The Truth

[zenzero]

Friend Stephenw,

BUDDHA:
Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.

Love & rgds

 

[Sunstone]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Qu9fHicIQ&feature=channel_page

the only absolute truth in life

under every rock, even before the beginnings of life itself, there was a self righteous atheist with a glass of whine

Folks, why bother with this troll? The poor guy cannot even post without expressing hatred of someone or something.

 

[Sunstone]

Friend Stephenw,

BUDDHA:
Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.

Love & rgds

Yeah, but what did the Buddha know?

 

[autonomous1one1]

'The truth, to be sure can stand on one leg; but with two it will walk and get around' - Nietzsche

Is The Truth that for us humans there is no absolute Truth?

Greetings Stephen. RF has tackled 'absolute Truth' a number of times as in the following threads if anyone is interested in more. An absolute truth that one comes away with from some of the wise RFers is that the statement there absolutely is no absolute Truth cannot itself be true.

• How Do We Know Absolute Truth?
• Is There An Absolute Truth?
• How Absolute is an Absolute Truth ?
• Is the belief "There are no absolute truths", an absolute truth
• absolute truth
• Define "Truth"! I Dare You!
• Absolute Truth: Fact Or Fiction?
• http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-truth-meaningful-concept-3.html#post1235228

My own view, expressed in the latter threads listed above, would give the answer to this current OP of - no, for there is absolute Truth. Absolute Truth can be a meaningful concept and can be known. Truth to me, simply put, involves 'something' and grasping that something in a cognitive act. Truth is subjective-objective and verifiable through experimentation or experientially. The concept 'Absolute Truth' is meaningful if reserved for a particular meaning: it is 'absolute' because it concerns everything concrete. It embraces everything concrete in self and world and is 'above' the subject-object structure. Absolute truth can be proven - to one's self, within.

 

[Falvlun]

There either is or there isn't a god.

Maybe that's not the right question.

It wasn't so much a question as a statement. Either x or y. Both can not be true.

But I am curious now. What is the right question?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Sunstone,

Yeah, but what did the Buddha know?

Buddha is a state of nirvana or Being and not that can be known.
By his Being he was just pointing his finger towards that [moon]
so that each human too can become a BEING.
BEING means which IS continuously without begining or end.
Now, it is upto the individual, to catch his finger or catch the moon or GET THE WHOLE PICTURE and.......

Love & rgds

 

[Willamena]

Either x or y. Both can not be true.

x = y

There, now they're both true.

 

[gnostic]

I will give you an example of the truth. I have never been in a real court before, so I don't know how they proceed in the Australian courts, so I am relying on the American court procedure. So bear with me.

As everyone knows, the people who take the witness stand, are required to swear on the bible (@#$@#!!! Oops! :sorry1, and repeat the words:

I swear that I will tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so....blah, blah, blah...

Does anyone on the stand really tell only "absolute truth"?

I really don't think so.

Let's ignore the possibly that a person will tell the truth and not a lie.

The witness or whoever speaks, can only tell one side to any event. And just ONE SIDE. Even the expert witnesses (like forensics, medical examiners, psychologists, etc) can only tell one side of their stories. They can only tell what they have seen, heard and examined, and from one's perspective.

So this "truth" can only be considered to be relative, not absolute.

The same goes with belief and religions. Their "truths" can only be relative. There is only one way for God's existence to be absolute, if he was to appear to everyone, to prove that he is real, beyond reasonable doubts. That's the only way you prove absolute truth in regarding to his existence. Otherwise it is just pure faith; and faith, like truth, can only be relative and subjective.

My personal motto is:

There are many truths,
And there is no [single absolute or ultimate] truth.

 

[Falvlun]

x = y

There, now they're both true.

Haha. Very funny, you clever imp.

I was, though, thinking more in the logic terms, ie, x= Unicorns exist, and y= Unicorns don't exist. I think you would be hard pressed to make x=y in this instance.

 

[Falvlun]

My personal motto is:

There are many truths,
And there is no [single absolute or ultimate] truth.

What about statements like "the moon orbits the earth" or "1 meter equals 1000 millimeters" or "the speed of light is (approximately) 300,000,000 m/s"?

