How do you explain the fact many many individuals attempt to learn through their experiences, logic through the open world and self examination, but they come up with diverse conflicting and contradictory claims of truth, nonetheless absolute truth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Absolute Truth
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
How do you explain the fact many many individuals attempt to learn through their experiences, logic through the open world and self examination, but they come up with diverse conflicting and contradictory claims of truth, nonetheless absolute truth.
I suppose I'm fine with helping folks on the path to finding their own truth. I just don't think it is necessarily the same truth.
Any concept of 'my truth' is anecdotal and relative, and has no relationship to truth.
No. Why should people believe me. What I should do is to do my best to live as God would have me live with the knowledge that my best is not perfect (to say the least).
And even more, why should me being certain I know the truth mean that I really do know the truth.
So, God failed at getting the Truth out to the world?
(Assuming God)
That underlines my point. Some people are not interested in truth. Some reject it.
Then it remains an anecdotal subjective relative claim to what is true, and nothing more.
GreenpeaceRECo-operative
Darwin and others missed George Fox of the Quakers
I´m going to push a little here. "Feel" is a popular way to say "believe," just to shake the tree a little. "Feel" used that way comes from its original use that means to experience feelings, and with Psychology´s insights, those feelings are the result of interpretations. Knowing that feelings are important in their own right, getting clear about my beliefs, I can ask, "Well, how do I get my beliefs, and do they make sense in a larger picture like academic knowledge?"
Your comment reminds me of how I started out thinking in High School based focused on Education, part of which is Science, which I now like to call in terms of its actual, non-ideological academic nature, "Scientific Philosophy." My dad with a doctorate talked about Education and Therapeutic Psychology. At one point I picked up a book from his library by Huston Smith that talked about Taoism´s Tao saying it is "a creative continuum that is always accessible." I also stopped by the local Unitarian Universalist interfaith association congregation, and read their pamphlet talking about the individual spiritual path of each member (i.e. person). I was studying Science of course, and still love the field, and in retrospect, kind of perceived an alignment between the absolute kind of truth in physical behavior that Science seeks and these other ideas. I now can articulate better that Therapeutic Psychology and Comparative Religious Studies including the Tao themselves reflect universal processes. They are based on University-based educational learning, Science, Psychology, and Religious Studies. To rephrase it slightly, all those areas are discussed in terms of their academic disciplines in the Western educational system, and actually refers to the base that is University-based learning. The first spiritual verse of the Tao Te Ching talks about the unity or source of Being and Existence, or "mystery and manifestation" depending on the translation. Recalling Physics´ "Big Bang hypothesis" and things like "Quantum Theory," and the fact that the Social Sciences (Humanities, etc) encompass the other perspectives, especially feeding into the spiritual-religious, I find all that helps me assess the interrelatedness between what appear to be different truths, and the One Creator/Source/Parent/"Tao" that is possible to relate to through spiritual/religious practice. Thanks for sharing, and inspiring me to reflect on this!
Audie
Veteran Member
actually I mean what I wrote about religions. but I understand that most people reject religions, and so I can understand your objection. and i really liked your respond that negated my post. maybe im not that smart i guess. i give the wrong impressions
Easy to do when you are ESL. I used to have a lot
of problems saying things wrong.
. . . because your claim is only subjective, relative, and anecdotal to what you personally believe.
I am very very concerned about knowledge. and any claim or desire for truth remains a futul search that is only the will of God, if God exists. IF God does not exist it remains the ultimate reality of the nature of our physical existence, which is also unknown to fallible human knowledge.
Even in this thread there conflicting claims of those that claim to know the truth; ie God versus no God.
Audie
Veteran Member
Compared to the Omniscient one? We'd not be much
different from ants.
Regardless, that was not at all my point. It was..
wait for it...
That is you somehow detected "god", then what?
Spin a prayer wheel? Crawl up a mountain?
Sing boring chants? Construct some elabourate
building? Human sacrifice?
How would you determine what if anything was
a suitable response to this knowledge?
In that we are a lot like ants regarding New York,
and wondering, what now?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
The absolute truth so far is very, very basic, yet very, very involved. Its so basic that i think everybody should just know it. I think deep down they do.
In a nutshell, " dont screw yourself over by screwing other people over." In other words, love people; if not at heart, at least in principle.
In a nutshell, " dont screw yourself over by screwing other people over." In other words, love people; if not at heart, at least in principle.
Yes, absolute truth is very fundamental nature of existence whether God exists, but unknown from the human perspective, whether God exists or not. Nobody could know it, nor is it deep down and they do. This is far too subjective, anecdotal, and relative to be real. .
This is a philosophical ethical and moral statement, and nothing to do what is 'truth.'
Audie
Veteran Member
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Ok, then what is truth?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Rats, I was hoping you'd come up with something
closer to the Core of reality.
In a negative way, i thought it was as close as i can get.
Compared to the Omniscient one? We'd not be much
different from ants.
Regardless, that was not at all my point. It was..
wait for it...
That is you somehow detected "god", then what?
Spin a prayer wheel? Crawl up a mountain?
Sing boring chants? Construct some elabourate
building? Human sacrifice?
How would you determine what if anything was
a suitable response to this knowledge?
In that we are a lot like ants regarding New York,
and wondering, what now?
Let's take the, meh... Christian God for example. You could save or condemn millions from an eternity in hell, purgatory, extinction, whatever the negative side of not accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior happened to be by you actions or inactions..
Whereas I would agree with you, it seems most people I run into see certainty as a necessary goal.
Whether God exists or not there are obvious limits of fallible humans to 'know' absolutes. Regardless of the advances of science there will always be unknowns that science cannot falsify or resolve. The 'truth' of the question whether our physical existence is infinite and/or eternal, or finite and/or temporalis not falsifiable by scientific methods. The 'truth' of whether God exists or not, is not falsifiable by objective verifiable evidence that could determine whether it is true or not.
It is not a matter of whether 'there is something more' it is the fact that we cannot objectively determine whether there is or not.
Last edited: