"Truth" What is it?

[McBell]

If man's perspective is so limited then wouldn't it stand to reason that, religiously, the "truth" is beyond what men can conceptualize, and therefore, all concepts of "absolute truth" come up lacking?

It would stand to reason if reason was actually being applied...

 

[McBell]

Draka, my position is this. Truth is truth regardless of whether or not we can offer proof of that truth. It is truth whether we believe it or not. It is what it is whether man, from his limited perspective, believes it or not.

So all religious truth is basically nothing more than people making guesses and hoping to hell they are right?

 

[Kathryn]

Mestemia - so do you believe that there is truth and then there is religious truth?

These are somehow different? How?

 

[Kathryn]

You all do know, don't you, that we will not be able to reach an agreement on what Truth actually is, right? Greater minds than ours have grappled with that question since the beginning of time. I don't expect us to figure it out on this forum.

We each have to figure it out as best we can for ourselves and then live with as much integrity as possible while applying what we believe to be truth to our lives. Sometimes this means showing respect for others whose idea of truth doesn't match up with ours, and sometimes it means going to battle against them.

History teaches us this, doesn't it? Sometimes we must take a stand for what we believe with all our heart to be the absolute truth whether others agree with us or not.

 

[waitasec]

What I am saying is that just because we can't prove something, doesn't make it untrue. We are limited in our perceptions and in our intellectual grasp of reality.

and tell me who has been arguing against this idea?

as i mentioned before...in the other thread
i cannot compare god to the empirical evidence of gravity...
therefore anyone who holds truth which cannot be verified as empirical truth because of our limited capacity of perception cannot say they have "the objective truth"

 

[McBell]

Mestemia - so do you believe that there is truth and then there is religious truth?

These are somehow different? How?

Waiting for you to show that god existing is a truth.
Nevermind all the stuff you attribute to god, at least for now, just show how gods existence is true.
This is a "truth" from religion that cannot be shown to be true or untrue.


The belief that the earth is flat may or may not be a religious truth....
Either way, it has been shown that the earth is not flat.

 

[McBell]

You all do know, don't you, that we will not be able to reach an agreement on what Truth actually is, right? Greater minds than ours have grappled with that question since the beginning of time. I don't expect us to figure it out on this forum.

I am in 100% complete agreement.

We each have to figure it out as best we can for ourselves and then live with as much integrity as possible while applying what we believe to be truth to our lives. Sometimes this means showing respect for others whose idea of truth doesn't match up with ours, and sometimes it means going to battle against them.

Again I agree.

History teaches us this, doesn't it? Sometimes we must take a stand for what we believe with all our heart to be the absolute truth whether others agree with us or not.

Some people would call it "defending their faith".

 

[McBell]

I'm not saying we shouldn't search for proof of what we believe to be true. What I am saying is that just because we can't prove something, doesn't make it untrue. We are limited in our perceptions and in our intellectual grasp of reality.

Unfortunately, this is the very crutch that far to many people use when their beliefs are questioned.

To me it is nothing more than a safety net for far to many people.
When asked why do they believe in god, their reply is "you cannot prove my beliefs false".

I agree we are limited.
But I do not believe that using said limitation to justify a self serving belief as being very useful.

 

[Kathryn]

But we're not talking about justifying self serving beliefs. We're trying to define truth.

Not once have I brought up, on this thread or the one it spun from, a religious concept that I claim to be truth.

What got my hackles up (whatever that means) is that in spite of that fact, others on that thread, and now on this one apparently, tried to insist that I was claiming some sort of religious ideas as absolute truth.

 

[McBell]

But we're not talking about justifying self serving beliefs. We're trying to define truth.

Really?
And you make some sort of distinction between the two when it comes to god and all the things claimed about it?

Where do you draw your line?

Not once have I brought up, on this thread or the one it spun from, a religious concept that I claim to be truth.

Who said you did?

What got my hackles up (whatever that means) is that in spite of that fact, others on that thread, and now on this one apparently, tried to insist that I was claiming some sort of religious ideas as absolute truth.

Really?
And what posts did this happen in?

 

[Kathryn]

Really?
And you make some sort of distinction between the two when it comes to god and all the things claimed about it?

Where do you draw your line?



Who said you did?


Really?
And what posts did this happen in?

I'm not going to toggle back and forth between this thread and the other about proselytizing (which this thread spun from), nor am I going to go back through all these posts when this one example, from you a few posts back, will do nicely as just such an example:

Waiting for you to show that god existing is a truth.
Nevermind all the stuff you attribute to god, at least for now, just show how gods existence is true.
This is a "truth" from religion that cannot be shown to be true or untrue.

Why are you waiting for me to show that God exists? What have I attributed to God in this thread or the other one?

 

[Father Heathen]

Like I said in the other thread; If something is unverifiable then it's presumption and speculation, not truth.

