quote:

---

The Sun can not be a universal truth should one decide that it does not exist.

---

What???

Does GOD not make the sun to shine on the good and the evil? Does not the sun shine on the smart and on the ignorant?

How can you decide something does not exist?

Kh reasoning is extremely sound and valid in the development of his conclusions; however, it is his premise that I do not agree with. The foundation of Kh proposition is again that human perception creates reality. If such a proposition were true, then the universe would be the creation of humans and not humans being the creation of God via the universe. So the oceans, air and elements of life that existed billions of years before humans actually did not exist according to Kh premise. They only came into existence post human ability to perceive them. I do not believe that such a proposition is valid.

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America

I agree with you Noah...

I find it strange, if Khalilallah's premise is as it seems to be that truth and what is, is because we as human beings say it is by consensus or otherwise, for that to be the position embraced by a Muslim. It would seem to me to be ascribing [human] partners with Allah, The Creator - the one who has caused things to exist - which goes against every fiber of the Deen, the religion.

(Noah: Kh, as I pointed out, one must start with a consensus of definition, first and foremost.)

(You say: TRUTH is not contigent on one's acceptance or recoginition of it. It makes no difference whether someone denies it or not.)

So is it that you are both in disagreement?

(Nmaginate: Again, TRUTH is not based on human conscious knowledge of it. If so, TRUTH could never exist because ever newborn generation would have to weigh in before we could ever arrive at the "truth"...)

If there were no one to consider what is true, then truth would be a non-issue. Truth is a human concept.


(Nmaginate: And because new generations continue to be born we will be eternally waiting for their... acceptance or denial.)

In other words, there is no universal truth except for their existence and ability to define it.

(Nmaginate: Khalil... I think we (YOU) do need to lay down a definition of what the "TRUTH" is as you define it.)

Why? Your not understanding the concept of universal? You do not see my definition of it above? Is that not truth that I have already answered your question? What no one can deny? As cryptic as I may sound in my responses, when you assume, that alone proves my point. My truth is different from your truth and the fact that we are trying to define it settles it.

(Nmaginate: Out of curiousity...
Did Adam (the first man) have to accept or agree to what GOD created for "it" to be TRUTH??
(That's for intellectual ideas, physical/natural laws - i.e. Laws Of Nature, etc.))

So to accept what is in front of him as truth, his experiences as truth, is it universal? Could you quess as to what Adam determined as truth? Would you expect for Adam to know of the atom bomb, atoms for that matter?

We can get religious if you like but no matter of my beliefs, religion is not a universal truth since everyone does not accept it.

Now, to satisfy your question if I have not already, truth (as noted in a reply above) is:

A factual, relevant belief according to the society in which one belongs. Taking a shot at it without a dictionary. It is just my belief as to what it is.

Goshtoire says: Truth is based purely upon perspective, which is created by your society when you are very young.

In which in some ways I would agree.

Noah says : One must start with a consensus in regards to the “definition” of a given phenomenon. Without a consensus of definition, then what is true is thus dependant upon each individuals working definition that they start from.

From that I determined that his Sun theory does not fit within this explanation. The consensus can always be influenced by perception.

Perhaps even more, Noah has identified the universal truth in the following statement:

Noah : Mostly, the human condition is not absolute as a result of our uniqueness as individuals, notwithstanding our universalities that absolutely define us into the human species)


Universal truth, not everyone thinks completely alike. Especially you and I.

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

On whether truth depends on human perception:

It might be helpful to look at it this way: when I was in elementary school, I had a science teacher who didn't understand when to use the word "discover" and when to use the word "invent." For example, she would refer to the man who "discovered" the telescope.

Obviously, man-made things are invented, or created. But things that exist in nature can only be discovered.

One can only discover the truth. You can't invent it. You can't create it. You can only discover it. This is a clue that truth is immutable, natural, and independent of human perception. It was always true that the earth revolved around the sun, no matter how sure humans were that the sun revolved around the earth. We discovered that earth revolves around the sun.

The reason there's a philosophical question about this, though, is the fact that we can also discover information that turns out to be false. If we don't have information that tells us that the info is false, we may believe it to be truth. So the question really shouldn't be what the nature of truth is, but what the nature of our ability to perceive it is.

