One cannot have Absolute Truth, unless you have complete knowledge of all things. And I am sorry, but at this point in time we just do not have the means to completely understand everything that is out there.
Absolute truth is accessible through relative truth. I don't mean absolute knowledge, which as DoubleScorpion said: we don't have the means to understand everything yet and we never be able to.
But there is absolute truth. For example, water boils at 212 f and 100 c. Is that absolutely true? Yes and no. It is true relative to a specific set of variables being true and staying true. If you always boil water at the same altitude and use the same purity of water, it will always boil at say 100 c. But if you go up a mountain or add impurity to the water you will get a different boiling point. But if you always use the same conditions your water always boils at the same temperature.
So absolute truth is relative to specific conditions being true and remaining true.
Well it does under most conditions so that would be true most of the time. But it does not boil at 20 degrees C, for instance. So the absolute truth is that if you always boil your water at the same altitude, in the same way, using the same purity of water, it will always boil at the same temperature, what ever that may be depending on the values of the variables. .
It's like perfection. It's an illusion until you accept that the universe is perfect as it is. How could it be any other way than it is when it is not? Therefore, the way it is is the only way it can be.
Truth ultimately comes from within. Facts come from physical occurrences along with legal and scientific documentation.
Truth is about harmony and balance. If that's the case, absolute truth is already in us, or at least potentially in us.
Truth is the underlying reality. Reality manifests as patterns. You are correct that people's interpretations can be wrong or incomplete. So studying the patterns of reality rather than the interpretations of it offers up more truth.
One such pattern being that which I said in my first post: Absolute truth is relative to a specific set of conditions or variables being true and staying true.
Are you saying there is truth in a lie? Or are you saying it is true that something is a lie? You have to specify your variables. I would say that the truth is relative to exactly what you mean. lol...
You take it wrong. I did understand. I think you misread what I said. I didn't say truth was relative to perception. I clearly said it is relative to a set of variables or conditions being true and remaining true. Your perception of them is irrelevant as is your interpretation of them. That the lie is, in truth, a lie is a statement about the lie being a lie - in fact. Not that the lie itself contains truth. That may or may not be the case all the time. The truth is that sometimes a lie holds some truth and sometimes it does not.
" It's an illusion until you accept that the universe is perfect as it is. How could it be any other way than it is when it is not? Therefore, the way it is is the only way it can be.". The principle behind the wisdom of the East and to get beyond a lot of the moral acid.
"Is it true to say that the Univese is not perfect; as it is not intelligent?" As or if it is not intelligent? Not sure that intelligence would have anything to do with perfection. A rock could be said to be perfect as a rock. It doesn't need to be intelligent.
Do you believe in Quran? If you don't; why you don't believe in it?
[2:146] And even if thou shouldst bring every Sign to those who have been given the Book, they would never follow thy Qiblah; nor wouldst thou follow their Qiblah; nor would some of them follow the Qiblah of others. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to thee, then thou shalt surely be of the transgressors. [2:147] Those to whom We have given the Book recognize it even as they recognize their sons, but surely some of them conceal the truth knowingly.
[2:148] It is the truth from thy Lord; be not therefore of those who doubt.
[2:149] And every one has a goal which dominates him; vie, then, with one another in good works. Wherever you be, Allah will bring you all together. Surely, Allah has the power to do all that He wills.
It is last Word in the sense that it is in the pristine and secure form it was revealed on Man called Muhammad; and it gives no commandment or teaching witout mentioning its wisdom and reason, it requires no external reasons; it satisfies all the ethical, moral and spiritual needs of human beings; it corrects all the previous Word of Revelations while confirming their truthful origin; and confirming the truthfulness of the person on whom the same were Revealed.
If it lacks it; then it is not the last word; it is last in status on the vertical axis; not necessarily on the time axis.
Absolute perfection is impossible. Only relative perfection is possible. Like truth, perfection is relative to something. Perfection is a subjective idea. Your idea of perfection and mine are not the same.
I could only see an absolute perfection in the idea that all thing would be perfect and all needs are met, and all things resolved.
Because this is not the case it is impossible for a perfect being to exist. The imperfect beings will bring it conflict and destroy its perfection.
Another thing you might consider: If god were perfect we would not exist. He or it would have no needs or desires. Perfection is the end of creativity. A god who is perfect and has no needs has no need to create.
Creativity is the result of conflict and it's resolution. No conflict, no need for creativity. No need for creativity, no creativity.
Perfection is subjective. I am saying it is not objective. I am saying your idea of perfection and mine may not be the same. Probably aren't. You have started you criteria of perfection from form. But I may want to start from functionality. You may have a perfect square but that is one aspect of the square, it's form. It may have breaks in the lines you can't see. If it does is it still perfect? Is the ink you used perfect? Is the paper? By what criteria? The square is only a square because of all it's parts. One aspect may be considered perfect while others are not. So depending on your criteria it may or may not be perfect to you. Objectively the square is not perfect and it is not imperfect, it just is.
My car may be perfect for my needs, but may not be a perfect car in all of it's aspects. Yet to me it is perfect. Perfection is subjective, not objective.
The universe is neither perfect nor imperfect objectively. It just is what it is. But to you it may be perfect or not depending on your criteria.
Perfection isn't subjective, when truth allows for it to be seen. Truth isn't subjective, it's objective. It wouldn't matter if YOUR criteria was based on functionality, because you are required to know the forms of everything involved with the functionality, so as to better understand the "perfection" when you do recognize it.
The form is all that is needed to be understood to create the perfection of that form. This isn't relevant, as to what perfection is. Sounds like existentialism. Sorry, don't buy it. Untrue. Situational aspects induce your subjective reasoning, but doesn't factor on Perfection. Yes, your car could seem perfect to you, however, I'm sure, even you would rather want something else to fit all aspects, not just situational aspects. Therefore, it's not actually perfect. I have no thoughts on the Universe being perfect or imperfect, because it's irrelevant to living life or even understanding life. But, thank you anyways.
Perfection is subjective as you clearly are demonstrating. I did not say truth was subjective, did I? I agree with you that it is objective. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about perfection which is relevant to what you decide it is perfect for. Can your perfect square be destroyed? Yes? Then it isn't perfect in that aspect. In your argument form is all that counts. But that's subjective. Not the objective truth of the matter.
How did I demonstrate that "perfection" is subjective, when perfection itself is based on truth of forms. To know any truth requires objectivity. So, to know the truth of forms, requires objectivity. Therefore "perfection" is objective. What is subjective is when the truth isn't known. No you didn't, but you don't appear to be making the connection, I made above. Actually, the "topic" of the thread is about Absolute Truth. It has taken a side road, down "perfection". The truth of perfection is that humankind can only obtain it for a brief period of time and nothing more. Any other statements with regards to it, is just meaningless banter and misinformation, about Truth. To know and understand "perfection", all that is needed is to know the form. That "form" creates a "beauty" that can be recognized by those who understand the "form". Can it be destroyed? Is foolish to even state, because anything that is created can be destroyed.
But I do not accept that perfection is based on truth of forms. That's your criteria, not mine. Not many other people's either.
I am not making the connection because it is not true. Perfection is a meaningless word that is only relative to the subjective mind. Objectively a form is a form. It is not objectively perfect or imperfect. Perfection has nothing to do with it. It only is perfect if you say it is and then only to you.
Objective perfection MIGHT be if a thing has no needs, no desires, can not be destroyed or influenced from outside, is changeless, and unchangeable, etc. If you say it is foolish of me to say because anything created can be destroyed, then you have proven my point. Your square can be destroyed so is not perfect. If something perfect can be corrupted it was never perfect, because perfection means it is not corruptible. Perfection has to be perfect in every way to be objectively perfect.
That is the lengths you have to go to to even get close to an idea of an objective perfection. You are talking about aspects of things being perfect. And that is a subjective call. If you and I do not instantly agree something is perfect, then it is because it is a subjective idea not an objective one.
The only state of perfection would be if all things agreed it was perfection in every way.
Again. The word perfection has no real objective meaning and therefore is useless except in subjective terms. That's the absolute truth. lol....
Tossing up in the air. Absolute truth is a circle is not a square at a specific moment in time, thus change is introduced, along with a hammer and now the square is a circle or some such geometric figure. So you the original question asks "Absolute Truth, How to reach it?" My view, now, is it can't be reached only observed to have been.
Slarty O'Brian wrote ... I am not making the connection because it is not true. Perfection is a meaningless word that is only relative to the subjective mind. Objectively a form is a form. It is not objectively perfect or imperfect. Perfection has nothing to do with it. It only is perfect if you say it is and then only to you.
= = = = =
Something can be considered perfect (In all Truth) ONLY when a specific purpose for that "THING" has been assertained????
One may ask questions about Quran/Islam/Muhammad from paarsurey he will answer from Ahmadiyya sources with related references; Paarsurrey has no claim to any scholarship or to piety. Paarsurrey is only an ordinary man...
Because the thread which inspired me was dead...I have made the claim and am quite happy to engage in discussion with anyone who feels that they can and should disagree. As a mathematician with years of experience...
I enjoy hearing people’s opinions; to a point, like most everyone. I sometimes wonder, when the conversations become heated, if everyone remembers that truth in many things is little more than the sum total of...
Hello,The below is a post from another hubber as you can tell by the quote, however, explain to me how a god is incapable of anything?This was taken from the Satan is the father of all lies, yet god tells lies forum...