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 each individual’s experiences. I’m curious how anyone becomes set in a system of beliefs so firmly that they feel the need to belittle others that don’t agree with their concept of Truth.
Two people can start from any point and follow logic and reason; yet find themselves drawing a different conclusion once all the facts, as they perceive them, are in.
Of course, I realize that maybe I misread a spirited debate as discordance, but I don’t think that is always true.
I suppose what I would like to discuss is - Why do the terms ludicrous, delusional and ‘you’re headed for hell’ (among others) pop up? Do the people saying these things believe them? If so, could you try and explain how you have arrived at the conclusion that only you can be right for anyone but yourself?
When one goes up...or goes down....in or out...left or right...
Did he do so because of truth?
So indeed Truth is constant, consistent and single thus Absolute.
The only other way is the false....
Do not get confused with directions and Truth.
I would disagree in that the statement does not always apply and yet I believe that, for you, there is absolute truth in what you say. Do you consider that to apply to everyone? Does everyone have to see that as truth? If so, can you explain why?
A man cannot Know Truth unless he find it within himself.....
All men has their measure of Truth.. but not all are able to come to the full knowledge.
The man with Truth will know himself and all others...
The man without will never ever know himself nor another.
What is your testimony do you know Truth....?
If yes..then you need not ask another anything, neither will prolong debates with those who do not.
It is by application that truth becomes invalid or inconsistent. How? By the perception/perspective (a priori ) of the applier, condition placed or queried (the priori of the applicants view) or the result of the application (the posteriori /solution determined by the applicant) and not the truth applying itself to the applicant without preset, predetermination, prediction by the applicant.
Truth cannot be reasoned by humanistic methods, nor can The Ism --by sensation or science-- confirm or deny truth using said methods.
So any human reasoning as what or not truth, is simply a cyclical (and often cynical) application of the tres priori. Else, truth would abound in humans as it does in creation.
If you are genuinely curious about this subject, do some reading under the terms "relativism" and "absolutism."
There's a great deal of good philosophy and anthropology operating in and around those concepts. It's been my experience that the less people know, the more certain they are in their beliefs. And vice versa.
That's good advice. Also don't spend too long on anyone who claims to know The Truth. It usually just means s/he likes upper case letters.
Good advice, thanks. And I agree with your last statement.
You might say that ... " why don't you read up on it; and then you will know, why ask this in forrums?"
But sometimes a person can learn much more by talking about it with othrs. And that way sometimes, more than one person can learn something.
That is, IF You/me are wanting to learn something.
Yes, I suppose in a hypothetical world I might have said that, but by having added that last part, I would have undermined the reasoning that you gave regarding discussion, which is why I didn't say it.
This is great advice, Shades. I think it's imperative to educate yourself about different -isms.
My own experience has been that the less I know, the more I realize I want to know, and that just make me desperate to go out and try to know more. I admit, without shame, that I am insatiably curious. On the flip side, I do believe that there's something in the essence of humanity that resonates to truth and common sense. I believe that truth is constant. I also believe that it can be known through natural law, and whether we choose to believe it or not, there is a natural law that dictates the universe (whether you call it God or physics or what the hell ever). In short, the more you come to know, the more you come to know how much you don't know. And, as a believing Christian, I can never understand how a person can say with absolute certainty that this is what is and there can be no other. Like the Christians who refuse to believe in aliens because it's anti-scriptural. Uh, okay. So the God you believe created the universe can't sustain life outside of THIS planet? He's so limited (your omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God) that it is beyond Him to have created a civilization outside of the one you know? Over eleven years of a very crazy journey with God, I've learned one thing. If you are so arrogant as to believe, and to actually come out and say that you know the mind of God, then you are a fool. Dig into the mind and heart of God and you will find yourself in an ENDLESS quest for truth and knowledge. And for the Christians who want to beat me up for having the gall to make a statement such as this - grab a concordance and look up "the mind of God" and "search his heart" and "know his ways." Even the most convicted believer needs to acknowledge that there are things we may never know about this earthly existence. That doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't make it any less constant. It just makes it truth that we haven't learned yet.
