|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
A1 |
At the risk of repeat, since I have read only most of the posts:
A man is said to have once said, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Light ...". Is that true." It is true according to some. It is myth according to others. If you are a believer, not only is it true that He said it, what He said is true. Some non-believers agreed/accept that he said it, but do not believer what he said. So there is a true/not true. He never said He was the only truth, or the only light, but He did later He did say there was no other Way (to the Father). Truth is indeed sometimes like the fable "rose", by any other name. Truth in such instances is about belief. Perjury is about "...truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ...", but involves a violation of law only when the non-truth was a knowing non-truth. Once again, truth is about belief. Clearly then, truth is different depending on the context. Truth CAN be dependent on who defines it and sometimes when, and frequently is. Truth CAN be conditional dependent on others things being in existence, or absence. There is only "one truth" to believers in that truth. The only universal truths are those that are irrefutable by any means. Some examples are the Law of Gravity, and numerous other laws of the physical sciences and mathmetics. Once outside the realms of physical science and mathmetics, absolutism and truth become almost divergent, fuzzy at least, less than congruent at best. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
What is "truth"? Who defines it? Is truth universal? Conditional? Is there only one truth or many?
James Wesley Chester : (A man is said to have once said, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Light ...". Is that true." It is true according to some. It is myth according to others.) Then this is a conditional truth. James Wesley Chester: (If you are a believer, not only is it true that He said it, what He said is true. Some non-believers agreed/accept that he said it, but do not believer what he said. So there is a true/not true.) In other words, conditional. James Wesley Chester: (He never said He was the only truth, or the only light, but He did later He did say there was no other Way (to the Father).) Although others on this planet believe otherwise or that there is no diety. Therefore, conditional truth. James Wesley Chester: (Truth is indeed sometimes like the fable "rose", by any other name. Truth in such instances is about belief.) Which is a human trait. Human decide what is truth. James Wesley Chester: (Perjury is about "...truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ...", but involves a violation of law only when the non-truth was a knowing non-truth. Once again, truth is about belief.) Which is created by humans. Even then the truth is interpreted differently. James Wesley Chester: (Clearly then, truth is different depending on the context. Truth CAN be dependent on who defines it and sometimes when, and frequently is. Truth CAN be conditional dependent on others things being in existence, or absence. There is only "one truth" to believers in that truth.) I agree James Wesley Chester: (The only universal truths are those that are irrefutable by any means. Some examples are the Law of Gravity, and numerous other laws of the physical sciences and mathmetics. Once outside the realms of physical science and mathmetics, absolutism and truth become almost divergent, fuzzy at least, less than congruent at best) Which means that there is one absolute truth, one Universal Truth. That there is no 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) |
|||
|
|
C5 |
IMMORTAL LOGIC 1)Of coarse ths is defined by me. In MBM's original post he ended it with "What do you think?" so it goes without saying.
Well, other people have their own definitions which would mean that there are many truths. Therefore your reality is not the same to others. As everyone's "what do you think" answer would be different supports the fact that your reality is not the same, nor can your definition apply to the world. IMMORTAL LOGIC 2)Myself,an atheist, and whoever else all share one reality with different perceptions of. There's no seperate realities for seperate people. Reality is'nt what you make of it. What the individual makes of it? You see, there are many different realities. When a volcano explodes, some blame it on a diety, a demon, or they take science into account. That's three different realities right there, regardless as to how anyone may think. IMMORTAL LOGIC 3)who's to say my truth is'nt universal. The truth is universal,and my opinion's commit's, and perception's are just as likely to be truth, fact, and reality as anyone's.When all is said and done some will be right,some won't,you can't say if it is or is'nt. I say it isn't. That alone makes it not Universal. The definition as we all know it means that everyone on this planet can not dispute it, not with a cultural belief, scientific belief or otherwise. It can not be denied. Right now, even my definition can be denied by others, so this would not even be a Universal Truth. I may be getting too deep here... "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 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) |
|||
|
|
C5 |
EbonyRose: For example, to take the 'sun in the sky' example given ... it is indeed a fact that the sun is in the sky. Whether you can see it or feel it or not, it is there in the sky. It doesn't matter if one believes it or not. It doesn't matter what you may choose to call or name it. You can say it's not there until the cows come home. The bottom line is that the object commonly known in our society as the sun is in the sky. That's the truth ... whether it happens to be yours or not!
If there is a society of blind people, that we have yet to know of, never seeing the sun, they only know of heat. The Sun does not exist to them, only the heat. If someone refers to the Sun as Apollo in his chariot, does that equate to the Sun in your eyes? Sure, all of these are truths, but they are not Universal. Even a blind person can believe that everyone is lying to them about the Sun. EbonyRose: Another example ... Mt. Rushmore! Although I've never seen it, never been near it, it does, in fact, exist! Now, I could go under the premise that seeing is believing. In that case, I would not believe it to be true that there is a mountain with the faces of 4 past presidents carved into it, because I've never seen it. Don't know anybody who's seen it. Because I have no personal knowledge of it, I could say it's a lie. But it's not. I know it's there. And even if I don't or didn't know it, it's there anyway! There's nothing I can do about it. So that (Mt. Rushmore) is a truth! Not a Universal Truth. All that I have said, is now on your computer screen. It exists. It is truth according to you. You see it, so you have to believe it? No. It is another version of truth, not 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) |
|||
|
A1 |
MBM the phrase Universal Truth is made up of two terms, each of which needs to be defined separately to get to a meaning and answer. The universe is Asymptote via being infinite, therefore how can one ever determine if something is universally ubiquitous, without being able to sample the entire universe, by reaching the end, to know? In that context, then the concept of a universal truth can never be proved to exist or not exist. Thus, one can only extrapolate by isolating a vacuum that would serve as the DEFINITION of a known universe, which has an alpha and omega, to determine if something is universally true in that given environment.
In order to determine if something is or is not requires a benchmark that serves as the definition of a phenomenon. Truth only exists as a concept because of the existence of falsity. In nature, there are no falsities or truths…. there is just reality and what is. Thus, the benchmark for human truth is nature’s reality (or should be). If a human perception does not map to natures reality, then that perception has failed to meet the benchmark of truth, in my opinion. However, if one is not willing to use nature as the benchmark, then determining truth and falsity is a matter of starting from a single definition, then comparing the perception to the definition to determine whether it is absolutely true or not. Your position, I am assuming, and Kh is that no truth is universal and my position is the opposite. Thus, the option is binary like a light switch. It is either ON or off. Thus, since there are only two options, one being the opposite of the other, proving one option to be not valid is tantamount and the equivalent of proving the other option to be valid, is it not? Consequently, proving the invalidity of your proposition was and is the equivalent of proving the validity of mine. However, I do not believe that the spirit of your original question, MBM, was a deeply philosophical and far reaching as the cosmos. I tend to think that your question was born from debates between human and how two or more individuals can perceive a phenomenon contradictory, but all ascribe their perception as the “truthâ€. Thus, your universe, in that context, really dealt with human perception to actions and reactions. For me, nature is the benchmark of truth, for that is the only unbiased working definition. This is why all my logic and reasoning in regards to issues are rooted in known laws of nature. The reason that philosophy cannot be called science is due to the fact that nothing can actually be proven or disproved, by traditional means of science or mathematics.  its all cool thoughTruth 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 |
|||
|
Tasmanian Angel |
LOL ...
No, MBM ... the sun was there, you just didn't see it!  That's what I'm saying ... it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not ... it's still the truth! The sun was most definitely in the sky at the time. Been there for a long time. Hopefully, it will be there a lot longer! |
|||
|
Founder |
quote: Friend, there is no need for you to assume anything. I've specifically articulated my position numerous times in this thread, including in the last post where I reposted my comments on this matter. quote: There are NOT two options. There are at least three: yours, Khalilallah's, and mine. quote: So there can be no truth in ideas? Really? How about faith? And define "unbiased" please? quote: Aren't you just making statements that only prove themselves again? It shouldn't be a surprise that philosophy can't be considered by the same means as science and mathematics. It's like saying that English can't be read with Chinese characters. What does that have to do with truth though? |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: If it was in the sky, why wasn't there evidence of it? There was absolutely no light. In fact, now, there is overwhelming evidence that the sun IS in the sky. Now. If what I am seeing now is evidence of the sun, I tell you again that there is no doubt that the sun was NOT in my sky last night. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
My position is simple, human define what is truth and the Universal Truth is that there is none.
Rather it being a off/on switch, it should be considered as an infinite truth. Regardless of your agreement with it or not, the result is still the same. Nature is conceptualized by humans. They have defined it from being deities to the current theory of science. However the fact remains, that even theory and law is changed, by humans, over time. "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) |
|||
|
A1 |
quote: Ebonyrose, I think that when we start questioning the nature of truth and fact, our examples of truth and fact have to be as precise as possible, otherwise we end up with statements like the one by you that MBM can refute. We come a lot closer to irrefutable truth when we say that the sun is in outer space. To say that it's in "the sky" puts your assertion directly into doubt. What exactly is "the sky?" Does it have mass? Does it have a shape? If it's the open space above us that we can see when we're outdoors, doesn't that definition mean there's no such thing as the sky to an astronaut in a space station in orbit? m-w.com defines it as "the upper atmosphere or expanse of space that constitutes an apparent great vault or arch over the earth." But that definition is fraught with subjectivity. The bottom line is, if it's the upper atmosphere, then the sun is not literally "in the sky," because the sky only includes the upper atmosphere and the sun is 93 million miles away. So MBM, if I tell you that the sun is in outer space, a certain measurable distance away from the earth, can you think of a way to refute that by reference to someone else's different perspective? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
I see this is a chess game for you MBM. Instead of making offensive moves, either due to lack of offensive pieces or strategy, you are simply attempting to avoid being check mated. There are NOT more than two options here. Either No truth is universal or universal truths exist. I fail to see what other option there is… and if I have… please enlightened me to what that other option is or are. For no matter how many people are in the debate the option presented by nature are that NO truth is universal or SOME truths are universal. Thus, our positions are rooted in these binary options.
