NationStates Jolt Archive

All this God stuff got me thinking about how sometimes 'truth' is defined and measured differently by different people in different cases. So I'm curious as to the property(s) y'all believe 'truth' has. In other words, what makes something true?

The most popular understanding of truth to claim seems to be the Correspondence Theory (Helpful Link!) (http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm#H3). This describes the method that most people I've encountered use to define truth, except when it's inconvenient for them, of course. ;)

But does anyone here have a different understanding of truth? If so, I would like to hear about it...

Taking facts out of the equation.

There is no truth, only perspective and interpretation.

perspective & interpretation OF?

well, fact actually.

An earthquake happens.
O, that was Ruaimoko kicking in his mother's womb.
O, that was the Australasian plate shifting.
O, a creator god deemed this paticular area (east Indonesia at last report) had to be destroyed/impacted upon.

Fact: earthquake happened.

Preferred method of interpretation: find out what to do next and what we can learn a la scientific method/s - cheers Islander

There is no truth, only perspective and interpretation.

Seconded. Established physical laws have proven unreliable as absolute facts - such as gravity or time. Truth is elusive.

perspective & interpretation OF?


What's OF???
Sorry, I'm not up with your l33t hackz0r lingo....or something...

What's OF???
Sorry, I'm not up with your l33t hackz0r lingo....or something...

'of ' is generally used as a possesive article.

I think the capitalization was what made it unclear...

Facts cast in a light favorable to whatever statement one is currently making.

But still facts, and still Correspondence Theory. :(

Doesn't anybody on this forum have unconventional views on truth? We have lots of wackos on this site, it shouldn't be that hard... :mad:

'of ' is generally used as a possesive article.

I think the capitalization was what made it unclear...

haha, cheers mate, yes it was the capitalisation. That and the lack of an elipse or the word what. So really, the fault was all on that guy for not writing proper...
*cough*

In answer to his question - perspective and interpretation of what?

Of the facts ofcourse. Every person will interpret what they are given and have their own perspective of the facts. Often, they will depart their interpretation to others as fact, but it is not. The pure unadutlerated facts are basic truths, they cannot be falsified. But once in the hands of a person, they can become twisted. A chinese whispers type situation.

There are basic truths. It would be true for me to say that I type with my hands. That cannot be denied. But that is a fact and it is not really claiming anything. In fact, it is only true if the words and their definitions hold true. Yet at the same time, even if the definitions change ie. instead of calling them hands we call them cheese, there is still a basic truth.

So, there must be different kinds of facts. Facts that everyone can accept as being true and as being unable of misinterpretation. But then there are also the facts that are easily changed by adding a different perspective. The classic example, terrorist or freedom fighter? These are facts that though there can be a basic truth underlying, the truth is lost amid all the perspectives that people have, all the different interpretations.

Is truth only what all people can agree on? But then, truth can't just be limited to what we think. For then if everyone agreed, we could hold it to be true that the world is flat. But that would be false, in reality.

So what is truth? Truth is something that is not false. How can we say that something is true just because it has not yet been proven false?

But still facts, and still Correspondence Theory. :(

Doesn't anybody on this forum have unconventional views on truth? We have lots of wackos on this site, it shouldn't be that hard... :mad:

Sorry, only just checked out the link now, yeah I know that's stupid of me. But anyway, I don't know that you'll get particularly unconventional views. This question has been asked for thousands of years, all the arguments are likley to have been canvassed by now. Until some crazy mathemetician creates a formula, actually the already have, now just to apply it to reality...hmmm....

THough I guess you could get the real crazies...hmmm...come out come out wherever you are

Truth:

The perception that there is a divide between you from the world is a lie. You are part of the one.

Truth, that is Truth of God (if that's what you want to call IT) has to do with intimacy. When something is intimately understood/anticipated it is true. When two or more people can intimately agree upon something it becomes real between them.

If I dropped an egg on the floor, it would break. Most of us could agree that this would be the outcome without actually having to really drop the egg. We could accept the "truth" of the egg's demise on "faith".

Of course there are those who would insist on seeing the egg actually break, and, there is the small possibility that an egg might withstand a 5' drop to the kitchen tiles unscathed. For those that witnessed the egg's splattering, truth would be affirmed, albeit in the case of this one particular egg (for the serious scoffers). If the doubter witnessed the egg's survival, they could diss the old truth and they might even devise a repeatable scenario from which new truth could be shared.

And, if I were trying to demonstrate this truth, and the egg didn't break, I'd call it a miracle. I probably wouldn't be inclined to try and figure out why the egg didn't break, and I probably wouldn't change my original belief that gravity and eggs don't play well together.

So truth isn't static. Truth can change with perceptions about our beliefs. It would seem that some of our soundest beliefs are hard to shake. Our beliefs are not necessary "true", we just think that they are. Often times, we think "truth" in groups.

Justification of the truth of God, isn't as easy as dropping an egg. Faith, intimate belief, based upon experience and expectations of your own (or my own, or ours) is present "truth". If you can imagine something going past you so quickly that you're not certain what it was, if you can catch the faint scent of something familiar, or maybe you're certain that you've heard someone calling your name, if you have felt how smooth your child's skin is, or tasted wild strawberries, then you have experienced a "sense of truth" that is removed from this realm, but is part of it too, indeed ALL of it.

With God, we just get glimpses of truth. Sometimes. It is the Spirit in a Man that makes him understand.

Interpretation does not make something true or not. There is a truth, something that just is, and it will be interpreted differently.

No matter how many times I write 1+1=2, it will always be true... (2-1)+(0+1)=2...X+X=2, X=1...There are infinite ways to say one plus one equals two, but it will always be true.
And, no matter how many times or different ways I say 1+1/=2, it will never be true, no matter how much I believe it.

Truth itself is something that cannot be defined. It simply is. In the Bible, God says "I am,"...He is the "God who was and is and is to come." Part of the meaning of these verses is to show that God is true, and will always be true, whether you believe it or not, like it or not.

“Truth” is what IS or ARE, depending on your perspective.

“Facts” are how we explain our perception of Truth.

It’s been a freakin’ long time since I’ve studied either philosophy or mathematics, but I seem to remember the concept of the absolute value, maybe it was graphing quadratic equations, i have no idea, but there seemed to be these cases where you were graphing a curve towards an axis on the graph, but because of the nature of the infinite, the line would approach that axis infinitely while never actually reaching it. So you weren't really saying ‘1+1=2’, it’s more like saying ‘everything approaching 1, when added to everything approaching 1 more, is equal to everything approaching 2.’

So, maybe truth is that axis and facts are all the graphed lines that approach it but never quite make it there. Some people, who need to label that idea, call it truth. Or God. Or the edge of the Universe.

or maybe i oughta give up taking my new nation for a ride and take a nap.

TRUTH is that which exists OUTSIDE of thought... The MIND can only KNOW the KNOWN... Yet it is that which we don't/can't KNOW that 'creates' reality in total.

If one looks at history it becomes obvious than man has only THOUGHT he knew the TRUTH-

IDEAS/KNOWLEDGE are not TRUTH, it is the degree of correspondence between an IDEA and REALITY that determines their truth value...

Ultimately one might see that TRUTH is infinite and unbroken and WE are rather FINITE and partial! It is this partial and limited perspective which works to obsure our ability to "KNOW" truth...

Well IMO ;)

Ken

PS: Where in the UNIVERSE does the PAST exist?

TRUTH is that which exists OUTSIDE of thought... The MIND can only KNOW the KNOWN... Yet it is that which we don't/can't KNOW that 'creates' reality in total.

If one looks at history it becomes obvious than man has only THOUGHT he knew the TRUTH-

IDEAS/KNOWLEDGE are not TRUTH, it is the degree of correspondence between an IDEA and REALITY that determines their truth value...

Ultimately one might see that TRUTH is infinite and unbroken and WE are rather FINITE and partial! It is this partial and limited perspective which works to obsure our ability to "KNOW" truth...

Well IMO ;)

Ken

PS: Where in the UNIVERSE does the PAST exist?