And, the same can be true of those who don't believe in God because you can't prove he exists. If you have in fact covered every base on every issue in every phase of your, or your earth's existence, then you know it all. No further need for questions, experiments, discussions, or anything else for that matter. You've figured it all out and you have completed your journey. You are therefore dismissed.
Seems like maybe rather than knowing it all and making sure everyone knows that we do, we should concentrate on those things we actually might NOT know. There's much greater joy in learning than in knowing, IMHO.
Wow. Long winded. Really sorry for that.
"Truth" IS "truth," regardless of ones "concept" of it.
No more need be said on that question.
Not at all. Individual experiences change dramatically from person to person with often contradictory and hypocritical results.
Sorry, do you mean one persons concept of the truth compared with another persons concept of the truth? Perhaps, you're referring to opinions and not truths.
I look to reality for answers rather than someones personal experience as it can be easily shown that personal experience often doesn't align with reality.
I see what you are saying, but I think reality is what you perceive it to be. I just think truth is too. I don't think when people disagree on beliefs it means one is right, one is wrong. The truth is, the truth to each one. You've processed the information through the sieve of your own experiences. You're unique. Of course it won't match anyone else. Why do some believe it has to? Or that someone else is on dangerous ground because it doesn't?
So, if someone placed a banana in front of you, would you call it an apple because that is your perception of it, and you will argue emphatically that it is indeed an apple?
Your experiences tell you that it is an apple because you have processed the information for a banana through the sieve of your own experiences, because you're unique, hence it won't match anyone else, who might perceive it as a pomegranate.
Well, perhaps we're comparing apples to oranges here. And, if so,i agree with your statement that an apple is an apple is an apple. But, if someone said they did not agree I would not automatically assume they were wrong. They might think I was wrong because I wasn't referring to it as a Mcintosh. On some level, they'd be right, that I was wrong.
I suppose you have experienced virgin births, resurrections, talking snakes, global floods, and seas being parted.
But believers do not follow logic and reason, and this is were the disagreement starts. The believer thinks he is following logic, but what he is engaged in is intellectual dishonesty--which is anti-truth.
The belief in nonsense is ludicrous, or do you not agree?
As far as the "you're headed for hell" this is also ludicrous.
If you are trying to promote the belief in the bible as being a logical conclusion, or alternative conclusion, maybe you should read it again.
Actually I'm just trying to understand why some people insist they know it all and everyone else is wrong. You're one of the ones I'm looking for,i think. Would you care to expand on your previous post, or is that the extent of your stand?
So HAVE you experienced virgin births, or resurrections to be truths? Have you? Then why are you proposing that we accept your opinion as truth? This why the term ludicrous is relevant.
I have seen many people die, and to this date, they are all still dead. That appears to be the truth in my experience. Do you not agree?
You are being intellectually dishonest, because you have a fear of the unknown, and of authority you think that the bible represents. This is the effect of indoctrination.
In reality, religions have little to do with truth, and I think you know that, because you seem to be struggling to get us to agree that you are not delusional.
No, I think you misunderstand. I don't mind when people cal me dillusional, it doesn't make it so. I just wonder why a person would think they knew so much. To me, that seems a little dillusional, but I don't believe that is within amyone's right to say.
I believe that my dog commands me to shoplift, when I take him to the market with me, and just because you call me delusional does not make it so.
It is not that anyone here is saying they "know so much."
It's that we are simply accepting reality. Why do you have such a problem with that?
You are trying to put accepting reality on the same level as believing in mythical nonsense.
Not at all. But we don't know everything about any reality. Physical or otherwise. I just find it difficult to understand what I consider to be pompous and supercilious people. I am attempting to understand. I hope you can help.
Maybe this will help.
1 Corinthians 13
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. (NIV)
The strange thing about truth is that it's only truth if you believe it is. So, when people are vehemently professing what they believe is the truth, it really is to them. Unfortunately, many people don't think about the fact that 'truth' is personal, and different for everyone. But that brings more issues to the fore: if everyone believes in a different truth, what is true? Who is right? And, that being the case, how can we judge who is right?
You could say that the truth is there is no such thing as universal truth, just like there is no such thing as true beauty: they are both in the eye of the beholder. But that doesn't make it any less true to me.
Interesting topic! Thanks for this!
No problem. Thanks for getting whate I was trying to say. I got harassed by the atheist so hard at first, (it appeared they thought I was simply trying to talk about God) I rolled my eyes and stopped reading the posts in this forum. It was just by chance I decided to check out yours when the email hit my inbox. I guess I've found someone that can talk off subject. Look forward to more of your posts.
Truth ... Is.
Thus ... the Universal Constant.
I often; rather exrensively use the Term, Truth, in Defining The Existential's Reality.
The word Truth. per se is an Phonetic intonation, Expressing, what is Univesally considered the Reality ... Linguistics have little to do in such addressings of Reality ...
In Arabic and Islamic Urdu the word, describing Truth ... is Haq.
hmmm...well, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the most accusations of "delusional" and etc. comes from non-believers; at least that's what I've seen (and received)....
And your theory that truth is not a constant is.....a theory I strongly disagree with.
Truth is not a constant. Goes to show you lack any understanding of truth. Good to know for future conversations.
You apparently are one of those I am curious about.
Curious about me? Why? Explain.
It's not too difficult to understand that Truth is not subjective. It is objective. Truth encompasses objectivity and all knowable knowledge available.
Truth is Truth. It does not change and isn't subjected to an individual's perception.
And, to prove Truth is Truth- Truth is in everything.
Example- Truth is inside a Lie. The Truth in a Lie...is the fact that a Lie is really not Truth, but is indeed a Lie.
A person can recognize Truth when it is seen, unless they purposely, egotistically choose ignorance.
So you say ignorance is people who don't agree with what you have taken as truth?
Is there anyone else in the world that you think has the understanding that you have?
You got it all and the rest of us are so inferior.
Where have I heard that before ?
Since you choose this particular action, let's see if you can handle the consequences that come with it?
Let's see you explain the difference between Truth and Fact?
Do You know the difference between truth and fact ?
Or did you just read one scenario someplace that you accept as truth, and all other are only fact.
In order for you to know what the factual truth is. You would have to know everything.
Do you know everything ?
Jerami, this question is for you to answer. Asking me isn't answering the question.
Again, you're not answering my original question.
Again, you never answered the question. And, this statement shows you lack understanding the difference between truth and facts.
Know everything- Explain?
Are you making reference to knowing everything there is to know?
Or Are you making reference to knowing everything already known to humankind?
You do realize there is a difference between those two things?
Do you relize that you are tripping while trying to do your tap dance.
If you had understanding ? You could see that I did answer your question.
Oh boy you're a real piece of work. You post questions, yet to fail to answer the questions posed originally. Good job. Talk about useless.
Where in this post did you answer my original question?
The truth set me free.
The truth for me is only my reality with my limited experience.
Funny how the word truth conjures up thoughts on religion, can not we have truth in science?
Well maybe, but I don't think every scientific statement should be seen as an absolute truth. Do you? I'm not saying anything is wrong, but is there anything that doesn't have room for deeper understanding, or a finessing of the answer? Is anything the end all truth?
Bob Toben, author of Space TIme and Beyond said "This is reality now"
I agree with that philosophy, but the right here and now for each individual. The reality we each perceive is different to varying degrees.
Although I believe almost any statement can be seen as just an opinion I also believe that there IS objective truth that is a constant. It's just that you can almost never be that sure.
There is only one reality and that reality is Truth (with a capital T)
There are also approximately as many personal perceptions of that reality as there are people. They range from completely out of touch with the one reality to a passing acquaintance with it to a handful of perceptions correct in all perhaps but the tiniest details. Maybe even one or two that are actually correct and in total agreement with the Truth.
Statements that begin with the phrase "I believe that..." are usually of the first variety; completely out of touch with reality. Just my personal perception of reality.
Ok, so who decides the appropriate take on the one reality? Who decides what gets the capital T? How do we determine where to put the labels ' out of touch' and 'have all but the tiniest detail'. How do you know these are the truth and you aren't wrong? Don't get me wrong, I think opinions are great but when they start sounding like the person behind them thinks it is an absolute I get baffled. I'm curious how they can be so smug that everyone else is wrong.
You don't know. You only know what your perception of truth is.
If the question is important enough it needs testing to determine truth. Does your conclusion agree with test results? Can others find the same truth with the same test? Is the test all inclusive, or at least as all inclusive as you can make it? Does real and honest critical thinking support that perception?
Things are "out of touch" when the perception of reality bears no resemblance to what our observations see. Observations do not need "interpretation" - they are what they are without need for spin to support a false perception of reality.
Many beliefs get only a n/a when referring to truth as there is no testing possible or they are only true due to definition and should never be referred to as reality or truth. "The devil walks among us" is true only if "devil" is defined as any wrong or evil act, and the definition of wrong or evil acts is something the devil made us do. To define "devil" as an actual undetectable creature forcing wrong actions results in the n/a catagory as by definition it cannot be detected to test. Thus the devil should never be called real as we cannot know; it is a belief, a personal perception only that may or may not have an actual connection to reality.
Ok. So, you've stated a point. A good one, in my opinion. But, you would feel comfortable telling someone, unequivocally, that they were wrong about a belief? No measure of doubt that you, yourself, might be mistaken? You feel you know enough about everything to say that?
Certainly not! I would feel comfortable, however, in stating that I can find no connection to reality in their belief. Happens all the time.
Now if you believe the moon is made of green cheese, I would say you are wrong and point to the rocks brought back. Few people have beliefs that are so obviously wrong.
If you say, however, that the devil walks among us I would not really have any reply except (if I got up on the wrong side of the bed) that there is no indication that it is true. As I say, most beliefs deserve a "not applicable" when trying to connect them to reality and truth.
I try to harbor as few beliefs of that sort as possible and would never present such a belief as factual. For instance, I do not believe in predestination; I believe the future is not the fixed, immutable thing that predestination would imply. I am happier believing in free will and the ability to choose my actions, but would not state that I absolutely have such a thing. It is an opinion based on nothing but my own desire for it to be true and, to date, unprovable and untestable. There is no evidence either way; we have no indication if it is true or not so I cannot present it as factual.
Truth is unchanging and don't give a shyt about belief or opinion, god or the universe, man or biology or even evolution. It just is and shall remain. It cannot lie or bend, humans do.
Yes ultimately. But how do some draw a line in the sand and say ' Eureka, I've found it. Agree or you are wrong.'
In the 'Art of Conversation,' Rousseau puts it that the less knowledgeable one is the more likely it is to put an impression on him. His reasoning was that, if a mind is blank the more permeable it is. However, when Galileo stated that the earth was round and that it went around the sun, people of his generation referred to him as a "mad man." I want to draw my own conclusion that "the truth is timely."
" I want to draw my own conclusion that "the truth is timely."
"The truth is timely" only to the "less knowledgeable."
They're only human. Jack had it right, "You can't handle the truth."
The society we have created lists itself to being a game kids played in the past called "King of The Hill"
We must maintain our status of being number one therefore we tried to re-create everyone around us into our own image.
When we become aware we are not achieving that objective that reflects on our ability to maintain our position as "King of The Hill" resulting in lashing out.
Truth is relative to the observer and limited by one's ability to perceive reality. Perhaps it can be compared to talking a picture. The quality of camera, filters used, lenses used, length of exposure, time of day, etc. can determine what a picture can look like. Our truths are anthropocentric. I guess if we all keep that in mind we'll have some place to start.
Reality is the only truth, despite ones perception of it.
Yes but what is reality except for ones own unique perception of it? How does one not perceive reality? By not thinking?
No, it doesn't matter in the least how one perceives reality as reality will always remain exactly the same for everyone. It will be the same for you and the same for me. No difference whatsoever.
How so? Take away perception what do you have? Sameness or nothingness?
Do you even know the definitions of perception and reality?
Take away perception and what you have left is; reality. Simple.
Apparently not your definition? Without perception we cease to exist. We would be biological entities existing without thought, without knowledge etc. We would therefore be non sentient beings.
And, that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. It will continue to remain the same for you and me whether we are sentient beings, grasshoppers, or a slice of toast.
Better check a dictionary.
How can you say that reality does not change with new inventions?
How can you say that reality does not change when New viruses and bacteria evolves?
How can you say that reality didn't change with the creation of the atom bomb.
Without change in reality; reality will ceases to be.
I never did, please stop putting words in my mouth, Jerami.
I don't understand that claim at all, makes no sense whatsoever.
Beelzedad wrote ...
And, that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. It will continue to remain the same for you and me whether we are sentient beings, grasshoppers, or a slice of toast.
Better check a dictionary.
= = = =
Seems to be a contradiction in side by side posts don't ya think?
Ok here is wikipedias interpretation
"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."
Things that actually exist whether observable or comprehensible change. The seasons change, no day is ever the same, the trees grow and die etc. Therefore reality is only real for the time it ceases to change. Whenever that is? Wikipedia then goes on to say....
"Reality" could alternatively refer (1) only to what is in the present, or (2) only to what is in the present and past, or (3) only to what is in the present and future, or (4) to what is in all of the present past and future, but it is always contrasted with what is not so included, as baing not real, so the term is somewhat amiguous in its contradictory usages."
Perhaps then I should say reality is of no value without perception. We could not identify with past present or future. We would not "know" real from illusion.
Yes, and it is the "perception" of reality that people have in which they "believe" it may appear or may be thought to appear. That is exactly what I've been saying all along.
No, it is the perception of reality that provides "value" to one, if value is what they are seeking, not the other way round. Reality in itself does not offer value.
And yes, we might not know real from illusion, that is where our brains and our understanding of the world around us help us to do that. You'll probably have noticed that without an understanding of the world around us, people tend to create their own explanations for their perceptions of reality; gods.
So "as it actually exists" who can define? Is it changing or unchanging in your mind? Reality changes therefore "actually exists" is in constant motion. Not fixed and not describable in its entirety.
Yes agree with you on perception. That was my point too.
Yes and perceptions can also deny the existence of any Gods. Reality or illusion would then be dependent upon whether or not they can be defined. Since both are in constant motion neither can be defined or accepted as reality in its entirety.
But, it is reality and our perceptions of it will not change it.
Reality denies the existence of gods, too.
Reality is defined by the scientific method.
Being in constant motion has nothing to do with whether or not reality can be defined. Indeed, it is part and parcel to reality.
the thing that i can't believe is that you seem to have not gotten the memo about what reality is. Reality is a construct based on what we know. If we don't know it, we cannot construct it using inputs from the senses.
For instance, to some insects, there is no such thing as violet.
What you consider reality is just a construct of your mind. You really don't know what reality is outside of what you think it is. We integrate reality from cues from the senses, so our reality is solely reliant on our belief of what it is. For instance,if you are british in the days of the french-british war, and you've never seen a french man but have heard of them but have not heard of a monkey. You see a monkey and you shoot it with an arrow thinking that's a frenchman(it has happened) Your construct is based on the information available to you.
you know, it would benefit everybody if you expand your bandwidth.
What I can believe is how you to continue to focus on the individual.
Nonsense. We don't know what's inside of a black hole, yet that won't stop it from turning you into spaghetti if you get too close to it.
Total nonsense. Reality will exist the way it is regardless of anyone's construct or beliefs.
In other words, your perception of reality was wrong.
oh you didn't get that memo too? It was just out everywhere. lemme see if I can send it back to the 50's...
http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born … heory.html
Very interesting article. It's a THEORY, so according to everyone's opinion of the scientific method on this site it is valid until proven incorrect.
It is definitely mathematically possible. It is already proven that at least in the reality of a tree, it is true that the the complexity of a tree is a neverending repetition of the one fractal of the first branch that emanated from a seed. Cut up a seed and what do you get? What pattern? Nothing.
see this just goes to show that a fly cannot see violet
See Eggity, he didn't get what I meant by this. It is obviously fractal geometry, universes within universes is classic mandelbrot. I read two other articles about this when it came out. And the headline of one of them even said : Could Einstein be wrong?
