Can anyone define truth (objectively) without begging the question, dogmatism, or getting stuck on an infinite regress? I ask this because the truth of falsity of a proposition is determined or grounded in its correspondence to “truth”. Truth is fundamental to logic and especially knowledge; likewise a cogent doctrine of omniscience and foreknowledge should be grounded on an objective definition of truth.

After all if we are to speak of God’s knowledge with any authority; shouldn’t we be able to define truth without any circular reasoning, or dogmatism? (What I mean by dogmatism is declaring something to be a basic belief or self-eidvent truth that is declared basic or self-evident by an individual or particular community)

I have heard many arguments Open Theists regarding omniscience; that articulate precise and demanding concepts and doctrines that go well beyond the language and concepts of a common-sense approach. I am curious if any on this BB who adhere to these sophisticated metaphysical, epistemic, and logical concepts can define the most basic tenant of omniscience viz. truth.

What is truth? If you find that you can't define "truth" indubitably; how can you even begin to speak on divine knowledge? I think this is a fair request and not overly sceptical; considering the abstract nature of the subject matter.

I think it will be a real "eye opener" to discover that our sophisticated inferential reasoning is all based on our dogmatic presuppositions of truth and knowledge. Again a case of the "very" finite attempting to explain the Infinite; our views are at best conjecture and opinion, regardless of how scientific they sound.

God bless,

Chaz

Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 7/16/2008 9:45:43 PM (GMT-5)