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.

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.

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.

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."


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

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!

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.


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..)