What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[firedragon]

Where did you mention shaping society... Did you want the line number of where you mentioned it in your post, maybe... You said: "It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. "

Err. I didn't say anything about shaping society, how to shape society or if that is the subject at all. You have picked up the word and run with it. I am quoting a third party argument to inform the reader of the topic of the OP.

Did you notice how I purposely marked 'scientifically.' Maybe you want that line number too. That was in the same post, the one with which you began this thread. The marks around it, generally mean something like, my italics. I wonder if this will descend into into a discussion the likes of falsified and un-falsified... (where does falsified etc come into... honestly dudes, I cba.

Well, I didn't say that anything has to be "scientifically" proven, done or shaped. That's not the topic of the OP.

Peace.

 

[Link]

Thanks for engaging.

No problem, thanks for the good topic.

 

[firedragon]

"Probability" means uncertainty.

No. Probability does not mean uncertainty. It means it's more probable. Not 100% certain. No history is 100% certain. That's the whole point of what I said. That does not mean uncertainty.

But I suggest let's consider "certainty" about Religious truth, meaning is it possibly to become absolutely certain about God and the true Religion truly?

Sorry. This is not about religion so brother, I will not engage with religious discussions about God and true religion etc.

Let's play the game backward. Suppose there is a God who is All-knowing, all-powerful, who wants people to be guided to the right path. Is it logical to think, that this God failed to provide a way to people that they become absolutly certain in their belief, and in their finding the right path?
If you say, yes, then how can He be called All-knowing, all-powerful? If you say, No, then why the certainty cannot be seen in people's belief?

).

 

[firedragon]

No problem, thanks for the good topic.

But you didn't do any classic's type of writing today. So I am kind of disappointed with you for that.

 

[BrightShadow]

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Without concrete proof at hand- truth is subjective! It can be based on personal prospective.
But truth can also be perishable - so again without evidence - it can sound like - just an opinion.. a prospective!
Without sustainable evidence - the truth can have many stages! Many faces!

A truth meter would require all sides to be heard before it can generate a result!

Sometimes truth can be seen in slow motion (careful observation) like in soccer instant replay! So, many people (spectators) version of "truth" can be nullified by one person (field referee) who has better advantage to witness the "truth" from close proximity or by an instant replay referee!

 

[firedragon]

Without concrete proof at hand- truth is subjective!

Not always.

Nevertheless, in your scenario, how would you feel if any so called "proof" is not heard, but dismissed as "doesn't matter"?

 

[BrightShadow]

Not always.

Nevertheless, in your scenario, how would you feel if any so called "proof" is not heard, but dismissed as "doesn't matter"?

I did also say...
A truth meter would require all sides to be heard before it can generate a result!

 

[Link]

A counter question (being devil's advocate), why should people care what a minority say in face a majority regarding a religion they don't believe in?

My counter question (being Gabriel's advocate), why should people care what a majority say instead of a minority regarding a religion they don't believe in?

I think people should not speak things without knowledge. But neither God telling them not do to that, neither the sent ones, neither truthful believers emphasizing on it, has stopped people from speaking without knowledge about God.

Moses (a) was unable despite all his logical sound arguments, proofs, and miracles, to sway the followers of the Pharaoh to the truth.

They knew the truth of course and Moses (a) was highest in their vision, but cognitive dissonance and desires got them to rally with the Pharaoh.

In my view, we need victory:

By the name of God the Compassionate, the (intensely) Compassionate If the help of God comes and the victory. And you see people coming to the religion of God in doves/large groups. So ask forgiveness of your Lord indeed he is the turning (accepts people repentance and turns to them mercifully).

 

[Link]

I did also say...
A truth meter would require all sides to be heard before it can generate a result!

That's virtually impossible. I think we ought to our best to find God's rope and sent ones, and rely on that.

People who are given voice have to use God's book and the words of his sent ones together, or else, it's just an opinion. They should also prove their interpretation is correct and know that God's sent ones would have explained the true interpretation as well.

If we give everyone a voice, way too many books and opinions, we can try our whole lives, and won't survey all opinions.

 

[firedragon]

I did also say...
A truth meter would require all sides to be heard before it can generate a result!

Absolutely.

 

[osgart]

They'd have to be equally important. People act on beliefs and beliefs take on a certain reality all their own. Some beliefs have no bearing on reality though, but many do. Belief inspires creative aspects of people as well.

Objective truth is like the backdrop for beliefs to manifest upon. So truth is the canvas, the exact image, and beliefs may be the forms of reaction to the work.

Like engaging in a movie, you suspend disbelief to find out what the story is trying to express. Beliefs take on a truth of their own making; like a fan theory.

Beliefs are very important. Not all beliefs are complete fantasy. Sometimes beliefs are possible hypotheticals, or partial truths.

 

[firedragon]

They'd have to be equally important. People act on beliefs and beliefs take on a certain reality all their own. Some beliefs have no bearing on reality though, but many do. Belief inspires creative aspects of people as well.

Objective truth is like the backdrop for beliefs to manifest upon. So truth is the canvas, the exact image, and beliefs may be the forms of reaction to the work.

Like engaging in a movie, you suspend disbelief to find out what the story is trying to express. Beliefs take on a truth of their own making; like a fan theory.

Beliefs are very important. Not all beliefs are complete fantasy. Sometimes beliefs are possible hypotheticals, or partial truths.

True true.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The watches would not be necessary if time were a singular truth. But it's not. So they had to impose a mechanical method of synchronicity. But is the time on their watches, 'the truth' of time? Nope. It's just an arbitrary imposition. And if these three people tell themselves that their time is "the only true time" just because it synchronized them they will never understand the truth of time.

Thus Sally’s, Frank’s and Sue’s perception of time passing was demonstrably skewed (as they were aware, thus the relying on their watches rather than their perception of time passing).

Thus Sally, Frank and Sue deemed them (their watches) necessary to maintain a mechanical method of synchronicity objectively in order to be able to reference them as a correction of their admittedly flawed (faulty, imperfect, inaccurate) perceptions of time.

But is the time on their watches, 'the truth' of time? Nope. It's just an arbitrary imposition.

It’s “the truth” of time they, the train company, Bob, all the other customers/travelers, society at large, the entire global community accepts….hardly an “arbitrary imposition”.

So Sally, Frank and Sue all accept that they can misconstrue (be wrong about) the passage of time and rely on devices to track the objectively demonstrable passage of time.
Why then, if they accept that their perceptions of the passage of time are not true and valid
(again …solid; just; well-founded)
why should we or a neutral observer not?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Not to mention that the gravitational impact of massive objects, such as the earth, causes time to move more slowly. So the four friends watches would move at different rates if, say, one of them was at the top of a mountain while the others were are sea level.

Wow really reaching here!

The scenario being discussed stipulates that they are all within the same train station at the same time….

 

[icehorse]

What matters the most?

I think they're both essential to consider, hard to say which is the more essential. To me it doesn't matter because they're both essential to consider if we're going to solve any problems.

Many people ACT (probably following their beliefs) like:

- climate change isn't real
- covid isn't real
- the 2020 US election was stolen

And so on. To a large degree, it doesn't matter what the facts are, if enough people ignore them.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I think they're both essential to consider, hard to say which is the more essential. To me it doesn't matter because they're both essential to consider if we're going to solve any problems.

Many people ACT (probably following their beliefs) like:

- climate change isn't real
- covid isn't real
- the 2020 US election was stolen

And so on. To a large degree, it doesn't matter what the facts are, if enough people ignore them.

If they are ignoring these facts because they are what is espoused by the members within their bubble (tribe) and part of the mantra of their tribe is that any information from outside tribe is suspect if not outright insidious; it is simply an example of what the OP is deliberating since the actions of the tribe are psychologically shutting down the seeking of the “truth” of the matter from a perspective outside the tribe.

Thus the bowing down to the tribe is indicating that the adherence to the popular opinion (at least within the tribe) is more important than the discovery of what may be the actual truth as judged by the greater population (outside the tribe) as a whole.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Wow really reaching here!

The scenario being discussed stipulates that they are all within the same train station at the same time….

Yes, but the principle whereby time has a different rhythm in each different place, and that there is no universal moment which constitutes the present in, say, New York, Liverpool and Jakarta, still holds. So the notion of time as an objective phenomenon, existing independently of the events arranged within it, is inaccurate.

"The notion of "now" is nothing more than a certain relation between a certain observer and the rest of the universe."
- Kurt Godel, Cosmological Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Yes, but the principle whereby time has a different rhythm in each different place, and that there is no universal moment which constitutes the present in, say, New York, Liverpool and Jakarta, still holds. So the notion of time as an objective phenomenon, existing independently of the events arranged within it, is inaccurate.

"The notion of "now" is nothing more than a certain relation between a certain observer and the rest of the universe."
- Kurt Godel, Cosmological Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation

Again….
All in the same location.

So the notion of time as an objective phenomenon, existing independently of the events arranged within it, is inaccurate.

The point of the scenario is that it IS dependent on the events arranged within the agreed objective time phenomenon that is shared and accepted by all involved.
To highlight that their perception of the passage of time is admitted even by them to be erroneous, and as such less “true” than that which would and is perceived by a neutral observer.

The relativity of time near massive objects, when approaching near light speeds, or when observed from distant ends of a universe is completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed and as such is an unnecessary trip of into the weeds and justifying it being characterized as a far reach.

Nice try though?
If that’s all you have….it’s really weak tea!

 

[icehorse]

If they are ignoring these facts because they are what is espoused by the members within their bubble (tribe) and part of the mantra of their tribe is that any information from outside tribe is suspect if not outright insidious; it is simply an example of what the OP is deliberating since the actions of the tribe are psychologically shutting down the seeking of the “truth” of the matter from a perspective outside the tribe.

Thus the bowing down to the tribe is indicating that the adherence to the popular opinion (at least within the tribe) is more important than the discovery of what may be the actual truth as judged by the greater population (outside the tribe) as a whole.

Indeed. And we ignore facts at our peril.

 

[PureX]

Why then, if they accept that their perceptions of the passage of time are not true and valid
(again …solid; just; well-founded)
why should we or a neutral observer not?

This whole argument is based on the presumption that synchronicity equals validity. It doesn't. It just equals synchronicity. No one's perception of time is "invalid" because time is a perceptual phenomena. It doesn't exist apart from our perception of it. That's why we have to invent machines to impose standards to synchronize our perceptions of it.