Is "truth" personal?

[PureX]

This is my "truth": The experience of truth is personal. Truth itself is universal.

I think that's a good, simple way of putting it.

 

[PureX]

You remind of one rabbi who said:

But I never understood clearly what he meant by that.

However what you said, all that we experience, see, and feel etc. is "what is", is truth is true, so asking what is truth is silly as if one doesn't see or feel anything - makes sense.
But then if that's what you mean, isn't all this what we see and feel etc. or "what is" proof of something?

I liked @sun rise response: "The experience of truth is personal. Truth itself is universal."

The truth is "what is", and that extends far beyond the realm of human perception and understanding. So for us, the truth is that part of "what is" that we can perceive and understand. Even though our perception and understanding is often inaccurate.

I've always looked at it this way: I cannot know the truth, because it's beyond my comprehension. But I can know and pursue honesty, instead, and hope that this will be close enough.

 

[paradox]

Before deciding if God exists, God must first be defined.

Any supernatural power which created everything, such as Abrahamic God or hindu gods.
This thus excludes universe itself, things which exist in reality or concepts such as love.

This is my "truth": The experience of truth is personal. Truth itself is universal.

well said!

I've always looked at it this way: I cannot know the truth, because it's beyond my comprehension.

if by "what is" you mean everything then this makes much sense.

 

[ChristineM]

I like your definition, and I understand why you chose it. But to be honest, both your definition and the one you ascribe to "religious people" are entirely subjective. Simply because "fact and reality" are both very relative and therefor subjective determinations from a human perspective. Which is the only perspective we have. Fact "A" is true or untrue depending upon the facts being used to determine it's relative validity. In fact, facts are neither true nor untrue, they are only valid or invalid relative to the criteria (context) being used to determine their validity. Does Santa Clause wear a red suit? Yes and no, depending on the context being used to assess the validity of that proposed fact. And the same is true of reality. Which reality are we talking about? The one that transcends all our human capacities to experience and understand? Or the reality that we each experience and understand, personally (and therefor subjectively)? The former is basically theoretical and unverifiable, while the latter is all we have, but is limited, relative, and subjective.

What you really ended up choosing is consensus for your means of determining truth. And that's as good a way as any, and better than most. I have no argument with it except that it's not "objective".

Fact and reality are both objective by every accepted definition but woo. And i dont do woo.

 

[idea]

Any supernatural power which created everything, such as Abrahamic God or hindu gods.
This thus excludes universe itself, things which exist in reality or concepts such as love.

.

I believe everything is eternal, no grand beginning, no end, no ex-nihlo creation. Transform yes, creation no. I guess from your definition I do not believe in God then, although I do consider myself spiritual, am inspired by nature, conscious matter, life.

 

[paradox]

We can observe and measure the observable universe. Does the rest matter?

You can take a coup of water out of a sea and conclude no sharks exists in sea.

I read a report some years ago about British church leaders, a fair proportion would admit anonymously and privately that they did not believe in a god but publicly they would say otherwise.

OK, imagine pope saying this, armagedon!

 

[paradox]

I believe everything is eternal, no grand beginning, no end, no ex-nihlo creation. Transform yes, creation no. I guess from your definition I do not believe in God then, although I do consider myself spiritual, am inspired by nature, conscious matter, life.

I think your definition of God is what @PureX described in post #2
"what is" or everything is, God is, is impossible to comprehend.
This is a solid truth but it excludes supernatural and it doesn't disprove it.

Thus if truth is that there is no supernatural God then your truth automatically becomes truth.

 

[ChristineM]

You can take a coup of water out of a sea and conclude no sharks exists in sea.


OK, imagine pope saying this, armagedon!

That's something of a straw man, deep analysis of the water would in all probability show traces of shark semen and dna. Deep analysis of distant suns tell us a lot about their makeup. Even exoplanets can be investigated to some extent.

Nah, the pope wouldn't say that, the pay and privilege is to good to throw the job away

 

[idea]

I think your definition of God is what @PureX described in post #2
"what is" or everything is, God is, is impossible to comprehend.
This is a solid truth but it excludes supernatural and it doesn't disprove it.

Thus if truth is that there is no supernatural God then your truth automatically becomes truth.

I do think we all have our own personal subjective understanding - would use the words perception, understanding, awareness, thoughts, insights - the word "truth" seems to have too much baggage. The God concept seems to contain and reflect personal hopes and fears, something to throw all that is unknown or frustrating to.

 

[PureX]

if by "what is" you mean everything then this makes much sense.

Yes, and there is a caveat. If we cannot know the whole of "what is", how can we know that what we think we know OF IT, now, is accurate? I mean, how would what we think we know of "the truth" at present change if we could know the whole of it? My guess is that it would change A LOT! So that it's best to keep in mind just how wrong we can always be, and probably are. Even unimaginably wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But gravity is "only a theory". Apparently.

That's because it will no longer be true when the rapture comes...

 

[PureX]

Fact and reality are both objective by every accepted definition but woo. And i dont do woo.

The definition of an "automobile" is not an automobile. Nor does it tell us much about any specific or group of automobiles. Relying on language for understanding truth or reality would be very misleading. But I understand that you choose to rely on consensus as a measure of truth. And language is a form of consensus.

 

[vulcanlogician]

My two cents:

I think reality is a shared experience we all have. Our personal experience of reality is the most direct way we apprehend reality. God or the universe are putative features of reality (or at least that's what we imply in ordinary speech about the subjects).

I'm more understanding of theists who like to resort to personal experience of a deity as justification of their belief. (It's FAR less annoying than Biblical authority or manhandling logic/science.) They make a good point this way. A lot of things we know to be true, we know exclusively from personal experience. The first time we fell in love, for instance, was likely not discovered by the measurement of hormone levels in a laboratory (even though, in principle, that's one way to find out). In actuality, we simply experienced falling in love, and took that experience at face value. If a theist wants to do that with God, I say that's fine. But don't expect that sort of thing to convince others. Especially skeptics.

Whether this makes the truth of God 'personal"... I think we need to be clear what we mean. If God is a genuine feature of reality (going back to what I said before) and reality is something we co-experience and co-interpret, then I would want to say that the truth of God is not personal. Only the experience. But I think the experience of God being personal is largely what OP meant, so I might be splitting hairs.

 

[ChristineM]

The definition of an "automobile" is not an automobile. Nor does it tell us much about any specific or group of automobiles. Relying on language for understanding truth or reality would be very misleading. But I understand that you choose to rely on consensus as a measure of truth. And language is a form of consensus.

We are talking fact and reality, not cars

I feel that relying on consensus and language is far more accurate and understood by the majority of people compared to guesswork and making up what best suites ones personal views.

 

[paradox]

I think reality is a shared experience we all have. Our personal experience of reality is the most direct way we apprehend reality. God or the universe are putative features of reality (or at least that's what we imply in ordinary speech about the subjects).
...
Whether this makes the truth of God 'personal"... I think we need to be clear what we mean. If God is a genuine feature of reality (going back to what I said before) and reality is something we co-experience and co-interpret, then I would want to say that the truth of God is not personal. Only the experience. But I think the experience of God being personal is largely what OP meant, so I might be splitting hairs.

If I understood this in essence means:

What we collectively experience or co-experience about reality is true and not personal.
We do not collectively experience God
Therefore truth is that there is no God and this truth is not personal

This falls then into my hypothesis 3 that truth is "well known but not universally believable"

But I think the experience of God being personal is largely what OP meant

Yes, but also I considered lack of experience of God to be personal.
I didn't think of reality as collective experience, but you made a good point by introducing co-experiencing of reality.

 

[vulcanlogician]

If I understood this in essence means:

What we collectively experience or co-experience about reality is true and not personal.
We do not collectively experience God
Therefore truth is that there is no God and this truth is not personal

This falls then into my hypothesis 3 that truth is "well known but not universally believable"

I might not have been clear, I'm ultimately agnostic, so I would never say "the truth is that there is no God." I think the case for God is unconvincing as it's been made to me thus far. That doesn't allow me to conclude that there IS or ISN'T a God. Theists have a bullet list of about a dozen or so good points if we count great philosophers like William James. But that's insufficient. Conspiracy theorists can do half as well on a good day.

So... to clarify my view on truth as personal or impersonal, let's use the example of something more mundane: a five dollar bill.

In our example, you come to me and say "I have a five dollar bill in my wallet."

Normally I might reply something like "Okay, good for you." But today I'm feeling a bit skeptical. Instead I say, "Oh yeah? Prove it."

You say, "Okay. I will." And you reach toward your back pocket. But then you remember, to your dismay, that you just lent your wife your wallet so that she might go get coffee for the both of you. Knowing that she will use one of the credit cards to make the purchase-- because let's face it, five bucks won't get you two coffees anymore-- you know the fiver will still be there when she gets back. You explain the situation to me.

"When my wife gets back, I'll show you the five dollar bill," you say.

"Unfortunately," I reply, "my train has just arrived. So I have to go." Agreeing that I shouldn't miss my train, just to settle some silly dispute about five dollars, we part ways.

When I get on the train and take my seat, I reflect on the truth of the five dollars being in your wallet. I had not received an adequate experience to prove the five dollars being in your wallet or not.

You on the other hand DID have an experience of the five dollar bill. YOU have the experience of putting it in your wallet earlier that day. You'd be a crazy person to be skeptical about the five bucks simply because you met a person who was unconvinced.

But one thing is clear:

The truth of the matter is not "personal." There either IS or IS NOT a five dollar bill in your wallet. And whatever is the case, is true. If, a few minutes after my train pulls away, I conclude you were making the five dollar bill thing up the whole time, that does NOT mean the non-existence of the fiver is "my truth" and the existence of it is "your truth." Either one or the other is true for both of us.

Same goes for God. Either God does or does not exist. People have concluded things on the matter both ways, but each does not get to claim a personal "truth" on the matter. One party is right. The other is wrong.

Of course, we have to admit, the God-claim is a little more outrageous than the five dollar bill claim, and therefore requires some pretty solid support if it is to be believed. But we don't really need to trouble ourselves with that hiccup in this conversation. I'm perfectly fine with saying your personal experience of God makes your belief in God justified as far as you are concerned. To say otherwise would be like making me require that you showed ME the five dollar bill before YOU believe it. And that's just absurd.

Even though I'm an atheist, I don't think a person who has had an experience of God needs to justify their beliefs to me. But at the same time, I reserve the right to be unconvinced until I have such an experience myself.

 

[Bird123]

This question is not limited to Christians (even though it seems so) or to any belief or lack thereof but it's rather question of existence or nonexistence of God.

There are many truths about all sorts of things, but when speaking about "truth" I mean the Jesus' role in proclaiming truth,
or more specifically Pilate style curiosity when he asked Jesus "what is truth?", after all Pilates knew the role of Jesus.

In regard to Jesus' role but regardless of your belief in Jesus, "truth" is therefore an answer to existence of God, that is, God either exists or it does not, there is no 3rd option.
If God exists OK because we live for ever, if not we're doomed because there is no life after death as simple as that and that's what's meant by "truth" and what it reveals.

"truth" also literary means something that is true, therefore "truth" in this context unambiguously either reveals God exists or it reveals God does not exist,
thus it's a two edge sword meaning both sides can wound or both can tell the truth.
Truth about existence of God is thus transformative, because it is capable to convert non-believers to believers and vice versa depending on what the truth reveals.

That's what I mean by "truth".

However the fact is that we're not all believers nor we're all atheists, therefore there are only three logical hypotheses about mystery of truth:
1.) truth is not known
2.) truth is esoteric
3.) well known but not universally believable

And this begs the question on whether the truth is personal?

As you can see for yourself all 3 hypotheses imply truth is personal.
But that's a problem because if truth is personal then how it can be "truth", are you not lying to yourself?
Therefore truth is paradoxically also not personal!

Do you think truth is personal?

Real Truth will not always be an agreeable thing. On the other hand, one can choose to shape their beliefs to fit what one wants quite nicely.

Real Truth is not a personal thing. On the other hand, when Real Truth hurts, one can choose to take it personally.

As far as God existing, God will always be a Belief until one actually bumps into God. I find very few people who actually want to find God. People would rather keep their Beliefs as they choose than take the effort to Discover the Real Truth for themselves.

Are religions any different? I have found no religion that actually Understands God at all. Their holy books reflect what they choose to Believe about God rather than what actually is. I find holy books reflect mankind more than anything else.

Religions and societies teach people to value beliefs. Even atheists value Beliefs when they choose to Believe God does not exist.

It has always been easier to merely Believe than take the effort it takes to Discover the Real Truth. Case in point: What freezes quicker cold or hot water? People will choose to Believe what they will, then line up on the side they like. They speak with so much authority and seemingly intelligence when they recite which one will freeze quicker.

I have always been one who must know the Real Truth. Instead of choosing a Belief then reciting, I took the effort necessary to Discover the Real Truth. I used an ice maker. I put cold water in one tray and hot water in the other. The cold froze quicker but not by much.

In order to eliminate any outside factors, I swapped trays. The tray that had the cold water now gets the hot water. The tray that had the hot now gets the cold water. The cold, once again, froze quicker. For me, it's a fact cold water will freeze quicker than hot water.

People all over the world will recite their beliefs. I say take beliefs for what they really are. If anyone is like me and must know the Real Truth, once again, It's going to take work.

So much is said about God that simply isn't true. There are more Beliefs that people want to be true floating around everywhere. Perhaps, they should look inward and analyze why is it that they want those beliefs to be as they choose. I think it's very important to be true to oneself. How can one do that if they do not even know why they choose what they choose??

See? There is always more to Discover. It waits for us all to take the effort rather than merely being satisfied with those Beliefs. On the other hand, it's a lesson to learn along the journey we each take through our choices. At some point we will all choose for ourselves that the Real Truth is Important to Discover.

Worry not. There has never ever been a time limit on learning.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[paradox]

I might not have been clear, I'm ultimately agnostic, so I would never say "the truth is that there is no God." I think the case for God is unconvincing as it's been made to me thus far. That doesn't allow me to conclude that there IS or ISN'T a God. Theists have a bullet list of about a dozen or so good points if we count great philosophers like William James. But that's insufficient. Conspiracy theorists can do half as well on a good day.

So... to clarify my view on truth as personal or impersonal, let's use the example of something more mundane: a five dollar bill.

In our example, you come to me and say "I have a five dollar bill in my wallet."

Normally I might reply something like "Okay, good for you." But today I'm feeling a bit skeptical. Instead I say, "Oh yeah? Prove it."

You say, "Okay. I will." And you reach toward your back pocket. But then you remember, to your dismay, that you just lent your wife your wallet so that she might go get coffee for the both of you. Knowing that she will use one of the credit cards to make the purchase-- because let's face it, five bucks won't get you two coffees anymore-- you know the fiver will still be there when she gets back. You explain the situation to me.

"When my wife gets back, I'll show you the five dollar bill," you say.

"Unfortunately," I reply, "my train has just arrived. So I have to go." Agreeing that I shouldn't miss my train, just to settle some silly dispute about five dollars, we part ways.

When I get on the train and take my seat, I reflect on the truth of the five dollars being in your wallet. I had not received an adequate experience to prove the five dollars being in your wallet or not.

You on the other hand DID have an experience of the five dollar bill. YOU have the experience of putting it in your wallet earlier that day. You'd be a crazy person to be skeptical about the five bucks simply because you met a person who was unconvinced.

But one thing is clear:

The truth of the matter is not "personal." There either IS or IS NOT a five dollar bill in your wallet. And whatever is the case, is true. If, a few minutes after my train pulls away, I conclude you were making the five dollar bill thing up the whole time, that does NOT mean the non-existence of the fiver is "my truth" and the existence of it is "your truth." Either one or the other is true for both of us.

Same goes for God. Either God does or does not exist. People have concluded things on the matter both ways, but each does not get to claim a personal "truth" on the matter. One party is right. The other is wrong.

Of course, we have to admit, the God-claim is a little more outrageous than the five dollar bill claim, and therefore requires some pretty solid support if it is to be believed. But we don't really need to trouble ourselves with that hiccup in this conversation. I'm perfectly fine with saying your personal experience of God makes your belief in God justified as far as you are concerned. To say otherwise would be like making me require that you showed ME the five dollar bill before YOU believe it. And that's just absurd.

Even though I'm an atheist, I don't think a person who has had an experience of God needs to justify their beliefs to me. But at the same time, I reserve the right to be unconvinced until I have such an experience myself.

I see now, you gave very good analogy.
Taking experience into account makes truth non personal even though it can't be proved.

 

[PureX]

We are talking fact and reality, not cars

I feel that relying on consensus and language is far more accurate and understood by the majority of people compared to guesswork and making up what best suites ones personal views.

I understand. But all your saying is that the opinion of ten people is better than the opinion of one. And I'm just pointing out that one or a hundred, it's all still opinions about reality, not reality itself.

 

[ChristineM]

I understand. But all your saying is that the opinion of ten people is better than the opinion of one. And I'm just pointing out that one or a hundred, it's all still opinions about reality, not reality itself.

No im not i am saying that measured reality is better than guess.

I.e. the earth you are standing on is real. It is not a guess.

The pratt who dented my car is real, as is the dent.

They dont need subjective judgement.