Well said!

There is no such thing as truth, just perception and interpretation. Sure, you might say that truth is absolute, but nothing is absolute. Truth does not exist; in fact, I don't think anything really exists.

There is no such thing as truth, just perception and interpretation. Sure, you might say that truth is absolute, but nothing is absolute. Truth does not exist; in fact, I don't think anything really exists.
Who are you talking to, then?

There is no such thing as truth, just perception and interpretation. Sure, you might say that truth is absolute, but nothing is absolute. Truth does not exist; in fact, I don't think anything really exists.
Are you absolute? Do you exist?

All this God stuff got me thinking about how sometimes 'truth' is defined and measured differently by different people in different cases. So I'm curious as to the property(s) y'all believe 'truth' has. In other words, what makes something true?

The most popular understanding of truth to claim seems to be the Correspondence Theory (Helpful Link!) (http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm#H3). This describes the method that most people I've encountered use to define truth, except when it's inconvenient for them, of course. ;)

But does anyone here have a different understanding of truth? If so, I would like to hear about it...

Words are, at best, a very poor approximation of reality. The more we learn about quantum mechanics and string theory, the more difficult it becomes to explain science by verbal means ... you almost have to know the math in order to comprehend. Apart from the language of mathematics, "truth" becomes an almost totally subjective concept. The more people who accept a particular version of "truth," the more they tend to behave as if said "truth" were absolute.

Until we can reduce things like love and virtue and emotion to a mathematically described construct, "truth" will continue to be subjective.

Just my own thoughts on this.

Are you absolute? Do you exist?

well, what are we? collected bundles of energy, gathered for a bit of time, doing some stuff, picking up and losing bits along the way. do we start as nothing, than grow into something and stay that way till we die? no, there’s always little atomic bits of us sloughing off and getting picked up. so we exist, but we’re not the same 'we' that we were a few nanoseconds ago. and we're never 'done.' i'd equate 'truth' with being 'done.'

this is, of course, presuming atoms exist and behave the way we think they might.

maybe ‘truth’ is in the learning, not in the knowing.

ooooooo.... that’s gonna be my national motto…

love,
the incoherent one

well, what are we? collected bundles of energy, gathered for a bit of time, doing some stuff, picking up and losing bits along the way. do we start as nothing, than grow into something and stay that way till we die? no, there’s always little atomic bits of us sloughing off and getting picked up. so we exist, but we’re not the same 'we' that we were a few nanoseconds ago. and we're never 'done.' i'd equate 'truth' with being 'done.'

this is, of course, presuming atoms exist and behave the way we think they might.

maybe ‘truth’ is in the learning, not in the knowing.

ooooooo.... that’s gonna be my national motto…

love,
the incoherent one

Point, but you learn truth, do you not? For you to learn something, first it has to be true, or at least appear to be true. For instance, you would not purposefully teach children that 1+1=chair, because it isn't true. And when something you have learned is found to be false, it is then replaced by what is known to be true.
And think of what you do know...Everything you know is true, or appears to be true. For instance, you do not know that 1+1=chair, you know that it is not true, which is a truth itself (ie, that something isn't true). Everything that you know is compared to what you know is true, even if it starts at the very begining, "I think, therefore I am"


And a random realization that may or may not be relevant. Even a statement that is true is a truth unto itself...ie, "It is true that 1+1=2" is a true statement...Which is also a true statement, which is also a true statement and so on...

"Truth is a three edged sword."

*floats away*

Also, here's an arguement that I'm sure you've all heard...

You say that there is no such thing as absolute truth...
That means you would say that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is a true statement.
But, if there is no absolute truth, than that would mean that it is an untrue statement..."There is no absolute truth" is true, so nothing, including that statement is true.
That means that the opposite would be true, ie, there is such thing as absolute truth.