What my last paragraph had to do with proof is that TRUTH IS PROVABLE. When humankind evolves to perceive the truth of nature and its laws, we mathematically and scientifically can prove out these truths. This is how humans have managed to send projectiles into space, via understanding laws of nature and the universe. If humans, truthfully, could not perceive the reality of nature then we would never manage to reach the moon. What once was considered the realm of philosophy, in times long ago when human understanding was more primitive, merged into the realm of science as humans gained understanding of nature and its reality and were able to PROOF out the truth. Consequently, philosophy is simply a cursory understanding of phenomenon of the universe that we cannot yet fully understand or explain and anything that cannot be fully understood cannot be proved of disproved, due to incomplete knowledge. Also, please, where in REAL LIFE can yours and KH position be applied to produce anything? 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 |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: How about the dimension of time? There was a time when the sun did not exist. There will be a time in the future when the sun does not exist again. While the existence of the sun may be a 'human truth', I'm not sure it can be considered a universal truth, because it's existence is temporary. On a universal scale, I'm not sure whether the life of our sun is even meaningful or not. I know that the sun is but an average (or maybe even slightly below average) star. So, can we build universal truths around a rather mundane example like that? This all speaks to my assertion that, in practice, truth is relative and conditional. There are universal truths, but as much as we may try not to, we besmirch them with the taint of our perspective, we have no choice. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM
when are you going to define Universal. You seem to be suggesting that TIME is thus universal...are you not? Thus, is time a universal truth and if it is, then does that not prove that universal truths exists?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 |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Friend - I'll lay them out. 1) No universal truths exist. 2) Universal truths exist. 3) Universal truths exist, but man's ability to understand them is such that those truths are always warped by human perspective. Thus, the fact that there are universal truths is irrelevant. The practical implication of this is that we interpret universal truths in ways that inject our perspective into them and therefore reduce them from their "plane of universalness" to the subjective. Got it? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: Maybe I'm not understanding your idea of what a "universal truth" is. I have to make time to read the thread as it stands since my last post yesterday. Maybe you can clarify that. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as far as I'm concerned, lived, even though he died before I was born. If he lived, there was a time when he had never existed (pre 1/29/1929), a time when he did live (1929 - 1968), and a time when he no longer lived. The way I see it, the fact that he is dead now in no way changes the absolute truth that he actually did live. Similarly, I don't see how the fact that the sun one day will die changes the fact that it currently exists. I think, personally, that the term "universal truth" may be inapplicable. I usually refer to the idea of "absolute truth," because universal implies the need for human consensus. We don't need universal agreement as to an absolute truth. And since you'll never have 100% universal understanding or acceptance of any fact or idea, there probably is no such thing as a "universal truth." But there ARE "absolute truths." |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: quote: Time, BTW, is highly conditional. Start two clocks - one on top of Mt. Everest and one at sea level and the rate of time that passes in those two places is very different. Your favorite force, gravity, impacts time. Einstein taught us that. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Noah: Also, please, where in REAL LIFE can yours and KH position be applied to produce anything?
During the Middle Ages in Europe, it was a time of superstition. Yet they were able to produce. Different age, different truths. The Bronze Age, were there not inventions? Different age, different truths. Now my position is not about the ability to create things, my position is not to deny the existence of the Sun. For they are truths, however they are not Universal since any human can define what they see or can't see. As far as MBM making a defintion for universal, then does that not prove my point? What if he were to say, what ever his truth is, it is universal. Would you accept it? No. My definition of universal is applied to every one and everything in the universe. So, if there are humans on other planets, or other living beings, then that in itself makes it impossible for there to 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) |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM, 2 and 3 are the same thing. For all intents purposes, there is truth and that is nature and its laws. The failure of humans to perceive reality is inconsequential to the phenomenon’s existence. Some humans may understand a universal truth, while others do not. Others ignorance has no bearing on what is reality, by natures definition.
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 |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Above you input the all important contingent, "currently". I was merely responding to the proposed universal truth that 'the sun is in the sky' with circumstances where that would not be the case. By adding a condition to that, you add your perspective, which is what I suggest we all do. |
|||
|
. Thats simple by your definition of the universe. this is thus a statement that contradicts your assertion of no universal truths: