HomeBlogPhotosLinks
What is 'Truth'?
Jul 18, '07 1:25 AMfor everyone
Truth includes things that have already verified. Truth doesn't include things that have not verified yet.Does truth include things that cannot verify? Some people insist that 'God is almighty, it's truth.'
Tags: almighty, god, truth
Prev: Interpretation of Mother complex

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded


ullangoo wrote on Jul 18That "Truth doesn't include things that have not verified yet." is rather problematic. Was "the Earth revolves around the Sun" not true in the 12th century, or in ancient Egypt? I'd say it was. People just didn't know it. "Does truth include things that cannot verify?" Verify how? Empirically, logically, in a way that convinces everybody? Is the conviction of the majority a criterion of truth? I'd say no. How do we know whether a proposition is not verified yet or whether it in principle cannot be verified? I'd say we don't know.


mercedo wrote today at 12:33 AMThat "Truth doesn't include things that have not verified yet." is rather problematic. Was "the Earth revolves around the Sun" not true in the 12th century, or in ancient Egypt? I'd say it was. People just didn't know it.
If someone who lives in ancient times claims the earth revolves around the earth, they will be sent to insanity detention. Those days sun rises from the east and sets in the west is truth even now in our daily life from our empirical observation, it is truth and we don't say the earth is about to face the sun when we are just before sunrise. The fact is only from our recent scientific development in astronomy we understand the earth revolves around the earth, but this 'truth' doesn't tell a lot about many things in our ordinary life.
'Truth' only tells relative plausibility. You see for those who sees the earth from the space, the earth revolves around the earth is truth, but for those who stay on the earth, the sun revolves the earth is nothing but the truth. It is more important to define where we are.
Is the conviction of the majority a criterion of truth?
Unfortunately 'truth' does have only such a value. Yes, nine out of ten say yes, it's true, we must admit it's truth. There's no absolute truth.
How do we know whether a proposition is not verified yet or whether it in principle cannot be verified? I'd say we don't know.
Granted that we don't know, so do you think can truth include a proposition which is not verified and in principle cannot be verified?


flolin wrote on Jul 18
mercedo saidSome people insist that 'God is almighty, it's truth.' I´d say this has just something to do with faith. Those who don´t believe in Him won´t accept this as truth.


mercedo wrote on Jul 19According to my definition of truth, you are very correct.
You see what truth is varies as time goes by. The earth is flat, it was truth till someone crossed the globe straight by ship, I mean if someone tried going to one direction and reached his starting point. Till that the earth is flat was truth, because it was true enough for people who stay in limited area like Europe, Asia, etc.
But now we travel from one continent to another, then it makes sense the earth is round. Likewise, for those who believe in God, God is almighty, so it's truth. For those who do not believe in God, God counts for little for them. For them the statement God is almighty is not truth.
It's just illusory for us to have only one truth.

paji2 wrote on Jul 18"Does truth include things that cannot verify? Some people insist that 'God is almighty, it's truth."In this case the answer depends on your definition of "verify" (as ullangoo wrote). If you believe in creation and the Bible - the matter of verification is very simple: the Bible bears wittness to itself (through fulfillment of prophecies, archaeological discoveries of places unknown but mentioned in the Bible, among other things); further, the creation around us is also a wittness.However, if you do not believe in creation or do not believe the Bible, the question of God's almightiness can never be verified.

mercedo wrote on Jul 19Your understanding is impeccable. Nothing to add and delete.

ullangoo wrote on Jul 18Yes. For a person who has that faith, this doesn't need verification. Many believers would say that it can in principle be verified by anybody, by surrendering one's pride and open oneself to God. It's a different kind of verification than the scientific one, sure, but we can't in my opinion simply discard it.


vanja76 wrote on Jul 18While meeting with two renowned scholars of religion Henry Corbin and Mircea Eliade in 1954, Suzuki was asked what similarities he found between Mahayana Buddhism and the Christian mysticism. According to Corbin, Suzuki grabbed a spoon and said suddenly, "This spoon now exists in Paradise...." He later added, " We are now in Heaven."

