"Truth" What is it?

blackout · May 23, 2011

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

yeah. That pretty much boils down what I was trying to say.

Mister Emu · May 23, 2011

Wait, so you believe that some people do have the ability to know and not others?

No, maybe... really I'm not sure... maybe not all have the opportunity, maybe some are given to know and others are not, maybe all have the opportunity but not all actualize it... I don't know.

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"?

God. Special? I wouldn't say so... The Bible actually tells us that knowledge of God is lower in ranking than not knowing.

waitasec · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
Correspondence with reality... I already said that.

where...? i missed it.
do you mean compatibility with truth...

Mister Emu · May 23, 2011

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.

Perception does not equal reality.

My experiences differ from yours, so my perceptions of "reality" differ from yours. Which reality must "truth" correspond with? Your version or mine?

Again, perception is not reality. Our perception is true in as much as it corresponds to reality which exists outside of our subjective experiences of it. There are no "versions".

Mister Emu · May 23, 2011

where...? i missed it.

Post #47

do you mean compatibility with truth...

No, I mean correspondence with reality. If what I say corresponds to reality, it is true. If it does not so correspond, it is not true.

Draka · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
No, maybe... really I'm not sure... maybe not all have the opportunity, maybe some are given to know and others are not, maybe all have the opportunity but not all actualize it... I don't know.

That being the case, isn't it just as likely then, that the ones who actually have the opportunity and the ability to know are...Hindus? Maybe Druids? Unless one can know who has access to "truth" then one must acknowledge that any could have "truth", still making all paths just as valid as another.

God. Special? I wouldn't say so... The Bible actually tells us that knowledge of God is lower in ranking than not knowing.

And how do we mere humans decipher who those people are? As there are many gods that could possibly be doing the choosing, it's kind of hard to tell who to believe isn't it? I mean, the bible is just one of many scriptures/mythology books to go by, so how do we determine what to follow if we don't even know the prime deity to look towards?

This still goes back to having to accept that all paths are valid to follow as "truths" as no one can validate any firm objective "truth".

waitasec · May 23, 2011

Draka said:
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.

Mister Emu said:
Perception does not equal reality.

maybe you missed it, she said reality is subjective...

waitasec · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
Post #47

No, I mean correspondence with reality. If what I say corresponds to reality, it is true. If it does not so correspond, it is not true.

doesn't that mean verifiable?

Draka · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
Perception does not equal reality.

Again, perception is not reality. Our perception is true in as much as it corresponds to reality which exists outside of our subjective experiences of it. There are no "versions".

Then, there is nothing in "objective reality" that corresponds and corroborates any religious "truths".

Mister Emu · May 23, 2011

Draka said:
Unless one can know who has access to "truth" then one must acknowledge that any could have "truth", still making all paths just as valid as another.

Or one is already among those who have knowledge

Also, as I said before, merely lacking knowledge about the validity of various paths does not mean all paths are equally valid. If Buddhism is true and I reincarnate as a slug, Christianity is not valid... this does not change based on ability to divine that Buddhism is true.

And how do we mere humans decipher who those people are?

¯\_(&#12484

_/¯

Wait said:
maybe you missed it, she said reality is subjective...

Maybe you missed it, I disagreed.

Mister Emu · May 23, 2011

Wait said:
doesn't that mean verifiable?

Why would it?

Draka said:
Then, there is nothing in "objective reality" that corresponds and corroborates any religious "truths".

That is not a necessary conclusion from my belief.

blackout · May 23, 2011

waitasec said:
doesn't that mean verifiable?

Except that human beings are not capable of verifying every'thing.

Of course we could correspond things to "our collective reality",
where we are at in history, what we currently (think we) know,
(as a society)
but that does not necessarily say anything about the "correctness"
of our "conclusion/s".

We "verify" through systems.
The best we can REALLY say
is that a thing "verifies through our system".

Father Heathen · May 23, 2011

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

Gotta love circular logic.

Draka · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
Or one is already among those who have knowledge

Also, as I said before, merely lacking knowledge about the validity of various paths does not mean all paths are equally valid. If Buddhism is true and I reincarnate as a slug, Christianity is not valid... this does not change based on ability to divine that Buddhism is true.

You seem to confuse the ideas of "absolute truth" and "valid path". Fact of the matter is, since it is impossible to know for certain what any supposed "absolute truth" may be, then all paths and beliefs are just as valid options to follow and consider as "truth" as another.

Look, you don't know for certain that Christianity is the absolute truth of how things are. For all you know the absolute truth could be closer to Animism or Shamanism. However, since no one can validate and know for sure what the absolute truth may be, then your choice to believe that Christianity holds the most truth for you is perfectly valid. Just as someone else finding truth in Buddhism, Wicca, or Judaism. Without firm validation of any absolute...all paths are valid to follow and consider to be truths for the people following them.

Also, it's late and I'm exhausted so I'm heading off to bed now. Will check back tomorrow. G'nite all.

Father Heathen · May 23, 2011

Pegg said:
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.

You still didn't support your claim.

waitasec · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
Maybe you missed it, I disagreed.

looks like you agreed....
"perception does not equal reality..."

"reality is subjective as well"

can you explain the difference?
to prove the truth by presentation of evidence
vs.
the state of agreeing or conforming.

Father Heathen · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
The trick question... What was the tallest mountain on earth before Mount Everest was discovered?

Mount Everest.

Things are true, or not, regardless of whether or not we know about them.

I'm talking about people making claims in regards to the truth.

waitasec · May 23, 2011

UltraViolet said:
Except that human beings are not capable of verifying every'thing.

Of course we could correspond things to "our collective reality",
where we are at in history, what we currently (think we) know,
(as a society)
but that does not necessarily say anything about the "correctness"
of our "conclusion/s".

We "verify" through systems.
The best we can REALLY say
is that a thing "verifies through our system".

i agree,
not everything is verifiable
which is subjective...
we can verify other things, we know we revolve around the sun...
that is objective.

Mister Emu · May 23, 2011

You seem to confuse the ideas of "absolute truth" and "valid path".

Not at all. I was using valid in the sense that a path is only valid if it leads where you want/expect it to go. If the religions that say we are all traveling towards God on our paths are true, then my Christianity would remain a valid path, even though it would not be absolutely true.

Without firm validation of any absolute...

I have as firm a validation as I do for anything.

Also, it's late and I'm exhausted so I'm heading off to bed now. Will check back tomorrow. G'nite all.

Good night

waitasec · May 23, 2011

Mister Emu said:
P
No, I mean correspondence with reality. If what I say corresponds to reality, it is true. If it does not so correspond, it is not true.

Mister Emu said:
Why would it?

well you verify truth if what you say corresponds with it...right?

so tell me a truth that corresponds with truth...

like, you get wet when you go swimming...

"Truth" What is it?

Violet.

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Emu Extraordinaire

Wonder Woman

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Wonder Woman

Emu Extraordinaire

Emu Extraordinaire

Violet.

Veteran Member

Wonder Woman

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member