"Truth" What is it?

[blackout]

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

Ok. So you are not ... making room for objective,
beyond the human experience.
IE, if there were no more humans,
(or other sentient intelligent beings)
to verify anything,
than there would be no such thing as "objective truth".

In the sense that "objective truth" is itself a human notion,
I would agree with you.
The notion, the very concept, would die
with the human psyche.
No subject to observe the object.
Can Truth stand, with no one to observe, verify, or construct it?
Or does it collapse.

 

[Pegg]

You still didn't support your claim.

im sorry, you've lost me ... I thought that you were asking me to support the claim that I take my truth from the bible. My belief that the dead are truly dead is support for that claim.

Can you repeat your question

 

[Kathryn]

Seems to me that your whole argument rests on thinking a perceived contradiction has to equate to some black and white idea of true and untrue.

Now since not a single bit of it can be verified, how do you know that both cannot be true?

All truth is not black or white, of course. I've never claimed it was.

But two claims which totally contradict each other cannot both be true. As for some religious beliefs (to humor you, since you seem fixated on that particular realm of truth or untruth), here are a few examples of beliefs which must be either true or untrue.

God exists.

God doesn't exist.

Both positions can't be true.

Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

Jesus was simply a human man.

Both positions can't be true.

 

[Kathryn]

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?

Mister Emu is right. What he is saying is that truth is truth whether we can verify it or not. Mt Everest was the highest mountain in the world before we knew it was the highest mountain in the world and before we could verify that in any scientific manner.

Conversely, I do not weigh 125 pounds no matter how much I believe I do, or how often I claim that I do. No matter how much I avoid getting on the scales, no matter how much I lie to my insurance company (therefore "documenting that I weigh 125 pounds," - it doesn't change the truth.

My scales could be wrong, in fact. They may TELL me I weigh 125. But I don't. That "fact" is not truth.

 

[blackout]

All truth is not black or white, of course. I've never claimed it was.

But two claims which totally contradict each other cannot both be true. As for some religious beliefs (to humor you, since you seem fixated on that particular realm of truth or untruth), here are a few examples of beliefs which must be either true or untrue.

God exists.

God doesn't exist.

Both positions can't be true.

Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

Jesus was simply a human man.

Both positions can't be true.

They can if God is understood differently
in both cases.

Your second example is not so black and white either,
but unfortunately I don't have time now.

actually... did I just cover that one in another post,
all on my own?

(think it may have been a different, but similar thread)
ah "do you really think you are helping anyone?".

 

[Kathryn]

UV, girl, do you ever sleep? ; )

I saw your other post. I understand what you're saying, though I do not agree with all of it.

I don't think we can fully grasp all the facets of a Supreme Being, so in a sense I agree that two people's concept of God can be different. But God either exists or God does not exist. Either there is a Supreme Being or there is not a Supreme Being. Now - I do agree that there are many different interpretations of the concept of a Supreme Being, and that perhaps many or even most of those interpretations have some elements of truth to them - but at some tipping point, either a Supreme Being exists or a Supreme Being doesn't exist.

And that's the truth right there.

 

[linwood]

What he is saying is that truth is truth whether we can verify it or not.

I don`t think anyone is arguing against this.
But how do we know it`s truth without verification?

For me to accept something as truth it must be verified in some manner.
I`m not so bullheaded as to need "irrefutable" evidence but some acceptable evidence is necessary.

Until I have evidence I figure "I don`t know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Until I have evidence I figure "I don`t know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Great advice for religious folks, now if we can just get science to say they don't know something.

 

[linwood]

Great advice for religious folks, now if we can just get science to say they don't know something.

I was under the impression that most science was awash in a state of "I don`t know".
It`s their purpose to figure it out.

 

[doppelganger]

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

Information that works to accomplish the purpose(s) for which I am using it. Recognizing how this operates in thought pretty much is my "religion."

 

[doppelganger]

I was under the impression that most science was awash in a state of "I don`t know".
It`s their purpose to figure it out.

Actually . . . done correctly . . . science says "model X works better than than model Y, and the question remains open to look for something that works even better than model X."

When you factor in that the purposes for which we are using information changes, it becomes obvious that the scientific method is not a search for truth. It's a search for modes of thinking about how things move, interact and relate to one another, in order to predict movement with a more useful degree of accuracy.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think one would have to be a solipsist to deny the existence of all truth

 

[doppelganger]

I think one would have to be a solipsist to deny the existence of all truth

Not even a solipsist does that.

 

[waitasec]

Ok. So you are not ... making room for objective,
beyond the human experience.
IE, if there were no more humans,
(or other sentient intelligent beings)
to verify anything,
than there would be no such thing as "objective truth".


In the sense that "objective truth" is itself a human notion,
I would agree with you.
The notion, the very concept, would die
with the human psyche.
No subject to observe the object.

hmmm..i'm not sure how though?
it's like the tree falling in the forest...
i am of the opinion that it still creates some form of energy whether a sentient being is there or not to witness the event
only because it has been verified by the laws of physics and gravity
or are you saying that these laws are subjective?

but if these laws are subjective then sentient beings simply wouldn't be
because no one was around to witness the beginnings of our time space reality.

In the sense that "objective truth" is itself a human notion,
I would agree with you.
The notion, the very concept, would die
with the human psyche.
No subject to observe the object.
Can Truth stand, with no one to observe, verify, or construct it?
Or does it collapse.

because of our limited capacity to fully objectify our surroundings
we cannot verify truth in certain ways..but there are verifiable ways to verify objectionable truth with the limited capacity we have

iow, truth isn't linear but is perceived that way because of our limited capacity

consider an ant
the capacity to verify an ant is coming closer to my foot is through my sense of sight...the capacity for the ant to verify my foot is there is by sensing vibration...
my foot is truth...

really it is...

 

[Mister Emu]

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

"reality is subjective as well"

That is most definitely not agreement.

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

One is act the other a state of being for starters.

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

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

I said truth corresponds with reality, why do you keep wanting to say "truth corresponds with truth"?

A truth that corresponds with reality:
Statement: Water is made up of molecules that contain two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Reality: Water is made up of H2O molecules containing two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.

Thus the statement is the truth.

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

Ancient Greek philosophers claimed the world was spherical before it was verified. They were correct, their claims were truthful.

 

[Draka]

UV, girl, do you ever sleep? ; )

I saw your other post. I understand what you're saying, though I do not agree with all of it.

I don't think we can fully grasp all the facets of a Supreme Being, so in a sense I agree that two people's concept of God can be different. But God either exists or God does not exist. Either there is a Supreme Being or there is not a Supreme Being. Now - I do agree that there are many different interpretations of the concept of a Supreme Being, and that perhaps many or even most of those interpretations have some elements of truth to them - but at some tipping point, either a Supreme Being exists or a Supreme Being doesn't exist.

And that's the truth right there.

That all depends on the particular concept of what is a deity or "supreme being" being thought of at the moment the "truth" is considered.

It is entirely likely to say that there is and is not "god" at the same time. For it depends on which definitions of "god" one thinks of.

 

[waitasec]

That is most definitely not agreement.

perception is subjective, right?

for instance, my unsername is waitasec..lets use that as objective the truth
my perception of you changing it to Wait corresponds with the reality of what you did and it is verified by what i see on my computer screen...

One is act the other a state of being for starters.

state of being doesn't verify truth...
my username is waitasec (the act) you changed it to Wait...(state of being)
which is the objective truth? the act or the state of being?

I said truth corresponds with reality, why do you keep wanting to say "truth corresponds with truth"?

A truth that corresponds with reality:
Statement: Water is made up of molecules that contain two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Reality: Water is made up of H2O molecules containing two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.

Thus the statement is the truth.

because water is an objective truth however it is also understood subjectively
it can also turn into steam and ice...
but what makes these 3 elements is the objectionable fact of H2o...

 

[Penumbra]

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

Are you making an objective claim here?

 

[McBell]

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

Actually, it is merely your opinion that it was Jesus' opinion.

Unless of course you heard it from his mouth....

 

[McBell]

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.

You first need to agree on which "higher source" actually exists.
Then you need to show how said agreed upon "higher source" has any more authority than you give it.

Good luck with that.