mercedo wrote on Jul 19Mahayana Buddhism is a teaching designed for the general public. It has little to do with Christian mysticism that has traditionally favoured a few.
His remark is so-called Zen question and answer, which itself has meaningless. I think he wanted to imply simply there's no connection between two thoughts or most likely he didn't like to admit that he knows nothing about Christian mysticism.
Taisetsu Suzuki was a famous Zen thinker.


vanja76 wrote on Jul 18, edited on Jul 18:)) Interesting viewpoint


mercedo wrote today at 1:11 AMThanks my friend, will you keep on posting such interesting comments as yours?


flolin wrote on Jul 18Many people say, to see is to believe. This is nonsense. If you see something, you don´t believe - you see! It´s just the same with hope. How can one hope for something that is already existent before his eyes? Faith and hope and trust - these things exist in us - not outside us - or not!

mercedo wrote today at 1:08 AM
flolin saidIf you see something, you don´t believe - you see! If you see something, you don't have to believe in it any more.
I'd rather be amazed to read your wonderful comment. I'm very impressed. So I understand you meant belief and truth are two different things. It is no use to try to define some belief as truth, isn't it?


morosoph wrote on Jul 18Even an atheist would most likely agree that truth includes things that cannot verify.Things can be true without certain knowledge of it, which is also why inconsistencies between physical theories shows that the theories are imperfect, not that truth is somehow "dual".Faith, in itself isn't truth. Faith could however be a reflection of an unverifiable truth, just as it could be a reflection of an unverifiable falsehood.

paji2 wrote on Jul 18
morosoph saidFaith, in itself isn't truth. Faith could however be a reflection of an unverifiable truth, just as it could be a reflection of an unverifiable falsehood. Absolutely - and that's the truth! lol


ullangoo wrote on Jul 18
morosoph saidFaith, in itself isn't truth. Faith could however be a reflection of an unverifiable truth, just as it could be a reflection of an unverifiable falsehood. Yes - it could be either. Or it could be a reflection of an unverifiable - or so far non-verified - truth mixed up with false ideas. It may be true that God exists but not that he's almighty, for instance. Atheists certainly consider unverifiable propositions potentially true. "I have a headache" is unverifiable in principle - until someone invents a gadget that can measure pain, no-one but me will ever know for sure whether my statement is true or false. It's unverifiable according to our present criterion of truth, that is: empirically verifiable or logically provable. And we do not include empathy in our definition of sense-perception. My point is that "verifiable" is a limit chosen by us. The criterion is made by man, not by nature.


mercedo wrote today at 12:45 AMFor the first time from the beginning I can entirely agree with your comment.

ahfeiko wrote on Jul 18so does we all want to know the real truth? the real true answers to everything - i mean EVERYTHING...? & if we got the truths from everything single questions on this earth,....what would mankind do next ? becomes bored,i think. imaging,we got solid proof about just anything,thats includes the very first couple on earth.& how these particular couple comes by ? well,its proven again, - this first man & woman was created from the thin air ...with just the "click of the fingers" & if by evolution,then the first well-groomed couple is from a group of smart chimps or orang-utans.these groups of chimps or primates deserts from those stupid ,playful mischivious monkeys to another plain to settle down ...in a more civilise way .oh yeah,i forget to tell you all that,these group of primates were created from the thin air also - proven. so by conclusion,mankind is actually ...God ( the acclaimed almighty,the powerful one...The Force...). you & me....we are all Gods ! we shaped this earth & we are going to continue...to do so much to our earth,our world....we created mammoth structures,we created nuclear super plant...& hearsay,some asshole someday is going to blow up a big crater on earth.....SO ?...who is actually the almighty ???...you're asking me ?hehehe...over to you guys,gals.....( screw me if you think im talking cock..).....


mercedo wrote today at 12:54 AMCertainly we are not God, but we are heading for God. God is an ultimate form of humans.