Something my dad told me once "Most people believe exactly what they want to believe, nothing more, and nothing less". I've found this to be true. I've extrapolated on this to form the following:

Facts (which are generally true):
1) People believe what they want to believe
2) People seek to avoid pain and discomfort
3) People try to avoid change (as it is uncomfortable)

Interpreting the above facts into behavior:
Presented by a fact that appears to contradict their belief structure people will find a way to interpret that fact in a way that conforms to their beliefs. Failing to do this they will either a) change their beliefs to conform with the fact (a highly unlikely out come) or b) Dismiss the fact ('that's just one of the mysteries of god' or 'that source is obviously bias/untrue', are good examples of this out come).

so in the end, what is true to different people has little to do with facts and more to do with what they want to believe. Bare this in mind the next time you feel like :headbang: at the apparent stupidity (from your perspective) that someone is exhibiting. They likely feel the same way about your positions. There doesn't necessarily have to be a right and a wrong. I personally find it is more productive to try and find out why they feel the way they do rather than unload a fact barrage at them to try to show them how wrong they are (as they will rationalize/reject any fact they don't want to believe anyway).

So how do we go about discerning what is true and what isn't? ah well, if we knew the answer to that one most of life's mystery would be spoiled now wouldn't it? ;)

*Disclaimer: I make no claim by posting this that I myself am not guilty of this behavior. If we would all be truthful with ourselves I think we would find that we all do this to one degree or another.

PS. I wish to apologize for the disorderly flow of my thoughts. this is my abstract thought pattern coming out here, and I don't have the patience at the moment to compel them to come out in orderly fashion.

Truth is that which exists independent of the observer. I'm from the school of thought that we can't get to know the truth, only approach it and make a reasonable description through observational methods.

Other people insist that meditation and philosophy is where it's at, but since that doesn't produce demonstratable results I tend not to consider it. That may be a valid way to know the truth, but how can you demonstrate it afterwards?

I wish to apologize for the disorderly flow of my thoughts. this is my abstract thought pattern coming out here, and I don't have the patience at the moment to compel them to come out in orderly fashion.

Eh, I've been far less organized before...
I'm not entirely sure my brain is capable of it :D

Wow, you all make everything seem so complicated.
Let me make it simple.
Truth is something that is Correct.
(Example: Tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.)
Truth is simply what is correct. =8-)
Don't ask what is Truth, ask what is correct.

There is only one definition of the word truth and His name is Jesus Christ.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'"

John 8:32 "'and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.'"

John 18:37-38 "Therefore Pilate said to Him, 'So You are a king?' Jesus answered, 'You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.' Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?' And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, 'I find no guilt in Him'"

Its a shame that Pilate didn't wait for an answer to the most basic question that we all ask at some point in our lives. Jesus already answered the question earlier in John.

I think all of you are deceiving yourselves if you think that there is no absolute truth.

truth is a fact that has been verified, but verified by who?

Point, but you learn truth, do you not? For you to learn something, first it has to be true, or at least appear to be true. For instance, you would not purposefully teach children that 1+1=chair, because it isn't true. And when something you have learned is found to be false, it is then replaced by what is known to be true.
And think of what you do know...Everything you know is true, or appears to be true. For instance, you do not know that 1+1=chair, you know that it is not true, which is a truth itself (ie, that something isn't true). Everything that you know is compared to what you know is true, even if it starts at the very begining, "I think, therefore I am"


And a random realization that may or may not be relevant. Even a statement that is true is a truth unto itself...ie, "It is true that 1+1=2" is a true statement...Which is also a true statement, which is also a true statement and so on...


mmmm...how... true! :p

i think maybe there's a practical definition of 'truth' along with a more esoteric version of 'Truth.' you'd teach a kid 1+1=2 b/c they need that as a base to learn....the other stuff.

if you look at language and meaning, you can say that a word is defined by what it is, or you can say that a word is defined as everything that it is not. cat means cat beacause it's not dog, not pillow, not beer, and so on...forever. i guess what i'm babbling about is more the 'is not' approach to 'Truth.' it's more of a process, than it is a product.

i'm not saying i'm doing it very effectively...this was easier before i killed those brain cells lo those many years ago. actaully it was probably easier while i was killing them....

Truth as I know.

It funny when I read all the posts, everyone stays into the major groups of thought:
You have the:
religious thinkers that say the only truth is god
western thinkers that say truth cannot be found because you cant prove it
scientific thinkers that say it is only in mathematics
eastern thinkers that say the only truths are the ones we know that are true
and the primalists that say there is only truth without thought

Me, I think that truth only exists in the unknown. I know I will never learn the unknown, and that is an absolute truth

There is only one definition of the word truth and His name is Jesus Christ.

oh and i know that this is true too, everytime i read this kind of posts i shiver
i am not a religious person but if he/she thinks its true then does it matter what i think

Its a shame that Pilate didn't wait for an answer to the most basic question that we all ask at some point in our lives. Jesus already answered the question earlier in John.

But what if Jesus was lying? And what if the Bible isn't true? You have to at least apply a set of tests to determine the veracity of these statements before considering them truthful.

Interpretation does not make something true or not. There is a truth, something that just is, and it will be interpreted differently.

No matter how many times I write 1+1=2, it will always be true... (2-1)+(0+1)=2...X+X=2, X=1...There are infinite ways to say one plus one equals two, but it will always be true.
And, no matter how many times or different ways I say 1+1/=2, it will never be true, no matter how much I believe it.

Truth itself is something that cannot be defined. It simply is. In the Bible, God says "I am,"...He is the "God who was and is and is to come." Part of the meaning of these verses is to show that God is true, and will always be true, whether you believe it or not, like it or not.

Thank you for using this example, because I've got your monkey wrench. Welcome to the world of Binary, where 1 + 1 = 10. Now on to (T/t)ruth.

There are basically two types of (T/t)ruth, truth with a lower case t, and Truth with an upper case t.

Lower case truth can be defined very easily. It is relative truth, and contains anything that an individual would define as true.

Upper case Truth is more difficult to define. It is known as Absolute Truth. This truth is unchanging, and positively true. Many religions define Absolute Truth as being part of an Ultimate Reality. In Western Theism, this is where God comes in. For Western Theists, only God can know Absolute Truth.

Me, I think that truth only exists in the unknown. I know I will never learn the unknown, and that is an absolute truth
Don't you mean "there will always be something I don't know"?
Because you are learning the unknown all the time. For example you may not know that Katmandu is the capital of Nepal, but now you do. It was unknown, but now it isn't.

However, there are still things that you don't know. Some of this you can know, some you can't know, either because you are only one person or because they are unknowable.

Truth as I know.

It funny when I read all the posts, everyone stays into the major groups of thought:
You have the:
religious thinkers that say the only truth is god
western thinkers that say truth cannot be found because you cant prove it
scientific thinkers that say it is only in mathematics
eastern thinkers that say the only truths are the ones we know that are true
and the primalists that say there is only truth without thought

Me, I think that truth only exists in the unknown. I know I will never learn the unknown, and that is an absolute truth

What if you believe none of the above?

ie: God is true, but not the only truth
You can prove truth
Mathematics are true, but not the only truth
Just because you don't know it, it doesn't mean it's not true
There is definitely some thinking in math...ugh...(which is true)

What if you believe none of the above?

ie: God is true, but not the only truth
You can prove truth
Mathematics are true, but not the only truth
Just because you don't know it, it doesn't mean it's not true
There is definitely some thinking in math...ugh...(which is true)

Here, let me screw with you some:

Mathematics is the language of God, but was invented by people in an attempt to describe the perfection and balance observed in the universe, of which you are a part. So, the truth would be God+You+The universe=1. Since you cannot seperate youself from any of it, you must be part of it and it part of you. So, that means any equation derived to describe the mechanics of the universe must include you as one of its variables, but in order to create that equation you would have to know whether God is a constant or a variable.

Does that help clear things up?

Facts, smacts, you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true.

But what if Jesus was lying? And what if the Bible isn't true? You have to at least apply a set of tests to determine the veracity of these statements before considering them truthful.

I'm not going to argue with you as to the truthfulness of the Bible. All I am doing is following Jesus' example and testifying to the truth that Jesus is the truth. If you want to debate the truthfulness of the Bible, then hash that out with God when you read the Bible.

Here, let me screw with you some:

Mathematics is the language of God, but was invented by people in an attempt to describe the perfection and balance observed in the universe, of which you are a part. So, the truth would be God+You+The universe=1. Since you cannot seperate youself from any of it, you must be part of it and it part of you. So, that means any equation derived to describe the mechanics of the universe must include you as one of its variables, but in order to create that equation you would have to know whether God is a constant or a variable.

Does that help clear things up?

:confused:
Kinda...?


I believe that God is true, and many other things are true outside of God...ie: math. And just stupid, obvious stuff, like it's true that I'm typing right now...
But neither math nor God are the only truths, and truth is absolute whether you believe or know about it.

Truth is a concept within logic. You can tell whether something is true or false by the fact that if a false statement can imply anything.

E.g. 2+2=5 implies that I am george bush:

2+2 = 5

=> 2 = 5 - 2

=> 2 = 3

=> 2 - 1 = 3 - 1

=> 1 = 2

=> ( george bush and I are two people => george bush and I are one person)


Since I am not george bush, you can see that 2+2 does not equal 5.

Truth is a concept within logic. You can tell whether something is true or false by the fact that if a false statement can imply anything.

E.g. 2+2=5 implies that I am george bush:

2+2 = 5

=> 2 = 5 - 2

=> 2 = 3

=> 2 - 1 = 3 - 1

=> 1 = 2

=> ( george bush and I are two people => george bush and I are one person)


Since I am not george bush, you can see that 2+2 does not equal 5.


note: the statement "george bush and I are two people" contradicts "george bush and I are one person", and any statement that leads to a contradiction is false by definition

Truth is belief in disguise.

I'm not going to argue with you as to the truthfulness of the Bible. All I am doing is following Jesus' example and testifying to the truth that Jesus is the truth. If you want to debate the truthfulness of the Bible, then hash that out with God when you read the Bible.
So, you are just repeating something without questioning its truthfulness. That's not a good way to find out the truth, neither it is a good definition of truth (i.e. "truth is what I think to be true").

It is clear we all have IDEAS of what TRUTH is. Yet NO IDEA can be the whole 'TRUTH'? I'd say we each have merely a POINT of VIEW. Wouldn't it be in our RELATIONSHIP to reality that TRUTH reveals itself? Since IDEAS are NOT reality itself, we shoudn't get too caught up in them and understand their limits and utility...

No single "point of view" can completely see even something as simple as a dining room table. I mean on Thanksgiving haven't you ever looked for the salt and not seen it? If you were only able to use your own point of view you might conclude that salt was gone! Yet someone on the other side(another point of view) can clearly see it. Such is the nature of a 'points of view'. What we see is limited, partial and FINITE!(because we ourselves are limited, partial and FINITE.) This can be no more TRUE than we we attempt to FIND GOD... What we FIND is a PROJECTION of our THOUGHT/MIND/EGO...

Perhaps being OPEN to ALL of mankind's views on GOD can yeild a less partial understanding of "what is"? It is when we are seeking psychological security that we CLING to our belief as TRUTH... It is this CLINGING that makes us DEFEND mere WORDS!!!

Ken

PS. IS a THOUGHT about a THING, ever that THING itself? Can a verbal description of an item ever BE the actual item as it exists in reality? Aren't they always separate?

Thank you for using this example, because I've got your monkey wrench. Welcome to the world of Binary, where 1 + 1 = 10. Now on to (T/t)ruth.




10 in Binary still equals 2 in Octal, Decimal, and Hexadecimal. It still has the same value therefore it is still true.

So, you are just repeating something without questioning its truthfulness. That's not a good way to find out the truth, neither it is a good definition of truth (i.e. "truth is what I think to be true").

All I am asking you to do is take your Bible, if you don't have one go out and buy one, and investigate the claims of the Bible yourself. Without the help of any biased website, read it. Think through the claims that Jesus makes, take them any which way you want and reach your own conclusion.

