[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The question simply is: “What Is Truth?”
[/quote]
some interesting reading:
Sorry, can’t resist posting this quote from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Now seriously, first of all, we need to get one thing straight: If you are a theist, you cannot claim as being universally (or absolutely) true anything you believe as true based on your belief of God.
To put it in Mathematical terms, you cannot prove a theorem if you base that proof in an (unproven) axiom.
(by the way, axiom is actually defined as a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof… problem is, different people accept different axioms)
Now, don’t interpret that as an attack on theists. My wife, who is a superb Mathematician, is a devout Christian. No problem with that.
But we need to agree that there is such a thing as “personal truths”, i.e., things that are true for a certain individual but s/he cannot expect others to believe as true, because they do not accept the axiom. They, of course, might be in fact True (in the sense that, for example, there might actually be a God), but if others do not accept the axiom, you cannot prove it as being true, hence it you cannot expect everybody to assume it is.
Removing axioms – because they are not proven – makes things much more difficult, of course. If for nothing else, because what constitutes proof is different for each person.
Mathematics is the only tool that can provide us with a truly universal mechanism of proof, beyond any reasonable doubt.
But even in Mathematics there are axioms that, to put it in layman’s terms, are more like conventions and hence that are not really proven. And numbers CAN be distorted and, most of all, mis-interpreted.
Ah, interpretation – the biggest problem finding truth.
Second biggest is probably lack of formality of language. For example, most people will agree on the definition of Black as being the absence of light. Well, quite possibly the only truly black thing in the Universe are black holes. But you still call “black” a bunch of stuff that is not black – it’s grey or even brown.
Now, Truth exists. There is in fact True Black. There is a True Speed of Light in Vacuum. There is a True mass of the Earth at any given instant. There is a True number of Calories I ingested today.
The problem is finding it, and then putting it in terms everybody can understand and agree on.
The good news is that if we stay within the confines of Math and avoid using any but the most universally accepted axioms, we can actually have extremely good approximations of the Truth, to the extent that nobody has any reason not to accept them… 
I’ve always had a thing for social constructivism, so I tend to see “truth” as the shared view of a group, based on the conventions within their specific social and (sub)cultural framework.
That means IMO there are various (valid) truths out there which can be equally fervently and rightfully defended as “absolute” (as we often see in these forums).
Even if there is one external truth out there, it is beyond our capacity perception and comprehension, and therefore relatively irrevelant.
Your truely 
Makkun
[quote]vroom wrote:
In this context, truth is a difficult concept. We even have to get stuck in the fact that if two or more people are perceiving reality, they may in fact perceive it differently.
Even religion is open to many different interpretations, even by those that really are well-meaning and pious individuals. How can mankind ever really know truth?
This is doubly difficult since all accounts of any divinely inspired truth are filtered by an account given by one and accepted by another. By design humans simply can never achieve perfection, and so any initial truths given in this way must inherently be clouded.[/quote]
You have valid points here of course. Perhaps the first question should be- Does absolute truth exist? If so, can we aproach it, or understand it to some degree?
I think a bit of a contradiction here.If it is at times “shared with us”, or experienced by us, then we have known it. For example,if you live with person for one year, you know them, if you live with them for 20 yrs., you know them better.
I just have a question, kind of off topic but maybe some that have posted on this thread can give me some insight. What is an atheist? Is it someone who does not believe in God? Or someone that believes in God but does not follow a particular religon? I am asking this because currently I don’t follow any religon and have not pretty much my whole life, I mean I have gone to church a few times but that’s it, But I believe that there is a God.
Personally, I find truth in the flying Spaghetti Monster…
this is an easy one…
TRUTH = Does it work?
Its that simple.
That sounds subjective, and it is. My truth is defined by “does it work” for me.
Now, insert vrooms principles if you like and we all live happily ever after. : )
It’s true if only if you believe its true… GEORGE COSTANZA…lol
Steveo,
You should think about the issue of minors…
The law has been written to protect people that have not yet reached some level of emotional and physical maturity.
However, you can be sure that some people are physically and emotionally mature prior to turning 18. More dangerously, you can be sure that some others are not yet mature enough at 18.
So, my question to you, is what is more important?
Should a person respect the law, but not the intent? Should someone respect the intent, but not the law? Should someone respect both the intent and the law?
Finally, and to make things more complex, who determines and how is it determined that someone is physically and emotionally mature?
How was the age of 18 arrived at for such purposes, to declare that one had arrived at adulthood?
Finally, lets be clear, I am not arguing against the concept of considering young people minors who need care and protection. I just don’t think things are as clear cut as people like to think they are.
Luckily, the law is simple and enforceable even if the underlying situation is not. However, what does that imply abour our laws?
“You can’t handle the truth!” Jack.
[quote]dermo wrote:
It is the height of egotism to assume that only your religion can reach the Aboslute Truth. Fundamentalism, whether Christian or Muslim, is inherently exclusionary. Jesus was about love and acceptance, not hate and intolerance. [/quote]
Yet did not this same Jesus say “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.”? Sounds pretty exclusionary to me…
Truth is a statement of what IS the case…A lie is a statement of what isn’t the case.
Si it has two components:
- it is a statement of some way, shape or form
2)what is stated has to be accurate…has to be the case.
There is the metaphysical answer. The tough part is decerning the truth through this sea of shit called life.
I have always viewed truth as that which can be known; which further begs the question, what is the limit of human knowledge–i.e., what can be known?
Philosophy is not truth though it seeks to define truth.
Religion is not truth though many people have faith that it is ‘the truth’.
Science is not truth though its methods are used to understand truth.
Mathematics is not truth though it is the most simplistic of languages and ultimately is the only thing that can really be known.
What all of these humanities have in common is that they are merely human convention–ways of dealing with what cannot be understood with out our own intercession. If truth were easy to know the university would not have come into being. Enlightenment is a journey which requires the student to always question that which is known and that which is not understood and to not accept the easy and simple answers as fact.
[quote]bound wrote:
The ten commandments are just a reiteration of old, obvious laws that were around since before humans. They’re abvious laws of nature, most of them.[/quote]
What? Laws before man was around? How does not having idols, keeping the Sabbath holy, and not worshipping other gods fit in with nature before man?
What are you smoking?
Everyone bases their beliefs on some bottom-line understanding or belief (Truth). For some that is a constant set of values or morals. For others, it changes from situation to situation.
Some believe man is the ultimate truth. So they look to science for the questions they cannot answer like the origins of man and the universe. Others look to a being or entity bigger than themselves for answers to these questions.
The really interesting thing is that man has been asking these questions forever. And even in our current so-called advanced society, these questions still have no concrete fact-based answers. I mean, we can send a man to the moon, mess with DNA, and communicate with invisible radio waves with cell phone and yet we still cannot come close to answering the most fundamental questions of where we came from and why we are here. And the biggest question of all is why do we even have the ability to question our existence if we have evolved?
Those that believe these questions have been factually answered cannot distinguish between their own faith and fact (proof). This goes for people of faith and atheists alike.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The really interesting thing is that man has been asking these questions forever. And even in our current so-called advanced society, these questions still have no concrete fact-based answers. I mean, we can send a man to the moon, mess with DNA, and communicate with invisible radio waves with cell phone and yet we still cannot come close to answering the most fundamental questions of where we came from and why we are here. And the biggest question of all is why do we even have the ability to question our existence if we have evolved?
[/quote]
I feel like I’ve read this somewhere else before…
Does this contention mean that we should not be concerned with answering these questions? Should our institutions of learning and churches, temples, etc. not keep the dialog alive? If these questions have been asked for many millennia are they no less important to us as human beings?
I contend that yes, they are. There is no greater act of humanity than questioning where we come from and why we are here. This is the archetypal standard of humanity.
Some thoughts:
To ask what truth is is like asking what thinking is.
Language has it’s boundaries.
Some things just have to be accepted without questioning.
Human language is not comparable to mathematics.
Axiom, a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Truth is whatever you or I or anyone believes. I have no problem with christian beliefs. What I despise is that christians feel it necessary to try and impose those beliefs on others. This is a fact it can’t be disputed.
I find it hilarious that a christian is upset about not being able to state his beliefs. The christians have in fact a terrible track record as far as tolerance is concerned.
OK – so you belive that truth for you is good for you and truth for me is good for me and your truth is as good as my truth, etc. Then what about moral truth. Does anything go here as well? If someone, for example, has sex with a minor and believes that it is moral to them, we should just wink at it and not prosecute? After all, if there are no moral absolutes (i.e. “T” ruth) then how can we judge someone in such a situation?
Of course we do this all the time, so your assertion of “moral relativism” is kind of problematic, don’t you think?[/quote]
Common sense. If some deranged perv sleeps with a 12 year old he will know it is wrong but the urge overpowers his sense of morality. If you were dieting and you ate some chocolate cake you would know it is wrong but the urge overpowered your will. Common sense is the check on my definition of truth. Therefore your above comparison just doesn’t pan out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The really interesting thing is that man has been asking these questions forever. And even in our current so-called advanced society, these questions still have no concrete fact-based answers. I mean, we can send a man to the moon, mess with DNA, and communicate with invisible radio waves with cell phone and yet we still cannot come close to answering the most fundamental questions of where we came from and why we are here. And the biggest question of all is why do we even have the ability to question our existence if we have evolved?
I feel like I’ve read this somewhere else before…
Does this contention mean that we should not be concerned with answering these questions? Should our institutions of learning and churches, temples, etc. not keep the dialog alive? If these questions have been asked for many millennia are they no less important to us as human beings?
I contend that yes, they are. There is no greater act of humanity than questioning where we come from and why we are here. This is the archetypal standard of humanity.[/quote]
First, I agree with you, and no, I didn’t lift this from somewhere else. Next, the next question is why does humanity have this ability to question it’s existence when no other living creature does?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
First, I agree with you, and no, I didn’t lift this from somewhere else. Next, the next question is why does humanity have this ability to question it’s existence when no other living creature does?
[/quote]
Well as far as we know we are the only living creatures on this planet that can question our own existence. As for why… it seems that this is a question that shouldn’t concern us. How can we even begin to conceive why? Answering that question implies that there is a reason for our existence. For reasons of not wanting to turn this in to a metaphysical discussion I will decline to even try to answer that other than I don’t believe life has any reason why for.