What is "Truth"?

Now once again, back to the topic. Has anyone yet figured out what the meaning of 'truth' is? There is no wonder why there is so much contention in this forum... it seems that no-one knows what 'truth' means.

 

There are different truths. The Truth of God and human truth. The Truth of God is a mystery and can not be perceived in its totality by human beings but it will be more evident to us on the judgement day. Human truth in mathematics is based on the juxtaposition of discrete objects (objects which are thought to be discrete). For instance in this room there is one person and in the next - 100 people. 100 is more than 1. Thought is based on electro-chemical reactions in the brain so it is material.
As for the Truth of God it cannot be understood by human beings as He can change time itself not to mention other things which He can crate or destroy or change at will. That is why He is the Truth. As He creates all and everythyng at His will in the present in the future and in the past. He commands time. That is why there is human truth and the TRUTH of God which are different words and concepts.

 

Right.I agree with you. God needs no definition. And His Truth either. We have no power for that. Those who try are like cats or dogs who can not understand on what principles a TV-set is working but keep touching the screen. There are also many evident things (as a mathematical point, dot) that need no definition as the definition would make them less clear. Rene Descartes wrote about it I guess.

 

Nice try... If you look back at the OP, the subject is "what is truth".... NOT 'what is Gods truth' and NOT 'what is human truth'. The OP simply asks 'what is truth'? Placing restricting adjectives in front of the term 'truth' does change the subject entirely.

 

Yes Descartes said God is perfect. If God is 'perfect' and I suspect that is true (lol) only God could define what is truth and what is not, if we are referencing truth as a philosophical concept. In an everyday sense truth is simply the absence of falsehoods.

reva

 

If the word wasnt so flagrantly weaseled into an embarrassing new age/woo concept, a la "what is my truth", we could stay with "true meaning factual". You guys talk about it as though it's a soft, fluffy emoti-teddy -which when squeezed lovingly, recites excerpts from the Bhagavad Gita.

 

I guess I want to know truth so I don’t live a lie. With truth I know I am not wasting my time on falsehoods. Also I enjoy philosophical concepts. There is nothing wrong with breaking a concept like truth down to its most fundamental pieces in order to understand it better. However some people, like you for example seem not to care about the philosophical nuances of stuff or things

I guess I want to know truth so I don’t live a lie. With truth I know I am not wasting my time on falsehoods. Also I enjoy philosophical concepts. There is nothing wrong with breaking a concept like truth down to its most fundamental pieces in order to understand it better. However some people, like you for example seem not to care about the philosophical nuances of stuff or things preferring to navigate this temporal voyage we call life on a near superficial level. A analogy might be my trip is without a guide so I can explore while your trip is planned out for you. Both have advantages, neither is better than the other if you ask me. preferring to navigate this temporal voyage we call life on a near superficial level. A analogy might be my trip is without a guide so I can explore while your trip is planned out for you. Both have advantages, neither is better than the other if you ask me.

ps When I was your age I too asked what good is philosophey or history? I detested those subjects. So no worries you will come around in a decade or two.


reva

 

Taking into consideration that the atmosphere of this section of the forum is "philosophy and religion", then it cannot be assumed that this discussion would be considered in an 'everyday sense'.

 

Truth and reality are close to
synonymous.

“Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.”
― Lily Tomlin

This is a hit and run. No reply required.

Regards
DL

 

That is, IMHO, a cool and safe manner in which to state your position. I like that.

 

Ok then, truth is the absence of falsehoods. However only God* could know if truth is truth and falsehoods are falsehoods to an accuracy of 100%.

For those that do not believe in ‘God’ ie a perfect being, its possible to use a substitute ie the philosophical version of ‘God’.

reva

 

Truth is the subjective opinion decided upon by an individual.

Reality is the non-subjective and fact based result of observation and evaluation of verified data.

Everyone creates their own truths.....science defines the reality. There are those who prefer their own truths over established reality and are summarily dismissed as irrelevant to the science.

 

2+2=4. Not subjective. With all due respect I disagree. The what you decided as ‘truth’, isn’t, IMO. Rather it is a learned guess. A guess backed up by science adding its guess. The inevitability of both you and science eventually discovering what was thought to be truth was in reality false forfeits its title of truth, a title which it should not of had in the first place! I am convinced that reality is an illusion our brain uses to allow us to make sense of a universe that would not make sense to us if we could experience it in real time. In fact time probably does not exist at all. I am speaking of real time not intuitive time. Physicists use upper and lower case ’T’s to tell the difference between intuitive time and real time as in writing formulas, expressions etc.


I feel much better now.

Reference a good read on the unreality of time. Its called
A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein ...
www.amazon.com/ref=nav_logo/188-0131338-7450142…. Very, very good little book!

Lastly please me to clarify if I have totally confused anyone, sometimes I confuse myself lol! I got on excited talking about such subjects and may of not took enough time (t) lol to make some concepts clear...

reva

 

Well of course it is possible for them to use a substitute, as that is precisely what they do. However, then they also bear the burden of being less than 100 % accurate in their so called search for 'truth' while using that man made, inferior, imperfect, tool set called science and its broken wrench called the 'scientific method'... (which is laden with assumptions). That scientific method being founded upon assumptions (things that have not been proven to be true [lack of truth], turns their so-called search for 'truth' into a blatant falsehood and announces the idea of their vocation being not currently filled with 'truth'. To top that off, it would appear that they cannot even provide a definition of 'truth' that is unambiguous, irrefutable, and meeting the personal comprehension and satisfaction of every man and woman on this planet.

 

How do you reconcile "I guess I want to know truth so I don’t live a lie" with "I am convinced that reality is an illusion"?

How can one know the truth when reality is an illusion? Does not truth becoming subjective when passed through the filter of the illusion?

 

Pretty sure you just proved my point.

 

So, not wanting to live a lie, you sensibly opted for the least likely 'true' imaginable? Makes perfect sense to me. I mean to say, talking snakes and 900 year old drunks ...... or reality? It's a no brainer!

Snorffles ..... 'when I was your age' Like when you were grey haired and wrinkly, way back when? My dear, I gave up navel gazing in favour of action decades ago. At this time of my life I'm nowhere near idle or bored enough to wonder what it all means. That sort of preening is best suited to youth. Or whatever point in life a person first discovers
the concept of philosophy - and runs with it, new toy style.

 

Fact = something believed to be true or real. What is 'true' or 'real'?

 

I rest my case......you sir, are the definition and possibly the inspiration of my comment.

Truth to you is what you have decided it should be, reality and fact are defined by these truths rather than accepted reality.

You are essentially useless in rational discussion.....thus so many place you on ignore here.

 

Well thank you tecoyah. I appreciate the fact that at least one person on this forum has found a positive side of my postings, even in spite of the fact that you speak with a forked tongue. You praise me yet you condemn me. Speaking about hypocritical thinking.... hello tecoyah.

 

Nothing I stated could be considered hypocritical to the rational mind, and there is a reason you feel I am the only person on this forum that would serve you a compliment. That which you project is not flattering in any way...in FACT most see the input you provide as entertainment rather than information. You have made it very clear that those things considered valid in the rest of this world do not apply to you, as only what convinces "Your Mind" is to be accepted.

This places all others who wish to rely on accepted fact in the position of either agreeing with "Your Mind", or dismissing you as unworthy of further discussion.

Also known as an ignore.

Myself, you have been on ignore for quite some time...yet I am weak and click on "view post" to be entertained by the comments you make.





Basically you are little more than the court jester...which is still a proud position.

 

Oh yes! The rational mind. the mind that practices rationalization... the art of making excuses for ones behavior.

Fact = something believed to be true or real. Can you show proof of your claim? That claim is based on a belief.

"accepted fact".. a belief that is compelling to the mind of those who would be willing to accept that belief as true or real. That would mean that all Christians who have accepted their belief in God and Jesus and the teachings of the 'Bible' to be practicing an 'accepted fact'. Thank you for that insight.

Also known as you not practicing what you preach. Hypocritical once again.

Which is evidence of your inconsistent mindset.

yes! Even the court jester was able to receive benefits from the King, as long as the services of the court jester were satisfying to the King. In my particular case... the King would be King Jesus. Thanks again for that insight and your acceptance of the fact that even a court jester holds a "proud position".

 

You're welcome..and dismissed.

 

A religeous perspective on the word " truth" is an oxymoron.

 

So, you are not going to attempt to refute the fact that you have shown an inconsistency in your thinking in regards to the 'ignore' issue and you not doing as you preach? Interesting.