about the Tree of Life and the Jews did not invent it. It came from Egypt.

If you disagree, that's fine but you can't say I'm wrong in English. Use Mandarin Chinese or something else. By the mere fact that you are using the Alphabet implies that what I am saying has credibility.

If you don't know what Alphabet is -- "alef" (Source) "bet" (Vessel) -- then you shouldn't discount this philosophy. The Alphabet is not random, it is scientific and the people who taught me this were Jews and Rosicrucians, not Catholics or religious fanatics.

Good luck.

 

[33]

I just watched Kymatica, and really enjoyed it. It encompases some of my beliefs very well as I have come to some of the same conculsions myself from many different directions.

I think you have missed the whole point of that film though...

You have to decide for yourself what meaning is, and never let anyone or anything make that decision for you. We all have our own truth, make it work for you by always keeping an open mind to new ideas, and refuse to be boxed into a corner by someone else's take on truth.

Saidin, I agree with you a lot. I don't believe in God personalities, religion or Bible codes. Rather, I believe the Jews kept the truth secret and the Catholics wanted to control the masses.

I respect aspects of Kymatica and Esoteric Agenda, but that doesn't mean I endorse 100% of what he says. One truth spoken does not mean all spoken is true. Same with lies.

I have considered all angles and pondered them -- through that I discovered what is the objective truth.

Read Professor Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, which was a huge book in the US. It explains in detail how this "virtue of openness" is the "greatest insight of our time". Professor Bloom says "relative truth" taught in public education and universities have allowed for Americans to lose their true identity.

He explains this in conjunction with John Locke et al. America, he says, has transitioned from the "democratic man" (who understood their Constitutional Republic) to the "democratic personality", or what is a liberal democracy without natural rights.

This is why "truth is relative" is bad. Truth is absolute and is available via reason, logic and observation. Truth is objective. It is not true because I say it is, it is true because it is. Regardless of belief or evidence, it is what it is.

My central thesis is that the DNA of the Universe is made up of the 10 numbers and the Alphabet (minus the vowels). It is not a radical theory considering this is the Tree of Life and is widely discussed (and maligned) in the Bible.

Excerpt from the Closing of the American Mind:

Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating...the true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.

...

The recent education of openness has rejected all of that. It pays no attention to natural rights or the historical origins of our regime...it is open to all kinds of men, all kinds of life-styles, all ideologies. There is no enemy other than the man who is not open to everything.

 

[Saidin]

You have to decide for yourself what meaning is, and never let anyone or anything make that decision for you. We all have our own truth, make it work for you by always keeping an open mind to new ideas, and refuse to be boxed into a corner by someone else's take on truth.

I respect aspects of Kymatica and Esoteric Agenda, but that doesn't mean I endorse 100% of what he says. One truth spoken does not mean all spoken is true. Same with lies.

I have considered all angles and pondered them -- through that I discovered what is the objective truth.

This is why "truth is relative" is bad. Truth is absolute and is available via reason, logic and observation. Truth is objective. It is not true because I say it is, it is true because it is. Regardless of belief or evidence, it is what it is.

My central thesis is that the DNA of the Universe is made up of the 10 numbers and the Alphabet (minus the vowels). It is not a radical theory considering this is the Tree of Life and is widely discussed (and maligned) in the Bible.

Excerpt from the Closing of the American Mind:

Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating...the true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.

...

The recent education of openness has rejected all of that. It pays no attention to natural rights or the historical origins of our regime...it is open to all kinds of men, all kinds of life-styles, all ideologies. There is no enemy other than the man who is not open to everything.

I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from. Claiming to know objective truth is claiming to know the mind of god. I personally do not believe that is possible. You cannot prove it to me by any means I can think of. If you know the one and only truth, why are you still here? You have nothing more to learn...

So if there is one objective truth, we should all follow it, would be the logical conclusion from this statement. But then we would all be exactly the same, all adhering to one truth, all subservient and controlled by one philosophy. Seems like existence would be a bland and uninteresting place. Devoid of free will and creativity and growth. If we had not had this "relative truth" would we have made the leaps and bounds in technology and innovation in the past 50 years? I dunno...

I am in no way saying that those who are not open to everything are the enemy. I am saying that truth is subjective, each of us has unique expeiences which shape who we are thoughout our lives, we are all preciously unique. If you take the flip side, then those who are open to everything are the enemy...sounds suspiciously like Facism to me, or The Borg if you are a Star Trek fan. No thank you, I do not want your truth imposed upon me, I like my free will to determine my fate as I see fit.

I believe as my signature says, that we are all different manifestations of the same thing, all experiencing itself. Diversity in ideas and experiences is completely necessary to the growth of the whole. If everyone thought the same, existence would become a pretty boring place for something that is trying to experience itself throught its creations. We become the created, subservient to the will of god, rather than co-creators.

I do not know all the answers, all the laws and idiosyncracities of existence, all the modes of experience, all the mysteries of the universe, so how can I not be open to new ideas? We live in an emergent and symbiotic universe. Everythign changes, it is the nature of things, it is a fact. What is true today, will not be true tomorrow, at least from this 3 dimensional existence we are experiencing. If we evolve could we have a better grasp/understanding of objective truth? Quite possibily. But then again we run into the danger of stagnation, and subservience to that which is.

I will always take diversity over homogeniety, but that is just this one being's perspective. I claim to speak for no one else.
I am glad that you have found truth. I have as well, and it is unique to me, as yours is to you, and that should be sufficient.

 

[33]

I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from. Claiming to know objective truth is claiming to know the mind of god. I personally do not believe that is possible. You cannot prove it to me by any means I can think of. If you know the one and only truth, why are you still here? You have nothing more to learn...

Knowing the sky is blue doesn't mean I know what the sky is.

The fact remains, objective truth is real. You have been taught (most likely) that truth is relative -- ask any kid in any University. This is the lie taught by www.historians.org. The masses will never know the truth, of course, because the ultimate truth is unknown. This is what religion says, BELIEVE rather than KNOW.

All I say is KNOW and I'm wrong?

So if there is one objective truth, we should all follow it, would be the logical conclusion from this statement. But then we would all be exactly the same, all adhering to one truth, all subservient and controlled by one philosophy. Seems like existence would be a bland and uninteresting place. Devoid of free will and creativity and growth. If we had not had this "relative truth" would we have made the leaps and bounds in technology and innovation in the past 50 years? I dunno...

Did the discovery of DNA make us all the same?

How do you phrase my philosophy as "subservient" when I'm simply saying that you have the right to exist and the right to be left alone (i.e. 4th Amendment)? The objective truth is Natural Rights are real. To deny this, is foolish. I'm trying to free the individual, you are saying "oh blessed it be he who yearns for truth, but ye ol' man can never know truth".

If truth doesn't exist, why are you here then? We are all just drug addicts.

If you are seriously arguing "relative truth" the debate is over. First, you are arguing from a place of ignorance not having read The Closing of the American Mind, or any related material (e.g. John Locke). Nor, not being aware of the Reece Commission you have no idea how your analytical understanding came to be.

I know you think you are right, but you are advocating a position of a Third Way economic fascist. If you think I'm wrong, study history and you will see what I mean.

So many people claim to seek the truth but you are still held by the chains the collectivists lay upon you. In the face of great evidence you still yearn for your collective security of ignorant society.

I am in no way saying that those who are not open to everything are the enemy. I am saying that truth is subjective, each of us has unique expeiences which shape who we are thoughout our lives, we are all preciously unique. If you take the flip side, then those who are open to everything are the enemy...sounds suspiciously like Facism to me, or The Borg if you are a Star Trek fan. No thank you, I do not want your truth imposed upon me, I like my free will to determine my fate as I see fit.

I believe as my signature says, that we are all different manifestations of the same thing, all experiencing itself. Diversity in ideas and experiences is completely necessary to the growth of the whole. If everyone thought the same, existence would become a pretty boring place for something that is trying to experience itself throught its creations. We become the created, subservient to the will of god, rather than co-creators.

I do not know all the answers, all the laws and idiosyncracities of existence, all the modes of experience, all the mysteries of the universe, so how can I not be open to new ideas? We live in an emergent and symbiotic universe. Everythign changes, it is the nature of things, it is a fact. What is true today, will not be true tomorrow, at least from this 3 dimensional existence we are experiencing. If we evolve could we have a better grasp/understanding of objective truth? Quite possibily. But then again we run into the danger of stagnation, and subservience to that which is.

I will always take diversity over homogeniety, but that is just this one being's perspective. I claim to speak for no one else.
I am glad that you have found truth. I have as well, and it is unique to me, as yours is to you, and that should be sufficient.

We are all manifestations of the "same thing" -- ok, but you say we can't know what that same thing is? Isn't that what a religious person says? You cannot ask questions of God, you just have to believe?

I'm not saying we all have to be the same. My philosophy is about INDIVIDUALISM. We are supposed to be distinct, different and have personalities. But how does that mean that if you believe DNA is true and I believe DNA is not true, that it is the same? Who is wrong? Does DNA exist (be careful, there is no objective truth)? Am I wrong because I think DNA is a lie and not real? (If I did, I'd be an idiot as DNA is real right?)

You say, truth is relative because YOU say so without even studying history. YOU are smarter than people like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jacques Rousseau? You probably don't even know who those people are, which is why you don't understand the concept of the Individual in the French and American revolutions, and how that's changed today.

Please do not suggest what I am saying is fascism. Fascism is progressivism, it's the policy of Democrats and Republicans. Fascism is anything that denies Natural Rights. Fascism is Third Way politics (Fabian Socialism, Economic Integration, the Open Conspiracy). Both Mussolini and Clinton (and Blair, Obama) called their economic philosophy the Third Way (i.e. relative truth).

I am very open to all ideas. I apply reason and logic to facts and observations to understand what I believe is true.

I do NOT know the TRUTH, but I know there is a TRUTH and you don't.

How far we are from the goal of life. How ignorant we have become in foolish defense of our long ingrained myopic ideas of American and European collectivism.

 

[burnt]

33 I really am having a very difficult time following you. I understand what you mean about the evils of collectivism and these economic third ways. I am also pro-liberty. But its not because of some absolute truth. I just want to be free and I want other people to be free because its better from my perspective. Its not better from the perspective of those in power. In that sense its moral justification is subjective and not absolute.

Also people are the ones who came up with the idea of natural rights. Its a human idea.

 

[Saidin]

The fact remains, objective truth is real.

All I say is KNOW and I'm wrong?

I have already said that objective Truth is real. My point is that you cannot KNOW it. I never said you were wrong, just that you think you know something which in my opinion is unknowable. I dont care what philosophers from 100s or 1000s of years ago said. My understanding of life, who we are, and where we are going, is not dependent upon reading(or having forgotten) a few particular bozos, no matter how intelligent they were, or what subjective drivel they wrote long ago, which may or may not apply to the world today.

You can call me ignorant all you want, it matters not to me, as it is just you attempting to make yourself feel superior.

The objective truth is Natural Rights are real. To deny this, is foolish. I'm trying to free the individual, you are saying "oh blessed it be he who yearns for truth, but ye ol' man can never know truth".

If this is all you are claming as your "objective truth" then I will agree with you. I do not deny it, in fact I embrace it. Another way of saying that is everyone has Free Will, self determination. Same thing, different words.

So now I am; a Third Way economic fascist, uneducated, A collectivist slave, and ignorant.

Sigh...

We are all manifestations of the "same thing" -- ok, but you say we can't know what that same thing is? Isn't that what a religious person says? You cannot ask questions of God, you just have to believe?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. You can believe or not, that is your choice, and it doesn't matter either way. I ask questions of "god" all the time and get answers, don't you? Doesn't mean I know what it is any better than anyone else. Belief is irrelevant.

I'm not saying we all have to be the same. My philosophy is about INDIVIDUALISM. We are supposed to be distinct, different and have personalities. But how does that mean that if you believe DNA is true and I believe DNA is not true, that it is the same? Who is wrong? Does DNA exist (be careful, there is no objective truth)? Am I wrong because I think DNA is a lie and not real? (If I did, I'd be an idiot as DNA is real right?)

We are discussing objective Truth, not objective truth. See the difference?

You say, truth is relative because YOU say so without even studying history. YOU are smarter than people like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jacques Rousseau? You probably don't even know who those people are, which is why you don't understand the concept of the Individual in the French and American revolutions, and how that's changed today.

This is the third time in this post where you have insulted or demeaned me. For someone who claims such specific knowledge of history and philosophy, you have a very poor understanding of philosophical debate. I may be smarter than all those men, but how would you know? I am certainly smarter in some areas than they were, and they more so than me in some areas. Everything is Relative. See what I did there?

I am very open to all ideas. I apply reason and logic to facts and observations to understand what I believe is true.

I do NOT know the TRUTH, but I know there is a TRUTH and you don't.

Hmm, after going though this whole post and commenting, I think we are talking about totally different things. My premise is that you are arguing that objective TRUTH is knowable, when you are actually stating that objective truth is knowable. I have no disagreement with the latter.

If that is the case, then I got confused like Burnt because you have been all over the place, mixing the two definitions. If you are not claiming objective Truth is knowable, then I have nothing further to argue with you about. There are certain truth's which are self evident, such as your natural rights, which as burnt correctly states are human ideas.