PureX
Veteran Member
Observed reality is not the same thing as our conceptualizations of observed reality. "Facts" are conceptualizations of reality (a pratt dented my car). Not to be confused with reality, itself.
-
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!
Is "truth" personal?
- Thread starter paradox
- Start date
Yet it is still real, if humans were not here to observe it makes no difference to reality. No difference to the fact of reality
The reality is the dent and that someone caused it. The pratt is my subjective view of the person, not the damage
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Heh. Of course not gravity itself, but how gravity works, is a theory. Also of course, "only a theory" is totally misleading.
Scolopendra
Member
If we define truth as "the property of being in accord with fact or reality" (M.-Webster Online Dictionary,2005) the answer is a cathegorical no. If we define truth as something that we hold extremely viable and that guide our life and psyche the answer is yes. But I prefer to call that Weltanschauung
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Let's say there is an object, say a rock, that exists. It would be nice to be able to say with absolute certainty that we know it exists and we know what characteristics it has. Unfortunately, we don't interact directly with the rock, What we have is sense impressions that reach our brain from outside ourselves. Thus, we can never be absolutely certain about reality. However, we use a working assumption that our senses are reasonably accurate and use various methods to check that. That assumption has served us very well.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
That was the point. The "it's only a theory" argument merely shows a lack of understanding of a range of issues.
You have to pick up the sword of truth and be truthful to yourself cutting all falsehood which is other then God. That's a personal battle.
When we living most of our lives lying to ourselves and others, and deceiving ourselves by masks we wear that are not us, but we believe is us, it's personal journey to stop deceiving yourself and see by vision of truth and truthfulness.
"O my people, Worship God, you have other than him no other God" - Surah Hud
Some of us are mix between some path between truthfulness and deceiving ourselves.
It's hard to realize how low we have fell. It's hard to handle.
Last edited:
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Eeeeew! No more ocean swimming for me! Just kidding, it could be quite nutritious.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Pilate was speaking about 'truth in general'.
Jesus spoke of 'religious truth'. At John 17:17 that Scripture is: religious truth.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Jesus (in the Gospel of John) was not proclaiming simply that God exists. Jesus is the (only) one with direct knowledge of God (already before the world was even created). This is the truth he proclaimed.
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (Jn 1:18)
PureX
Veteran Member
Unfortunately, we are "checking our senses" with our senses, and then presuming our senses are accurate. Which is a very biased method of validation.
This is what we tend to ignore, and even deny, most of the time.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
True, but that's all we have. Even if you are using a scientific instrument to observe something, in the end the information comes to our brain via our senses.
Fortunately, the methods we use to check our senses work pretty well. We see a rock. We touch it, in the position suggested by our vision, and we feel it, in more or less the shape we thought it was. Then we compare our sensual impressions to those of other people. Generally they agree.
Of course our senses will always see the rock as a solid object rather than the mass of swirling energy that it really is (or have we gone deep enough with that?).