What is 'Truth'?
Jul 17, '07 12:25 PMfor 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
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 17That "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.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19That "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?

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 19
mercedo saidIs the conviction of the majority a criterion of truth? I believe we haven't really identified "truth".What is it? Is "truth" always "truth"? Is your truth any more or less truth than mine?Perhaps that is why the Declaration contains the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident .." That is, on these truths we agree - on others, we may not. But that does not make it any less a "truth". Verified or not, some people hold their truth as "self-evident", though others may dispute it - as did the British - is it then not a "truth"? I do not think so.There are as many truths on this earth as there are people. Only on some of them, we agree. On others we do not. Still, they are "truths" in the basic sense of the word.

reply
flolin wrote on Jul 17
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.

reply
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.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 17"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.

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

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 17Yes. 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.

reply
vanja76 wrote on Jul 17While 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."

reply
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.

reply
vanja76 wrote on Jul 17, edited on Jul 17:)) Interesting viewpoint

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19Thanks my friend, will you keep on posting such interesting comments as yours?

reply
flolin wrote on Jul 17Many 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!

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19
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?

reply
morosoph wrote on Jul 17Even 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.

reply
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

reply
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.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19For the first time from the beginning I can entirely agree with your comment.

reply
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..).....

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19Certainly we are not God, but we are heading for God. God is an ultimate form of humans.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19In my opinion, there's a - or rather several - subjective truths plus the objective truths. In case of two mutually exclusive propositions, exactly one is of necessity true. Whether we can verify it or not, or whether the majority believes one or the other make absolutely no difference. The objective planet doesn't change according to people's beliefs or (lack of) knowledge. If we don't accept that, all science will be meaningless.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19Following comment somehow includes scientifically fictitious part, though, the earth is flat was true in ancient times. The earth is round is true now. The shape of the earth is like a horn would be the truth in the next millennium when the introduction of four dimension was already in common.
Of course all scientific achievement means a lot but it also indicates the limitation of our knowledge.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19As I said above: "I have a headache" can't be verified by others. Still all logicians agree that the statement is either true or false - ordinary common sense says the same. I see no reason to claim otherwise.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19There are what I call the personal truths. E.g. meditation may be the right thing for you but wrong for me. Therefore, "meditation is the right thing" is a meaningless statement - "right thing" is unqualified and undefined. The majority may hold that it is the right thing - but it could still be wrong for me. We can't take a vote on truths whether they are personal/subjective or objective.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19The "self-evident truths" of your declaration are opinions. They are ethical statements. Now, there MAY be an ethical system that is true in the absolute sense - I won't rule it out - but if there is, we don't know how to identify it (yet). We have to live with the existence of several and hopefully learn tolerance.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 19
ullangoo saidThe "self-evident truths" of your declaration are opinions. Of course they are opinions - and that is exactly my point. "Truth" - or what we call truth, is nothing more than an opinion. And, when others agree with our opinion, we call it "verified truth". The opinions we disagree with are "unverified" or even "false, wrong".In the Middle Ages, men might have said, "We hold these truths as self-evident, that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, men cannot fly." Two of the three cannot be "verified, the third, leaving Icarus out, could be observed. Yet, those were "Truths" to them.Today, we might say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, the earth is round (more or less), earth revolves around the sun, men can go into outer space, there is life on other planets." Three of the four have been "verified", the fourth is an opinion held by many; it is the "Truth" to them. What, then, is "truth"?