I personally have read through the Gospels several times and have come to the conclusion that the claims that Jesus makes are true. All I'm asking you to do is the same thing. You're doing yourself a disservice if you take everyone's word for granted and don't take the time to investigate it yourself.

I personally have read through the Gospels several times and have come to the conclusion that the claims that Jesus makes are true. All I'm asking you to do is the same thing.
Oh, I have. As a Catholic who has received First Communion, I have read through the Gospels quite a few times. As an atheist with a priest uncle (with a Doctorate in Theology for which he had to learn Arameic and ancient Greek) I have read the Bible (and other sacred texts) more than once. And I can't find anything in it that stands a real test of truth.

Sure, some things in the Gospels do make sense, like how we criticize others without realizing our own faults, or how we should be humble and love one another. But this are ideas not exclusive to Christianity and don't prove the divinity of Jesus or even his existence. Much less the existence of God.

What I ask you is to read through your same Bible with skeptical eyes. Ask yourself 'how do we know this is true? is there independent verification? are there other unbiased sources?'.

Interesting insights.

I have to write a paper on "the truth". It's multidisciplinary and very vague, so I can take it anyway I want. It's also based on a series of lectures by different people. Journalists, sociologists, authors, etc.



I'll keep this thread bookmarked.

A fact is anything that tries to get in the way of THE TRUTH. Thus, facts < TRUTH

Never let the facts get in the way of what you know.

An earthquake happens.
O, that was Ruaimoko kicking in his mother's womb.
O, that was the Australasian plate shifting.
O, a creator god deemed this paticular area (east Indonesia at last report) had to be destroyed/impacted upon.

Fact: earthquake happened.

Preferred method of interpretation: find out what to do next and what we can learn a la scientific method/s - cheers Islander

We as humans have not comprehended an absolute truth because we are not capable of it, yet if ever. Practice can make perfect, or close the area of errors to nil. The idea's of what causes earthquakes has always been improved upon. 100-10,000 years from now will there be improvements upon our current earthquake theory? Yes There will be. All of our truths are at best half truths or partially founded. We have not practiced long enough at resisting the urge of including our personal preferences into wanted truths. Only a pure open mind can access the full potential of discovery.

Just some random thoughts on facts and truth...

What we describe as 'facts' are simply the agreed-upon definitions of our reality by humanity. Facts are thus quite subjective, as we rely on our senses to ascertain them, and our senses only provide us with an experience of reality that is a) extremely limited and b) subject to revision by our minds because of some experiences' incoherence with our beliefs. See Coherence Theory (Helpful Link!) (http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm#H5).

Truth is usually understood as being objective, a statement of what is (or what is not). Facts, as outlined above, are a statement of what most of us agree is based on extremely limited sensory input, and subject to revision by our minds.

Therefore, facts are not truth. This is not to say that facts cannot be true, because it is quite possible that facts have the quality of truth. The point is that a statement is not necessarily true by virtue of it being a fact. Facts may or may not be true.

So, you are just repeating something without questioning its truthfulness. That's not a good way to find out the truth, neither it is a good definition of truth (i.e. "truth is what I think to be true").

Neither does repeating that it isn't true without questioning the validity find truth ;)

Interesting thing about facts...
Dictionary.com...

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

So facts are not truth, they are pieces of information based on truth.

It is clear we all have IDEAS of what TRUTH is. Yet NO IDEA can be the whole 'TRUTH'? I'd say we each have merely a POINT of VIEW. Wouldn't it be in our RELATIONSHIP to reality that TRUTH reveals itself? Since IDEAS are NOT reality itself, we shoudn't get too caught up in them and understand their limits and utility...

No single "point of view" can completely see even something as simple as a dining room table. I mean on Thanksgiving haven't you ever looked for the salt and not seen it? If you were only able to use your own point of view you might conclude that salt was gone! Yet someone on the other side(another point of view) can clearly see it. Such is the nature of a 'points of view'. What we see is limited, partial and FINITE!(because we ourselves are limited, partial and FINITE.) This can be no more TRUE than we we attempt to FIND GOD... What we FIND is a PROJECTION of our THOUGHT/MIND/EGO...