 

[Willamena]

Haha. Very funny, you clever imp.

I was, though, thinking more in the logic terms, ie, x= Unicorns exist, and y= Unicorns don't exist. I think you would be hard pressed to make x=y in this instance.

To relate it back to "God", though, where it is relevant, yes "God" does exist (for the theist) and not exist (for the atheist).

 

[Falvlun]

To relate it back to "God", though, where it is relevant, yes "God" does exist (for the theist) and not exist (for the atheist).

But that's exactly the point: One of them must be wrong and one of them must be right.
Truth really can't be relative in this instance.
I mean, would you argue that because millions of small children believe in Santa Claus he actually does exist?

 

[Willamena]

But that's exactly the point: One of them must be wrong and one of them must be right.

From whose perspective?

Truth really can't be relative in this instance.

Relative to what?

I mean, would you argue that because millions of small children believe in Santa Claus he actually does exist?

That would be to argue that belief causes existence, which isn't the case above. If you answer the two proceeding questions, though, maybe we can figure it out.

 

[gnostic]

What about statements like "the moon orbits the earth" or "1 meter equals 1000 millimeters" or "the speed of light is (approximately) 300,000,000 m/s"?

We are talking about truth, not fact. And the thing is, I distinguished the difference between the two.

Facts are required evidences to prove or validate them, independent of the person involved in the investigation, experiments, etc. This is more objective.

Truth on the other hand, is related largely to person's belief, memory or perspective. And a person can never be 100% objective. Memory, perception and belief are mostly subjective. We can only be objective to a point.

But in any case, I agree with your statements, but that's more about facts than truth.

 

[Falvlun]

From whose perspective?

From no one's perspective, or if you must, from some imaginary objective observer watching everything from outside the universe. I see truth as just being.

Relative to what?

I'm saying it can't be relative, period, regardless of what it is relative to. I'm using the word "relative" to mean that something can be true for one person, but not true for another. The truth value of some things are relative:

For example, carrots can be disgusting (to Bill) and not disgusting (to John).

In contrast, Bill might believe God exists, and John might believe God doesn't exist, but they both can not be right.

That would be to argue that belief causes existence, which isn't the case above. If you answer the two proceeding questions, though, maybe we can figure it out.

That's the only way I can think of to argue your point: that both John and Bill can be right. (ie, belief causes God to exist, so by believing in God, Bill causes God to exist, but since John doesn't believe in God, God doesn't exist for him.)

We are talking about truth, not fact. And the thing is, I distinguished the difference between the two.

Facts are required evidences to prove or validate them, independent of the person involved in the investigation, experiments, etc. This is more objective.

Truth on the other hand, is related largely to person's belief, memory or perspective. And a person can never be 100% objective. Memory, perception and belief are mostly subjective. We can only be objective to a point.

But in any case, I agree with your statements, but that's more about facts than truth.

I wasn't sure if this was in response to me or not, but it was an interesting statement, so I'll respond to it anyway.

I guess I see truth, or at least Truth, to essentially be facts. Truth, capital T, would have to be true for everyone in order to be true.

What you are describing as truth, I would designate as opinion.

 

[Willamena]

From no one's perspective, or if you must, from some imaginary objective observer watching everything from outside the universe. I see truth as just being.

Just so. We imagine the imaginary observer's perspective, and place more significance on it (some of us) than on our own, that is to say on what we know is real. This (the world around me) is real. What is "right" is right to you, or to me, or (I imagine) to that imaginary observer. What is "wrong" is wrong to you, or to me, or (I imagine) to that imaginary observer.

What is in being is what is known to be in being. The truth that is known is the truth. The atheist knows what is true every bit as much as the theist knows what is true, and that truth is absolute to both of them. The truth to the observer who is imagined, though, is equally imagined, by both the atheist and the theist.

I'm saying it can't be relative, period, regardless of what it is relative to. I'm using the word "relative" to mean that something can be true for one person, but not true for another.

