"Truth" What is it?

[Mister Emu]

Who is arguing against that?

Father Heathen said "If something is unverifiable then it's presumption and speculation, not truth."

I hold an opposing opinion. Verification, or even the ability to verify, that is the ability to truly know, are not requisite for truth.

So basically religion is nothing more than people making guesses then hoping like hell they are right?

Where did I say that?

So you do not even have a bad example?

I must necessarily appeal to the past. I cannot show both an inability to verify in the present and accuracy.

 

[Draka]

Verification, or even the ability to verify, that is the ability to truly know, are not requisite for truth.

Then it really is subjective is it not? I mean, since no one has an ability to truly know any hard "truth" about the spiritual then all religions are just as valid a "truth" as any other. Right?

Which would mean that your own idea of "truth" has no more validity or likeliness than any other. Correct?

 

[Pegg]

Ok.


Thus the difference between truth and religious truth.

Out of curiosity, do you believe the Bible tells you that the Bible is is the basis for truth?

i believe the writers of the bible had accurate information from God...therefore i believe what they wrote constitutes truth.

 

[Pegg]

Unfortunately this is nothing more than opinion.
Not truth.

well it was Jesus opinion...and i believe his opinion is truth.

 

[Pegg]

Though that is only truth for those who take the bible as more than a just another mythology book. If one does not regard the bible as anything more than that then it holds no truth for them and their truth will come from something else. You choose to take the bible a certain way and that is why you believe it holds truth for you. Others hold it equally in a different way and, therefore, it holds no truth for them.

So then the question becomes, who determines what holds truth and what doesn't and how do they determine that? There is no, and can't be, a consensus. Which makes all "truths" subjective and personal. Agree?

yes i do agree with you

but its the very reason why i think we need to take our truth from a higher source...one with authority to determine truth. If we do, then perhaps we really could have agreement on the issue.

 

[Pegg]

Well, go ahead, support your claim.

for example, we dont believe in survival of the soul after death because the bible says "the dead are conscious of nothing"
"you will return to the dust for out of it you were taken"
"his spirit goes out...in that day, his thoughts do perish"
"the dead are conscious of nothing at all"

we believe that when we die, we return to the dust. We cease to exist. We do not live on in some other form...we are not immortal. We believe that is true because God has said it is what happens to us when we die.

I believe the bible is the word of God, i believe what he says to be true.

 

[waitasec]

i believe the writers of the bible had accurate information from God...therefore i believe what they wrote constitutes truth.

nonetheless it is still unverifiable
it is your subjective truth.

 

[waitasec]

for example, we dont believe in survival of the soul after death because the bible says "the dead are conscious of nothing"
"you will return to the dust for out of it you were taken"
"his spirit goes out...in that day, his thoughts do perish"
"the dead are conscious of nothing at all"

we believe that when we die, we return to the dust. We cease to exist. We do not live on in some other form...we are not immortal. We believe that is true because God has said it is what happens to us when we die.

I believe the bible is the word of God, i believe what he says to be true.

this is unverifiable...

 

[waitasec]

yes i do agree with you

but its the very reason why i think we need to take our truth from a higher source...one with authority to determine truth. If we do, then perhaps we really could have agreement on the issue.

an unverifiable source...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Religiously speaking, people have different concepts of what "truth" is. There are "personal truths" and "absolute truths", or some use the words subjective and objective respectively. As long as people are working from different definitions in regard to their beliefs, is it any wonder that arguments go round and round?

So what is your definition of "truth" and how does it play into your religion?


Reminder, I'm asking for the definition of the word "truth", not what your "truth" is or what you consider the "truth" to be.

For me, the definition of truth or "truth" would be the sum of ones experiences in every aspect.

It's obvious everyone everywhere is experiencing true direct truth of which interpretations concerning that will vary, and the religious practice I presently engage in helps me out in uncovering and identifying what truth is by clearing out any personal embellishments, subtleties, and interpretations that can effectively hinder me from realizing directly whats actually and really going on.

 

[waitasec]

Verification, or even the ability to verify, that is the ability to truly know, are not requisite for truth.

well, what is the the requisite for truth?
if you define truth as fact or actuality

 

[blackout]

There is subjective truth and objective truth.

The thing is though,
I don't see how any "subject"/observer
could possibly observe anything
in a purely objective way.

Humans observe AS humans,
so every single thing they observe
is observed through subjectively human means.

