One Atheist, when asked what he would say to God if when he died he went to Heaven and God asked him why he didn’t believe in Him. The Atheist thought for a moment and without flinching he said he would say to God, “You didn’t give me enough evidence.”
Everyday in America, in courts all across this country, judges and juries are presented with evidence that attempt to sway and compel them in their task of finding truth. This process of litigation and fact finding has the appearance of legitimacy. Yet, as the science and the technology improve and advances in these areas continue to press forward the ingenuity of reason, we all are continually being made aware of the fact that many things masquerade as truth; language being one of them.
Buy your copy!
Mercury Jones, in his book “Evidence of God: A Final Resolution of Meaning” presents the case for a Heavenly Father and Son in a brash and compelling argument. In making his case for a creator, Mercury Jones strikes an immediate cord with his analysis of the existentialists struggle with an epistemology approach that aids in unmasking part of the mystery.
“Evidence of God: A Final Resolution of Meaning” delves deep into the dichotomy of expression revealing the universality of meaning – which makes events like translation possible. Unlock your key to a deeper wisdom and discover this worship worthy of praise.
To know something is to know
what it is not
A. How do I distinguish up? How do I distinguish down?
1. If there exist a plain that has no value (Draw horizontal line) and is neutral to all relationships, then the difference from the neutral point represents its alternatives, up, down, beside or some variation of the three.
Anything above or higher than the neutral would represent up or above.
As would be the case of anything lower than the neutral would represent
down or below. Then the alternatives become neutrals creating an existing
body of knowledge
2. Could the same be said for good and bad? Is there a neutral with good
and bad as its alternatives? Is your existence a neutral?
D. Knowing cause I know: Recognizing one thing is a declaration of knowing
what it is not. If two things are identical, you know one exist independent of the other. (You can see that) You recognizing one declares it is not the other. You can’t get to two counting without one.
E. Agreement is knowing: I know black because there is agreement of what
black is. (We have agreed that Black represents a color, a people, a consciousness in our common reality.)
Wisdom Applied Knowledge is True Understanding
A. Wisdom is the Proof of Understanding
1. Proof exists: Observable through the senses.
2. I put a pen on the table. What proof do you have that the pen is on the table? The pen itself existing as you see it or touch it in a reality that is common to us all. It exists and is immediately available through the senses as a proof test of reality. “Pinch me.”
3. Evidence and Proof are separate. They both are themselves and as
words, represent different phenomenon in reality.
4. What proof can we have of the past? Can we go back to the past and
observe it? Does proof exist only in the moment?
5. What does the existence of a building prove? Does it prove the past or only the immediate?
6. Can I prove I wasn’t the murderer if my DNA was left behind at the
crime scene or does the proof lay against the DNA, which is just evidence?
7. The existence of the DNA at the crime scene is only proof the DNA was
found there. It was observed there. The question still remains, how it got
there. Is there any proof of how it got there?
1. There exist a tree, a hill and a bird.
2. The bird is in the tree.
3. The tree is on the hill.
4. The bird is in the tree on the hill.
5. A tree has a blue bird in it.
6. A blue bird is in the tree.
7. A tree on the hill has a blue bird in it.
8. A green hill and a blue bird exist.
9. A tree sits on a green hill and has a blue bird in it.
10. A blue bird sits on a tree on a green hill that has a brown tree on it.
11. A green hill has a brown tree on it.
12. A brown tree sits on a green hill.
13. A blue bird, a brown tree, and a green hill exist.
14. A brown tree has a blue bird in it and its sits on a green hill.
15. A green hill has a blue bird in the brown tree on it.
What do these sentences all have in common? They all represent a possible
world; a world in which we can see, even though it may not exist. You are able to see this world because these sentences describe things and objects we know.
We know these things from their actual existence.We can observe these things;
proof exists of them. We know a tree, a hill and a bird, if not personally, then through some form of second hand experience. This type of non-personal
observation takes place extended from you but you believe it to be true, such as videotape, book, or some other form of recorded expressive medium. Therefore, the picture these sentences are trying to portray is picture-able to you.
Even though our world exists independent of language, in most cases, it is representative
of what actually exist. The truth of the bird existing in the tree is a
fact. It appears true. Truth seems to exist here at this moment about the bird, its existence and its properties. The fact that there is a tree on the hill represents another fact. These facts are facts because of the existence of the actual objects in a reality and recreating the image in your mind is not difficult.
Each word in each sentence is a part of reality in some sense and combined
together with other words, build or paint a picture of a possible reality. In sentence (2) two and (3) three, there exist two facts. The two facts are a bird in a tree and a tree on a hill. These two facts are again represented in sentence (4)four with the bird in the tree on the hill. Sentence four represents another fact.
The existence of the two facts together created another separate fact. The three facts stand side by side because they are equals in the world of facts—as does all other facts. The list that is created is horizontal list.
Fact 1—Fact 2—Fact 3—Fact 4—Fact 5…
In this world we created of three objects, the possibilities for more configurations seem endless: so is the number of facts or truisms about our common reality—possible pictures. Take a look at sentence (5) five. Does it portray the same picture as its predecessors? Is there a blue bird in sentences (2, 3, 4) two, three or four? Not until sentence (5) five does a blue bird seem to appear. In fact, this bird may be a completely different bird from the bird in the previous sentences.