But he says, have you seen it? and rolls his eyes. Duh, you see a pyramid, you know the formala. you don't need to see the actual computation, you're already looking at the theory in layman's terms.
You see a circle with weird holes on them, you know its fermat's theory. You see a mobius strip, you also know the formula for that.
YOU DON"T NEED TO ACTUALLY SEE IT. so please no more posturing and just zip it.
That isn't the way the scientific method or the peer review process works at all.
Really, who peer reviewed the work in that article?
My point was not about the article, but about your misinformed opinions of how science works.
My point was about the work in the article, and the validity. It's nice to know you care so much about me, and not about the actual science in the paper. So, who peer reviewed the work in the article?
My point was referring to your statement here:
"It's a THEORY, so according to everyone's opinion of the scientific method on this site it is valid until proven incorrect."
Considering that your statement does not align with what a theory represents or how the scientific method works would show that your analysis and conclusions regarding the validity of the work in the article would not be valid.
That's the whole point, my statement was based off everyone's opinion of the scientific method attributing validity to a THEORY. My conclusion has nothing to do with the actual science in the article, which doesn't prove, or disprove anything about the work.
I stand by my statement, unless you can prove the work in the article was peer reviewed and disproved.
There are a lot of memos he hasn't been getting.
I'm amazed to be honest. A scientific theory is backed by mathematics and that is why it is a theory. Once you have actual experiments to prove that the mathematics holds up, then it graduates to a natural phenomenon.
Well most people who know basic science knows this. People who got stuck in 1950s science tend to confuse a hypothesis with a theory. No, theories have more substantial things to back them. Observations and mathematics. To prove or disprove a theory particularly cosmic theory takes decades and even centuries sometimes.
The problem that science found is this. At the level of quantum physics, all laws of physics breaks down to anything goes depending on what you look at. SO what is truth? It depends on how you're looking at it right now.
You see randomness, you're right. You see pattern, you're right too. You see matter, yep there it is. You see energy, you're right too. It all depends on the kind of eyes you're using.
Very good point Cecilia, there's a whole lot of "assuming a factor of (fill in the blank)" in physics at all levels. Which is actually great because it allows us to predict things that might not have otherwise been possible. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, but it's important not forget when a scientific conclusion is based off assumptions.
That is why we peer review and publish, and that is why we bother with the scientific method and publish.
But as you said, information transforms based on our ability to observe it and understand it. It is not a constant.
No, that's not why a theory is a theory.
But, clearly you don't know basic science.
Yet, more insults.
Yeah, so what? Is there some point to this article, or is it yet another set up to more insults?
Ah yes, more insults. Seems to be all you're able to muster.
can't you see I'm fond of you? You seem so serious and alone and all so determinist in the age of quantum physics.
Yes, I do understand why you focus on me and toss out puerile insults rather than the subject matter.
If you observe that a fly is small, that is not an insult.
If you observe that the bird is singing, that is not an insult.
That is making a construct of reality.
I observe that your arguments are outdated, that's all. It's a pattern. And I find it AMAZING how you don't learn anything new at all.
Oh that memo. Yes its been circulated around for a while.
It is not whether or not our perceptions change reality. It is about reality being in a state of constant change.
Whether reality denies the existence of Gods or not is subject to perception.
What scientific method is that?
An excerpt from this http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRel … ality.html
The assertion that "Western" science is unexceptional begins with a plausible, though ultimately misleading, notion that we humans lack access to any mechanism by which we can learn the truth about an objective reality that exists independent of human thought processes. Certainly, science relies on thought processes and does not always follow a clear, logical path to the conclusions it makes about reality. True, it never proves the correctness of these conclusions. Science knows nothing for certain about the world and must always couch its results in terms of probabilities or likelihoods. Often the choice between competitive scientific theories is based on taste, fashion, or subjective notions of simplicity or aesthetic appeal.
Yes penny, the dictionary is a good source.
he didn't get the memo. apparently there is no internet where he lives, nor tv nor time, discover, psychology today in his country.
I personally like to hear different opinion from different persons because every one have his mind .
I agree. I would add that, at any given time, we all touch on a percentage of the ultimate truth. We just have no way of being sure which of our firmly held beliefs of reality are the ones that wil stand the test of time, so to speak. That's why discussion can be so enlightening. Everyone has a piece of it.
This is cool too: The Quantum Reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qL1OKrs … re=related
What you observe, becomes.
I bet you didn't even watch the whole thing. That was an amazing video.
Just watched it.. It seemed as though We already knew these things and yet had never thought about it, or imagined ourselves attempting to put it into words.
Do ya know what I mean? I didn't know it yet it seemed to fit within my unpreceived perseption... DUH ... I don't know what I'm talking about ... can somebody help me.
I felt the same way too. I just felt so small when I watched it. It's along the line of, I had a piece of that realty already. They just expanded on the why.
I was referring to the claim, not the video.
Well, there's 10 minutes I'll never get back again.
Oh you haven't been reading your memos because you'll lose moments of your life. that's why. well newsflash, you enjoyed your life, meanwhile new information came and you didn't read them. Don't bother using science as an argument. You cannot possibly contribute if you are not up to speed with the reality NOW. (since it changes)
you are truly entertaining.
Absolutely Love that video. Unbelievable. That would make a great forum.
It implies so much about what we are.
Yes. I love the concept. I read somewhere long ago that a jewish mystic believed we existed simply because God was watching. If He looked away, we would cease to be. I guess some others are finding the concept sound on our plane of existence too.
Very cool thanks!
Truth may indeed not be a constant to people who tolerate a sliding scale of speech accuracy, but it would be a completely different world if nobody lied, or created falseness... the way God prefers things to be.
Truth is always revealing so it cannot be a constant; yet truth never changes.
What is this truth everyone is constantly seeking? It starring right at us in front of our faces everyday.
Truth is constant and lie is week.
Truth is what it is and never changes.
In my opinion.
Our need for MORE understanding of truth is everchanging.
My thoughts anyway.
So let's try this again....
What is the difference between TRUTH and Fact? Answer?
And I suppose that there is but one and only one perseption suitable as an answer for your question.
And that is yours which you say that a majority of people would agree.
The Majority is not always correct.
Nice to see you avoid answering. Ridiculous that you cannot even answer a simple question. You must be really proud of yourself.
When one such as yourself proposes a question such as this, it doesn't deserve an answer because I can recognize a damned if I do and damned if I don't proposition.
Truth is outside the human condition. Yet can be expressed or exemplified within, as Truth desires not the reverse.
Fact is the testosterone of a lacking human condition. Fact or facts are esoteric and/or empirical quips of suggestive/objective self (thought), lacking any valid testimony to "prove' them true --because facts rely on and are designed by humans. Provide a non-human explanation of anything and you might have a basis for fact.
by Benny Stiltner 10 years ago
Is there such a thing as "Absolute Truth"? Are you absolutely sure...??I am a firm believer in absolute truth. I find it quite difficult to believe that some will consider answering this question with a dogmatic and passionate "No" and to that response I simply wonder if they...
by aka-dj 14 years ago
Deception. Does it exisit? If it does NOT exist, there ends the discussion. But if it does exist, what is it, what does it do and HOW can you tell?Truth is always in despute. Some say there is "absolute truth", others deny it. So many today say truth is "relative". If that were...
by Roshan Sharma 8 years ago
Belief is to believe in something. It can be true or false. But we believe, out of trust, faith and sometimes because the world believes in it.Beliefs are the old thoughts, that sometimes you hang on in your life for generations. You have the power to make your own beliefs.There are two types of...
by Elizabeth 8 years ago
How did you decide upon and verify your own beliefs?As an atheist who constantly strives to learn and grow in a culture that is largely religious, I'm constantly engaging with theists of many types. Often, they provide philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but I've never met one...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
that other people must believe as THEY do?
by CH Elijah Sadaphal 4 years ago
Is there such as thing as absolute truth? What is it?After all, if a person insists that truth is relative (and we can't determine what beliefs are right and wrong), what reason is there to believe anything that they say?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|