I suppose if you had completely different ... species?
of sentient beings capable of observation and measurement and all
there may very well be "truth" of ... constancy?
So as to say,
if differing intelligent sentient life forms
were to observe the very same surroundings,
we wouldn't have the same experience of observation..
as our "view" would be subjective to our own differing biologies and natures,
but we may very well observe "constants" and "relationships" in the same... places/areas?

I really don't know.

I tend to think/feel/intuit that "truth" is larger, more ungraspable, expansive,
evasive/illusive, multilayered, paradoxical and (in the case of the sentient) createable,
than we, as the only intelligent species we know of, generally consider.

I hope that expressed what I'm trying to get across.

 

[Draka]

yes i do agree with you

but its the very reason why i think we need to take our truth from a higher source...one with authority to determine truth. If we do, then perhaps we really could have agreement on the issue.

The thing is, many people who have different religions, believe they have received "truth" from a "higher source". If they didn't, they wouldn't be so strong in their belief/faith. Also, who is to be the judge of what or who is considered an "authority to determine truth"? People of all walks claim direct "revelation" of "truth" in different forms and telling different things. How can any unbiased criteria be set or used? It can't. Everyone has personal biases in this regard. Unless there was a worldwide revelation to all humankind at once then there would always be differences.

 

[blackout]

As a human being,
I also do not place a greater value
on the idea of "objective truth"
over "subjective truth".

I know my view of the world is a subjective one,
and I'm just fine with that.

 

[Draka]

As a human being,
I also do not place a greater value
on the idea of "objective truth"
over "subjective truth".

I know my view of the world is a subjective one,
and I'm just fine with that.

Everyone's view of the world is a subjective one. Some just don't seem to realize that.

 

[waitasec]

There is subjective truth and objective truth.

The thing is though,
I don't see how any "subject"/observer
could possibly observe anything
in a purely objective way.

Humans observe AS humans,
so every single thing they observe
is observed through subjectively human means.

I suppose if you had completely different ... species?
of sentient beings capable of observation and measurement and all
there may very well be "truth" of ... constancy?
So as to say,
if differing intelligent sentient life forms
were to observe the very same surroundings,
we wouldn't have the same experience of observation..
as our "view" would be subjective to our own differing biologies and natures,
but we may very well observe "constants" and "relationships" in the same... places/areas?

I really don't know.

I tend to think/feel/intuit that "truth" is larger, more ungraspable, expansive,
evasive/illusive, multilayered, paradoxical and (in the case of the sentient) createable,
than we, as the only intelligent species we know of, generally consider.

I hope that expressed what I'm trying to get across.

well objective truth would mean a truth that is understood the same way...
for example...a tsunami is an objective truth and everyone thats in it's way will understand it the same way...
we get wet when we go swimming
gravity tells us how much we weigh...
but if you say i like the color blue...that is not objective because there are many shades of blue...

 

[waitasec]

As a human being,
I also do not place a greater value
on the idea of "objective truth"
over "subjective truth".

I know my view of the world is a subjective one,
and I'm just fine with that.

me too

 

[Mister Emu]

I mean, since no one has an ability to truly know any hard "truth" about the spiritual then all religions are just as valid a "truth" as any other. Right?

No.

First, I disagree with the premise and thus the conclusion.

Second, as I already stated, I do not believe knowledge is requisite for truth. Even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that we couldn't know anything religious, that would not mean all religions are equally valid, only that we could not know which religion(s), if any, are valid.

well, what is the the requisite for truth?

Correspondence with reality... I already said that.

 

[Draka]

No.

First, I disagree with the premise and thus the conclusion.

Second, as I already stated, I do not believe knowledge is requisite for truth. Even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that we couldn't know anything religious, that would not mean all religions are equally valid, only that we could not know which religion(s), if any, are valid.


Correspondence with reality... I already said that.

Wait, so you believe that some people do have the ability to know and not others? Well who determines who those people are and how do they somehow rank above others in the ability to know department? What makes them "special"?

Also, reality is subjective as well. How I see things, how I see the world in front of me may vary greatly with how you view it. My experiences differ from yours, so my perceptions of "reality" differ from yours. Which reality must "truth" correspond with? Your version or mine?

 

[blackout]

well objective truth would mean a truth that is understood the same way...
for example...a tsunami is an objective truth and everyone thats in it's way will understand it the same way...
we get wet when we go swimming
gravity tells us how much we weigh...
but if you say i like the color blue...that is not objective because there are many shades of blue...

Every human being, yes.

So really, it's more like a "collective subjective".

I like that.