The other part of the list that is created is a non-facts list: a list of the opposite of the facts. For every truth, there exists its counter part, the lie or the nontruth.
So every truth that makes it possible for a fact, it also makes possible the
non-fact. If an orange is orange then it is not pink. The truth of it not being pink is a fact itself. It is also strung along up with the rest of the facts that make up our common understanding.
What I am pointing out is that the value of a fact seems to be one. And each fact has the same value, no more, no less. In the same way, the other words that don’t necessarily correspond to objects in the sentences correspond to phenomenon that is trying to be conveyed.
If the bird is in the tree and the bird and the tree exist, then where are “is” and “in” in reality? If language is a mere reflection of what is, then these words must correspond to something, right? Can “Is” and “In” exist as the logic of the object?
This logic expresses the relation of the objects as they exist in a reality. “Is” corresponds to the existence or equal value of an object while “in” refers to the direct relation of two or more objects, actual or logical. In essence, “is” and
“in” are only pointing, showing through the sentence what can be seen in reality.
Other words we use, we assign meaning to by defining it by the activity, such as when a person puts toothpaste on a toothbrush and begins to use it.We assign the word, brushing to describe that activity. We assign a word for the food we eat in the morning, breakfast. Then there are several terms used to define procreation:sex, making love, rape; all representative and viable candidates for when the sperm and the egg meet.
How then can language be truly understood? Any language, all languages seem to have one thing in common; the expression, the idea, the message that is trying to be conveyed. And the simplest way it seems to interpret any message is to take a closer look at the symbols being used and see how they are being used
to ascertain a clearer understanding. Understanding, unlike facts may exist
outside of language.
Is understanding in language meaning in reality? The words one may use to
convey a thought are not necessarily the objects being spoke of for which the word was originally assigned to in that language. In some instances, the original defined object, activity or phenomenon may lend credibility to or offer a deeper sense to the understanding of the some what new expression: as in relating to a property or characteristic of the original object or activity.
Words appear to be tools. Tools to be used by those engaged in communicating.
Depending on the context, the understandings of words change, vary, and oscillate. They all seem to be interchangeable at any moment with a common agreement. If that is the case, then it seems as if words truly are meaningless, incapable of being: it’s the meaning the words are assigned to that have all the value.
Therefore, communications seems to stand as the activity engaged in when
expression is the goal and that it is the means to use to explore what is to be determined. Any activity, any type of movement, any configuring, any distinguishing of form of any sort, may stand as a language and words to be used by those engaged in, in the expressing of expression.
Theories of Language
“All language is readable even if it is unreadable.”
What I mean by this is that words are not the language. Words are used by the
language the way gravity used the apple for Newton. Language like gravity
grabs a hold of the apple and takes it through its motions, motions we can
observe, reason and ascertain meaning from—and in much the same manner
as Newton too. Babies, for instance, grasp at understanding, clawing through
errors of misjudgment, stumbling over the misguided interpretations of meaning till understanding is finally reached. Once that first understanding is accomplished, the baby can now move on to more complex and richer understandings; understandings that provide meaning.
What we contend to be language most times is confused by it parts. When we
hear or read certain words we immediately assume it to be a certain language.
We hear words spoken or see words written in the English format and automatically assume it to be part of the structure and code of English; we then set about trying to decipher and decode the cryptic message. Ebonics should have been lesson enough for most of us, yet skeptics remain. The first step in deciphering or decoding any message is to determine who it is from and in what language is the message being sent. It would seem fantastically odd to try to
read something before determining what language it was in.
And lastly, where we see no language often times, language may exist. For
instance: A tree has roots that are connected to the soil, which is connected to the nutrients in the soil, which is connected to other things and so on. The tree
has components such as branches, leaves, bugs, all vital parts in its existence.
Although the tree appears to be a living organism capable of some form of
reproducing, it still is dependent on other factors in order to ascertain its true purpose. Each thing has its own properties, hard, soft, large, green, brown; all adding to the vitality of the tree. Now take a look at language. It, too, has a similar
structure: propositions, sentences, paragraphs, and books, each built on
top of or in connection with or in connection to all the other parts. All
designed and dependent upon one another, so the force and strength of the “all” is adding to its true weight as a statement. The existence of the tree makes a statement much like the sentence or paragraph. They all tell a story, express a thought, reveal a truth or in the trees case, testify to the death, burial and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. These expressions are to be interpreted by those who
are trying to determine what is being said.
“Languages stand shoulder to shoulder."
What I am referring to is the
phenomenon like Ebonics. We speak different languages, standing on different shoulders all the time. When we speak using the parts of a language, we speak from its pulpit. That pulpit determines how
our message will be received; its context. Ebonics and English stand so close to one another that we confuse the shoulders of the one whom the speaker is standing. This confusion of pulpits is the basis for most misunderstandings.
The confusion comes in when you try to interpret the parts of the language
assuming the speaker is from a particular shoulder when he or she may be a few shoulders down. Languages evolve like fungus. They infiltrate and attach themselves to similar species of languages and begin to mimic their counterparts while slipping slight little nuances into the DNA of the new being. What
is created is a similar but, be it, a different language, full bodied and shouldered.
This phenomenon is more common than we think....