I take relative at its essential meaning, "being in relation". There is nothing that is not relative to something, nothing we can know of anyway, because to know a thing is to acknowledge its form distinct from all other things. Everything is relative to the observer of it. If a thing is known then there was an observer of it, and at very least it is relative to that observer (at most, relative to everything else). Even absoluteness exists relative to something.

We imagine that from the perspective of the imaginary observer things are known in entirety. We imagine they have a being more real than we can know them to have. Truth, too --we imagine that the imaginary observer's truth is more truthful than the truth we know. The truth we know to be real. That's a lot of reality to give away to someone imaginary.

The truth value of some things are relative:

For example, carrots can be disgusting (to Bill) and not disgusting (to John).

Unless, of course, they truly are disgusting to Bill and not disgusting to John. Then the truth (to you and me) is absolute.

In contrast, Bill might believe God exists, and John might believe God doesn't exist, but they both can not be right.

But the truth (to you and me) in this scenario is that Bill really does believe God exists and John really does believe God doesn't exist. Who is "right", objectively, depends on what each of us imagines the imginary observer might know.

The "truth" you're looking for is a fiction (written by you and me).

That's the only way I can think of to argue your point: that both John and Bill can be right. (ie, belief causes God to exist, so by believing in God, Bill causes God to exist, but since John doesn't believe in God, God doesn't exist for him.)

Looking at it the way I see the world actually working, John can know the rightness of his own ideas and Bil the rightness of his, and each think the other is wrong. You can think John right and Bill wrong, and vice-versa, and I can. We could even compare notes to supplement the information available to us; but what is objectively "right" is imagined by either of us as being right to that imaginary observer.

 

[J-Train]

Is The Truth that for us humans there is no absolute Truth?

yes thats exactly right
an absolute truth is just an idea that we strive for
but can never actually find it

 

[Willamena]

yes thats exactly right
an absolute truth is just an idea that we strive for
but can never actually find it

Is that the truth? Absolutely?

 

[gnostic]

I wasn't sure if this was in response to me or not, but it was an interesting statement, so I'll respond to it anyway.

It was in response to your previous reply. I forgot to quote bits of your post. :sorry1:

I guess I see truth, or at least Truth, to essentially be facts. Truth, capital T, would have to be true for everyone in order to be true.

What you are describing as truth, I would designate as opinion.

Yes, because that's all truth is; they are opinion, belief, faith, etc.

You should not confused the "truth" to "what is true". They are totally different too.

I will concede that sometimes "truth" can coincide with "fact"; in this case, facts have validated the truth.

Again, using the court procedure example again.

When a witness or defendant or whatever give his version of the "truth", if he is not lying, then he can only go by what he see, hear, feel and think of what he had witnessed. That's his "truth". Another person may see everything differently from his perspective; and that would be his truth.

Do you see what I mean, falvlun?

Their words are not judged as fact, and not by what they say to be necessarily "true", unless it can be validated, like many other witnesses or video footage of the crime, DNA, etc.

But as I said before, even DNA and video footage, expert witnesses, etc, can only each provide one aspect of what can take place at the crime scene. The culmination of all the witnesses and evidences would hopefully prove the innocence or guilt of a person.

Each religion can have its own truth; and this truth is only based on what the people believe in and they have faith of what they believe in to be true.

That's all the truth really is. It doesn't necessarily rely on evidences or proof.

Each religion would use the capital T for their Truth. So which of their "Truth" is right.

I think your idea of the "Truth" is flawed because of its simplistic in a complex real world. Everything is not black-and-white, as theists and atheists tend to think.

Just how many people does make it true for "everyone"? Two people? 10? A thousand? Million? Billion?

There are over a billion Christians who believed that Jesus is the saviour.

And there are over a billion Muslims who believed that Muhammad is their prophet?

But is that really "everyone" and is what they believe in is the Truth? Can either side prove it? And if it is true for one or the other, then why are some who don't believe them?

No, falvlun. These people can have their so-called "truth". I personally preferred some evidences to prove or disprove these so-called "truths", before I can accept anything.

 

[J-Train]

Is that the truth? Absolutely?

yes it is the truth without truth
the question without answer
but everyone knows the outcome