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19
paji2 saidThe opinions we disagree with are "unverified" or even "false, wrong". No. "False" is not the same as "unverified". If "elephants are mammals" is true - the case - then "elephants are not mammals" is false. If we verify one, we know for certain that the other is false. If we aren't able to verify any of them, we still know for certain that one is true and one false. I consider it true that every human has the same rights as everyone else (I don't like the word "equal", sorry); you may call that an opinion I agree with. But I wouldn't claim that it has been verified in any way.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 19
ullangoo saidNo. "False" is not the same as "unverified". Only in some cases. The opinion, "There is life on other planets" is unverified. It may also prove to be false. Yet, there are some who hold this as truth. Therefore to them it is truth. It is easy for us today to say, "Ah, those fools! Believing the earth is flat! How could they believe in something so obviously wrong! And make such a claim over an unverified opinion!"The point I was making is this: even though an opinion, a view, an accepted "fact" is false, to those believing that opinion, it is truth!Our "truths" change as we make progress in science, medicine, space exploration and so on. The beliefs, or truths, held onto as short a time as 50 years ago, are no longer truths. And, in their limited ways, some of these "truths" were verified by yesterday's standards.Some opinions cannot and will not ever be verified. To those holding them, they will still be true.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 20
paji2 saidOnly in some cases. The opinion, "There is life on other planets" is unverified. It may also prove to be false. Yet, there are some who hold this as truth. Therefore to them it is truth. This is an unverified statement of which the opinions are divided. It's either true or false objectively, but we don't know which. That some people believe so strongly that they take this for knowledge doesn't change the truth value of the statement. (It's practically impossible to prove it false, btw. It may be proven true, or it may remained unverified.)We're talking at cross purposes, though. I'm talking formal logic, you're talking - I'm not sure, psychological inner realities, I think. I suggest we leave it here.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:44 PMI'm afraid you need to distinguish between belief and truth. You see 'There's no life on other planets' is unverified. Yet, there are some who hold this as truth. Therefore for them it is 'truth', but as long as it is unverified we can't say it is 'truth', it's what we call their 'belief'.
'God is almighty' is different from the above case. This statement cannot be verified. So for those who believe God is almighty, it's truth. It might be merely their 'belief', though, we have nothing for it but to admit it's truth. At the same time, 'God is almighty.' is false, especially for non-believers.On the other hands, 'God exists' is just a belief. I mean it's not truth. Likewise 'God doesn't exist' is also a belief. It's not truth either.
I am sure.
Truth must be admitted by believers and non-believers as well. You see, everyone can admit that God is almighty. Everyone can agree that God is almighty if God exists. There's a difference between belief and truth. If an opinion, a view, an accepted fact were false, even for those who believe in that opinion, it would still remain to be their belief, not truth, try using in your word.
'The earth is flat' was not a false, let alone their belief. It's a fact based on their experience. This was a truth in their scope of activity. Only after we start travelling around the glove, it turned to be false only later and still 'the earth is flat' is very true in our limited scope of our daily activities.
Our "truths" change as we make progress in science, medicine, space exploration and so on.
Very true.
The truths, held onto as short a time as 50 years ago, are truths in a limited conditions. And, in their limited ways, some of these "truths" were verified by yesterday's standards.
I changed a bit and very true.
Some opinions cannot and will not ever be verified. To those holding them, they will still be true.
Very true.
God is almighty, either truth or false, but not belief. God exists/doesn't exist, both are beliefs, neither truth nor false. The earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc are still true. Life exists other than the earth, is belief, neither truth nor false. .

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19The rather unsatisfactory definition of "truth" in logic is that a statement is true if it says "what is the case". The flat earth was never "the case", no matter what people believed, ergo the statement "the earth is flat" is, was and will always be false. Our chances of ever finding the absolute objective truth or truths may not be so good, but that's another discussion, I think.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19How about those expressions as 'The space has its own limitation'. 'Time stops in some point in the future. ' ' God exists' or The space is limitless.' ' Time goes on eternally.' ' God doesn't exist' Those statements are all agnostic. In other words, can the agnostic things be truth?

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19
mercedo saidHow about those expressions as 'The space has its own limitation'. 'Time stops in some point in the future. ' ' God exists' or The space is limitless.' ' Time goes on eternally.' ' God doesn't exist' Those statements are all agnostic. In other words, can the agnostic things be truth? You have three pairs of mutually exclusive statements here. That means that exactly three of your six statements are true and exactly three false. We don't know which three although we may have personal opinions. I don't see what you mean by "agnostic". Four of them have nothing to with religion, one is theistic and one atheistic. What the agnostic says is that of "God exists" and "God does not exist" either could be true, and here he/she leaves the debate since there's no way to determine which is true.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 19
ullangoo saidand here he/she leaves the debate since there's no way to determine which is true. So 'God is almighty' cannot be defined either in true and in false. Correct? If so, I got the point.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 19No. It's either true or false, but we can't determine which it is. Unless you'd consider the so-called ontological proof of God's existence and nature. It can't be logically refuted - but it's not emotionally convincing unless you're already a believer.

reply
ahfeiko wrote today at 1:54 AMso...may be the answer is in the "chicken & egg' thing. so for me,truth is being ,simply - simple. No Truth is Truth - Ahfeiko.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:20 PMMy viewpoint as to what the truth is is that truth varies as time goes by.
For example, heavy objects drops faster than the lighter ones. As long as we experiment this, we can get the same answer, yes, it's true. But later we learned under the vacuum condition, any objects drop at the same speed. This is true in space, but it's not true on the earth, on any planet that doesn't have atmosphere.
How about the earth is flat. As long as we live in some area like America, Asia, Europe, we don't need to make allowances for the roundness of the earth, only when we travel from one continent to another, it might concern.
Likewise the sun revolves around the earth. This is very true based on our daily observation. The fact is opposite, but who reports the earth is about to face the sun when sunrise. I think all those statements are truth.
No Truth is Truth - Ahfeiko.You are correct. There's no absolute truth, all truth stand relatively.