Perhaps being OPEN to ALL of mankind's views on GOD can yeild a less partial understanding of "what is"? It is when we are seeking psychological security that we CLING to our belief as TRUTH... It is this CLINGING that makes us DEFEND mere WORDS!!!

Ken

PS. IS a THOUGHT about a THING, ever that THING itself? Can a verbal description of an item ever BE the actual item as it exists in reality? Aren't they always separate?

Awesome! Depending on what gender you are, I could kiss you :fluffle:

Oh, I have. As a Catholic who has received First Communion, I have read through the Gospels quite a few times. As an atheist with a priest uncle (with a Doctorate in Theology for which he had to learn Arameic and ancient Greek) I have read the Bible (and other sacred texts) more than once. And I can't find anything in it that stands a real test of truth.

Sure, some things in the Gospels do make sense, like how we criticize others without realizing our own faults, or how we should be humble and love one another. But this are ideas not exclusive to Christianity and don't prove the divinity of Jesus or even his existence. Much less the existence of God.

What I ask you is to read through your same Bible with skeptical eyes. Ask yourself 'how do we know this is true? is there independent verification? are there other unbiased sources?'.

The very first contradiction I see here is "As a Catholic..." "As an atheist..."
You can't be both. And in any case, neither first communion nor being a Catholic makes you Christian, nor does it give you understanding of the Bible.

I have read the Bible with skeptical eyes. I won't lie, I haven't read many books straight through, but being a preacher's son, I've heard all the stories and arguments and dogma, and I have questioned it, and I have found nothing wrong with it.
I would also like to point out that even the Bible says that unless you are a Christian, most of the Bible won't make sense to you no matter how many times you read it.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend upon our point of view."

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder.
-Laurence J. Peter

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder.
-Laurence J. Peter
two good quotes in a row on the subjectivity of truth. I like.

two good quotes in a row on the subjectivity of truth. I like.
Mine was more about competence and less about truth. :D

Mine was more about competence and less about truth. :D
but it included truth, and me focusing only in on what I want to see only sees the truth part.

but it included truth, and me focusing only in on what I want to see only sees the truth part.
I believe he was using "sarcasm"

Awesome! Depending on what gender you are, I could kiss you Hmmm... Are you female? Then I'll accept said kiss ;)

Ken

Hmmm... Are you female? Then I'll accept said kiss ;)

Ken
Nope, sorry :(

Guess you'll just have to settle for a congratulatory handshake.

Would try to explain that truth is relative, not subjective. Something is true so long as it can not be found to be not true, and would be accepted by all reasonable persons i.e there are no known proof or facts to the contrary contrary that would guide all reasonable people to the contrary during a time when proof in the affirmative exists. A truth is a practical law for the time so to speak.

What is real, would be the subjective question. Is God real? Well, maybe there is proof to the individual that god exists, that can neither be confirmed nor denied by another. To another, there is no such proof.

So long as one has a real reason for their beliefs, that can not be proven or disproven by another, and if that person is a reasonable one, i.e understands that their belief is not such that it can be imposed on others, and others are reasonable, i.e can not prove that what is real to that person is a manifestation of the mind. Than that god does not exist is not a practical law and Vice Versa.

Is a table truelly there? Practical reason says yes. Is it really there? Maybe.


Critique liberally, not much time put into this response.

"Truth" amounts to the lies and theories we come to believe in order to keep ourselves sane. The reality is that there is no explanation, no proven rationality, or even a way to test any of the "laws" set down for reality to prove they actually work on more than just the local scale. In other words, there is no evidence we are not just part of a greater madness.

"Truth" amounts to the lies and theories we come to believe in order to keep ourselves sane. The reality is that there is no explanation, no proven rationality, or even a way to test any of the "laws" set down for reality to prove they actually work on more than just the local scale. In other words, there is no evidence we are not just part of a greater madness.

Ahh but didn't ya hear? There is a method to Gods 'madness' . :)

Ahh but didn't ya hear? There is a method to Gods 'madness' . :)

The method is that the madness of the universe is "God." There is no actual intelligence behind it, just unexplainable madness.