Thank you VOX...

Very well said.

Vox, I see what your saying however truth will always be a human concept.

Should there be a community of blind people that we have yet to meet. To define the feeling of the sun's rays as heat and nothing more. The sun does not exist to them. To discover the sun would be impossible. To say that it exist would be impossible.

Now you have to understand that we already know what is true, my point is that the truth is not necessarily the truth to all.

What if we discover that the sun does not generate heat after all but rather the geo-thermal dynamics of the Earth reacting to gravitational pulls of the Sun and the moon? Heat from the core of the Earth increasing as gravity increases?

What if the Sun is not what we define it as? The object still exist true but what if? What if the Sun is actually an illusion?

What if you were an illusion?

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

I think that everything is predictable once everything becomes known, because truth is simply the laws and rules of the universe. Life seems unpredictable because we do not understand the truths of nature laws, which manifest Gods will and intent. The reason that people think that there is not universal truth is born from human’s incomplete knowledge of the universe, its properties and its laws.
We must remember that absence of evidence (of what is true) is not evidence of absence (of the truth).

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America

Nmaginate:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prerequisite to universal truth is universal belief, something that can not be denied. The idea that we exist in our own minds, is that universal truth, not an object or a belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(TRUTH is not contigent on one's acceptance or recoginition of it.)

The who decides what is true or not? You? Your doing it right now...

Nmaginate: It makes no difference whether someone denies it or not.)

Why? Because you are the sole decision maker of what is true?


Nmaginate: Again, TRUTH is not based on human conscious knowledge of it.

But we are the only one that is doing it...


Nmaginate: If so, TRUTH could never exist because ever newborn generation would have to weigh in before we could ever arrive at the "truth"...

It is called school were someone's version of truth is presented as instruction.


Nmaginate: And because new generations continue to be born we will be eternally waiting for their... acceptance or denial.

We do so anyway as evident of the perception of the solar system.

Should we confuse discovery with invention, then that means that humans are always discovering the truth? Right? So the truth as you see it now, may be changed to another truth in the future based on discovery.


(Khalil... I think we (YOU) do need to lay down a definition of what the "TRUTH" is as you define it.)

Did I not do this already?

(Out of curiousity...
Did Adam (the first man) have to accept or agree to what GOD created for "it" to be TRUTH??
(That's for intellectual ideas, physical/natural laws - i.e. Laws Of Nature, etc.))

Are we discussing if Adam actually thought about concepts of gravity?

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

Noah: The foundation of Kh proposition is again that human perception creates reality.)

Who else is there?

(If such a proposition were true, then the universe would be the creation of humans and not humans being the creation of God via the universe.)

Actually, the universe of an ant is what? Are we referring to what is or what is the truth?

Another Universal Truth, we don't really know what is reality.


Noah: So the oceans, air and elements of life that existed billions of years before humans actually did not exist according to Kh premise.

Who can perceive existence? A rock? A tree? Are they intelligent enough to do so? Animals have to have some ideas of a truth but that stills go to the bottom line. The knowledge of existence in intellegent life forms.

Noah: They only came into existence post human ability to perceive them. I do not believe that such a proposition is valid.

So, tell me. When did we discover the existence of any of the above mentioned? There are still many things that are not in existence since we have yet to discover it.


Truth is always a human concept, especially since we have to agree upon a definition of it. So no matter how this is analyzed, humans have to define truth.

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

Khalil, before humans existed, wasn't it still true, say, 2 million years ago, that the complex of stars we call Sirius A, B, and C existed? If not, when did they come into existence? Was it when the Dogon first became aware of them? Was it when European astronomers later discovered them?

Better yet: If sirius is 8 light years away, isn't it nonetheless ture that an event that happens there happens at the moment it happens? Or do you believe that it didn't truly happen until 8 years later, when earth telescopes first became able to perceive the event?

quote:

---

What if we discover that the sun does not generate heat after all but rather the geo-thermal dynamics of the Earth reacting to gravitational pulls of the Sun and the moon? Heat from the core of the Earth increasing as gravity increases?

---

Well, the truth of this phenomenon is the truth now, I would say, even though we don't know it.

One way to think about it is this: science is loathe to call any discovery a "fact." As far as the scientific method is concerned, that the sun is our source of heat is a "theory." The take it as practically the truth, but as a theory, it's subject to revision and even complete rejection in light of later discoveries. But those discoveries are still the truth, and they're the truth even now, even though we don't know them yet.

Vox: But things that exist in nature can only be discovered.

And is not considered true until humans do so.

Vox: One can only discover the truth. You can't invent it.

Actually we can for we are now defining truth which is in itself an invention.


Vox: You can't create it. You can only discover it.

Actually that is what many of you are trying to do now. My truth is not acceptable to your truth since it does not fit your defintition of truth. Thus there is no Universal Truth.

Vox: This is a clue that truth is immutable, natural, and independent of human perception.

Not so, when my truth about truth is being called into question. We are not discovering what truth in itself is. We are trying to define it, thus invent it.

Vox: It was always true that the earth revolved around the sun, no matter how sure humans were that the sun revolved around the earth. We discovered that earth revolves around the sun.

And should there be no more civilization and human knowledge of the universe is gone, then your truth is no longer. Regardless of what we perceive as true now, truth is always with that of the human.

Vox: The reason there's a philosophical question about this, though, is the fact that we can also discover information that turns out to be false.

Thus the truth is redefined...

Vox: If we don't have information that tells us that the info is false, we may believe it to be truth.

Exactly. A human perception.

Vox: So the question really shouldn't be what the nature of truth is, but what the nature of our ability to perceive it is.

I agree with the above comment but the question is, what is Universal Truth...

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

Kh I reiterate: Truth is nature’s laws, which manifest God's will and intent. The reason that people think that there is not universal truth is born from human’s incomplete knowledge of the universe, its properties and its laws.

If you are a believer in God, which I know you are, than you should realize that God perceives all that we perceive as humans and that which we cannot perceive. Thus, it is not a matter of ants or insects and what they can or cannot perceive void of humans, for God perceives all, even when and if his creations cannot. Would you suggest that God cannot percieve what mankind cannot?

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America

No Khalil, you obviously DISagree with what I said. I said, "It was always true that the earth revolved around the sun, no matter how sure humans were that the sun revolved around the earth. We discovered that earth revolves around the sun." You replied, "And should there be no more civilization and human knowledge of the universe is gone, then your truth is no longer. Regardless of what we perceive as true now, truth is always with that of the human."

That contradicts what I said. I said that it was true that the earth revolved around the sun before we discovered that this was the case. If it was true before we discovered it, how can it no longer be true once civilization disappears?

(Khalil, before humans existed, wasn't it still true, say, 2 million years ago, that the complex of stars we call Sirius A, B, and C existed?)

Do they exist or are they the remnants? Only the light is what we see.

The question is this, as we may know what actually is, there is another group of people that see it as something else. So there is no Universal Truth. It may be true but it is not universal.

(If not, when did they come into existence?)

Have they decided as to when the Universe came into creation? As I recall, there are different opinions in regards to that. Thus different truths...

Vox: Was it when the Dogon first became aware of them? Was it when European astronomers later discovered them?

Humans always seen stars in the night sky. Their truth in regards to them are different from yours and mine. What may be truth to the scientific community may not be so with the religious community.

Was the earth created in 7 days or is it actually billions of years old? You see, humans are deciding the truth...

Vox: Better yet: If sirius is 8 light years away, isn't it nonetheless ture that an event that happens there happens at the moment it happens? Or do you believe that it didn't truly happen until 8 years later, when earth telescopes first became able to perceive the event?

Well I would probably listen to an expert but what if it were a part of someone's faith that these stars are actually souls? A different truth.


(quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if we discover that the sun does not generate heat after all but rather the geo-thermal dynamics of the Earth reacting to gravitational pulls of the Sun and the moon? Heat from the core of the Earth increasing as gravity increases?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vox: Well, the truth of this phenomenon is the truth now, I would say, even though we don't know it.)

So in other words we, as humans, is constantly re-defining the truth.

Vox: One way to think about it is this: science is loathe to call any discovery a "fact." As far as the scientific method is concerned, that the sun is our source of heat is a "theory." The take it as practically the truth, but as a theory, it's subject to revision and even complete rejection in light of later discoveries.)

Thus we re-define truth based on human act of curiosity and discovery.

Vox: But those discoveries are still the truth, and they're the truth even now, even though we don't know them yet.

Not unless there is a evangelical movement that succeeds in convincing the world that the Earth and universe is created in 7 days. Then what would be the truth? It would be true to you but to another, it would not. Therefore, it can not be a Universal Truth.

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

(Vox: No Khalil, you obviously DISagree with what I said. I said, "It was always true that the earth revolved around the sun, no matter how sure humans were that the sun revolved around the earth. We discovered that earth revolves around the sun." You replied, "And should there be no more civilization and human knowledge of the universe is gone, then your truth is no longer. Regardless of what we perceive as true now, truth is always with that of the human."

That contradicts what I said. I said that it was true that the earth revolved around the sun before we discovered that this was the case. If it was true before we discovered it, how can it no longer be true once civilization disappears?)

I agreed with some of what you have said. However because the view point that you and I have could possibly be no longer be considered true if there were no longer the civilization as you and I know it...

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

Kh I reiterate: Truth is nature’s laws, which manifest God's will and intent. The reason that people think that there is not universal truth is born from human’s incomplete knowledge of the universe, its properties and its laws.

If you are a believer in God, which I know you are, than you should realize that God perceives all that we perceive as humans and that which we cannot perceive. Thus, it is not a matter of ants or insects and what they can or cannot perceive void of humans, for God perceives all, even when and if his creations cannot. Would you suggest that God cannot percieve what mankind cannot?

Noah: Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


And who are you to define this? Perhaps I have a different definition? This would again prove the elusiveness of a universal truth.

The quote that you have below, I agree with:

Truth is always fraught with impediments.

What are the impediaments? Humans.

Truth agreed with is a blessed duet.

Duet of who? Humans.

Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage.

Who is this person referring to? Humans.

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Who is he? A human. Now. What your quote clearly shows is that your truth and my truth regarding truth is fraught with impediments. That impediment is independent thinking.

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)

The universe is one big mathematical equation. Thus, when humans DISCOVER the means of breaking nature’s laws into their mathematical formulas, what is UNIVERSALLY true can thus be PROVEN to be such. Pythagoreans theories of right triangles are thus UNIVERSALLY true, because the equation can be PROVED OUT. This truth of right triangles existed in nature way before human intelligence discovered it.

Again, until we learn to UNDERSTAND the elements and rules that PREEXIST in nature and break them into mathematical properties to be proven as UNIVERSAL TRUTHS, some people will always imply that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America

Kh, the biggest impediment to universal truth is simply ignorance of it. If I go to a remote part of the world and tell people who have never seen or heard of air plains, that man can fly via them, their ignorance of the fact, in your definition, would negate the universal truth of the reality. Ignorance, therefore, is not a valid disproof of reality. All it takes is for one human to have flown to make the statement universally true [the statement that man can fly via the craft].

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America

I think what we have here is an interesting clash of philosophical perspectives. Khalil, I don't believe that stars are souls. Someone else who believes that believes differently. You see their belief as a "truth." But I see it as a "belief." A belief, or a matter of faith, really doesn't even fit the dictionary definition of truth. To me, belief may be our way of trying to explain a true thing, or a way of deriving comfort from a true thing, but I would never believe that a belief could be a truth in itself.

What is the source of this disagreement? I wonder if our disagreement stems from differences in what we see as the power and place of humanity in the universe. The more you believe that human perception and belief shape truth, the more central you probably see humanity in the grand scheme of the universe. If so, I wonder what role religion plays in shaping our opinion on this issue? Noah suggested to Khalil that if you believe in God, then His perceptions of the truth make human perception less relevant in defining truth. But maybe a particular type of religious belief places so much primacy on human dominion over things that this belief shapes the opinion that human perception shapes truth.