 

[Mister Emu]

Truth corresponds to reality.

It's like the blind men all touching a different part of an elephant and trying to describe what an elephant is. Each has their own "truth" and even though they disagree, none are truly entirely "wrong" either.

Hmmm... if I am remembering the metaphor correctly, the blind men were all terribly wrong... the one man says it is a tree, the other a snake, etc. An elephant is not, at all, any of those things.

Like I said in the other thread; If something is unverifiable then it's presumption and speculation, not truth.

Even if it is accurate?

 

[Kathryn]

Just because something is unverifiable doesn't mean it's untrue. It just means it's currently unverifiable.

For many centuries, some people thought the earth was not flat, but a sphere. They couldn't prove it, but that didn't mean it wasn't true. It just meant that they couldn't prove it with the tools or understanding on hand at the time.

 

[McBell]

I'm not going to toggle back and forth between this thread and the other about proselytizing (which this thread spun from), nor am I going to go back through all these posts when this one example, from you a few posts back, will do nicely as just such an example:

Why are you waiting for me to show that God exists? What have I attributed to God in this thread or the other one?

You are real big on throwing around the word hypocrite.
You are also the one who made this post:

Truth is "what is."

The problem lies in the fact that all of us accept some things as true without demanding irrefutable evidence.

For instance, most of us believe that our parents are truly our parents, though very few of us have insisted on paternity tests.

No, most people only seem to demand irrefutable evidence when someone else is trying to claim something they disagree with is truth.

Emphasis and coloration mine...
​

I am curious as to what "irrefutable evidence" you have to support your belief in god.
Or perhaps you are as big a hypocrite as everyone else you have slapped said label on?


I never once made even an indication that you claimed gods existence was an absolute truth.
So You will still need to present examples of when I, or anyone else, has done so.

Further more, I have not attributed any specific belief about absolute truth to you.
And I would appreciate you stopping said false allegations.

 

[Father Heathen]

Even if it is accurate?

How exactly are you gauging accuracy? Wouldn't that also make it verifiable?

 

[McBell]

Just because something is unverifiable doesn't mean it's untrue. It just means it's currently unverifiable.

So why all the whining and complaining about personally perceived truths and untruths??

For many centuries, some people thought the earth was not flat, but a sphere. They couldn't prove it, but that didn't mean it wasn't true. It just meant that they couldn't prove it with the tools or understanding on hand at the time.

Which bears a repeating of my question from post #22 which has been thus far ignored:

So all religious truth is basically nothing more than people making guesses and hoping to hell they are right?​

 

[Kathryn]

You are real big on throwing around the word hypocrite.
You are also the one who made this post:

Emphasis and coloration mine...
​

I am curious as to what "irrefutable evidence" you have to support your belief in god.
Or perhaps you are as big a hypocrite as everyone else you have slapped said label on?


I never once made even an indication that you claimed gods existence was an absolute truth.
So You will still need to present examples of when I, or anyone else, has done so.

Further more, I have not attributed any specific belief about absolute truth to you.
And I would appreciate you stopping said false allegations.

I haven't made any false allegations about you, Mestemia. But of course you know this. I am losing patience, however, with your odd little game.

How are any of my posts hypocritical? How does that word even play into what you've posted directed at my position?

I have not brought up God or any sort of religious concept related to irrefutable truth. I have not said that God or any religious concept is a concept of irrefutable truth, not have I claimed to have any sort of irrefutable evidence regarding any religious concepts or the concept of a Supreme Being which some people call God.

Furthermore, who have I called a hypocrite?

Finally - have you lost your mind? Or is someone typing under your profile? Or perhaps - are you drinking? You're honestly not making much sense.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just because something is unverifiable doesn't mean it's untrue. It just means it's currently unverifiable.

If you're addressing me, I never said otherwise. I'm just saying that it's dishonest to call something a "truth" when, even though it's possible or even probable, it's still only a guess. Ultimately it's an issue of certainty and assertion vs. being substantiated It's okay to make assumptions, predictions and educated guesses as long as they're rational and don't conflict with what evidence, if any, is available. Just don't call it truth. If it can be proven and verified, then call it truth.

 

[McBell]

I haven't made any false allegations about you, Mestemia. But of course you know this. I am losing patience, however, with your odd little game.

How are any of my posts hypocritical? How does that word even play into what you've posted directed at my position?

I have not brought up God or any sort of religious concept related to irrefutable truth. I have not said that God or any religious concept is a concept of irrefutable truth, not have I claimed to have any sort of irrefutable evidence regarding any religious concepts or the concept of a Supreme Being which some people call God.

Furthermore, who have I called a hypocrite?

Finally - have you lost your mind? Or is someone typing under your profile? Or perhaps - are you drinking? You're honestly not making much sense.

Your blatant avoidance is duly noted.