• 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!

Do humans contruct the truth or find the truth, or partake in making it with dieties

Do humans contruct the truth or find the truth, or partake in making it with dieties

  • they construct it

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • they find it

    Votes: 9 81.8%
  • they partake in making it with a god or gods, or external human forces of some kind

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
When in history did man first give it a qualifier? That person needs to be debated

There are those who believe there are truths which are absolute. I was just trying to tease out your definition of the word truth. Mine is "that which comports most with reality as we know it". So in my world, truths can and do change as we know more and more about the cosmos.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
There are those who believe there are truths which are absolute. I was just trying to tease out your definition of the word truth. Mine is "that which comports most with reality as we know it". So in my world, truths can and do change as we know more and more about the cosmos.

I don't know, I want to say that might definition is pretty plain. It's truth, truth is truth. But I think since we had add so many qualifiers to truth and process it so much, it is probably relevant to the universe, and the fact that we do this gains a gravity. Therefore, that's why I was arguing that we construct truth
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I don't know, I want to say that might definition is pretty plain. It's truth, truth is truth. But I think since we had add so many qualifiers to truth and process it so much, it is probably relevant to the universe, and the fact that we do this gains a gravity. Therefore, that's why I was arguing that we construct truth

Not sure I follow. I know people construct things they call truth, like religious dogma. And there are things people construct in their minds that they convince themselves are truths. But those aren't necessarily truths.

What I am talking about are things we have come to accept as truths through repeated testing/observation/ mathematical proofs, etc.
Such things can be accepted nearly universally and then further observation will require the truth to be modified or completely dropped.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Not sure I follow. I know people construct things they call truth, like religious dogma. And there are things people construct in their minds that they convince themselves are truths. But those aren't necessarily truths.

Well I mean, there a many types of yellow, but they are all yellow. Maybe there isn't a rgb shade that is the most standard one, and maybe even saying 'bright yellow' or 'grayish yellow' could mean a giant smorgasbord of things. But above that, yellow is yellow, like truth is truth. You could call it 'absolute yellow,' but absolute yellow still means a huge variety of yellow unless there is a truest yellow. But no one really says that that they merely like yellow, or merely like the truth. They usually like some kind of yellow that they have to explain and qualify
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Well I mean, there a many types of yellow, but they are all yellow. Maybe there isn't a rgb shade that is the most standard one, and maybe even saying 'bright yellow' or 'grayish yellow' could mean a giant smorgasbord of things. But above that, yellow is yellow, like truth is truth. But no one really says that that they merely like yellow. They usually like some kind of yellow that they have to explain and qualify

Hmmmm.......Is green still green to a color blind person?

A truth can change completely. It was thought that the sun and planets revolved around the earth at one time....it was an accepted "truth".
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Or to question further, does anyone really see green objectively, or is the real green greener than anyone can see

Actually, we never see an object as it really is. We only see the light that the object reflects. Some objects absorb all of the visible spectrum except for the wave length that our brain interprets as the color green.
Some don't reflect any of the visible spectrum, and look black to our brains. It isn't the color of the object, it is the color of the reflected light which we assign to the object.

But maybe that is moving a bit away from the OP.

My point is that there can be objective truths (based on an agreed upon set of parameters) but there probably isn't an absolute "capital T" truth.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
In other words, your test for whether something is true or not is, "I like it!" or "I don't like it." Totally subjective, variable and arbitrary.
But your test for whether someone has "spiritual perception" or not is whether they agree with you (or so it appears from your reply to @metis).
Then it seems very odd that, though I've asked you twice, you're yet to show me even one example of an absolutely true statement.

I believe that no one can transfer truth to another person. You can only discover truth according to your own efforts and search not from what I say because for instance if I try and and convey to a person who has never tasted chocolate it’s taste I can never hope to succeed.

I can tell you in words but you still have to taste it for yourself to really know. The same with truth. I have found truth but I can’t you have to find it for yourself then you will know that what I’ve been telling you is the truth. Until then you will just keep insisting I’m choosing something I like. However when and if you discover what i have found then you will know it’s not what you are claiming a like or dislike.

An absolute truth I gave are the Words of the Prophets of God. Their Words are true at all times for eternity. Take love thy neighbour although spoken by Christ over 2,000 years ago is still very much relevant today and even more so in order to reconcile the differences between races, religions and nations. Love is the supreme remedy. Universal truths never die.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't know, I want to say that might definition is pretty plain. It's truth, truth is truth. But I think since we had add so many qualifiers to truth and process it so much, it is probably relevant to the universe, and the fact that we do this gains a gravity. Therefore, that's why I was arguing that we construct truth
I'm with @Milton Platt. Truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. (Objective reality is the world external to the self, also called nature, the realm of the physical sciences and so on.)

The existence of a standard for truth which is as objective as we can make it means that 'truth' is a meaningful idea. The onlooker can identify truth as well as the participants.

Without that, 'truth' means whatever anyone wants it to mean, in which case yes everyone constructs truth on the basis of what subjectively appeals to them.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I'm with @Milton Platt. Truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. (Objective reality is the world external to the self, also called nature, the realm of the physical sciences and so on.)

The existence of a standard for truth which is as objective as we can make it means that 'truth' is a meaningful idea. The onlooker can identify truth as well as the participants.

Without that, 'truth' means whatever anyone wants it to mean, in which case yes everyone constructs truth on the basis of what subjectively appeals to them.

Much better stated than my attempt. thanks.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that no one can transfer truth to another person. You can only discover truth according to your own efforts and search not from what I say because for instance if I try and and convey to a person who has never tasted chocolate it’s taste I can never hope to succeed.
So exactly as I said, your test for truth is "I like it!"
An absolute truth I gave are the Words of the Prophets of God.
That's the ol' Library of Congress Defense, waving your arm at a building full of books and saying "The answer's in there."

State a specific example of an absolute truth.

Or if in fact you don't have such an example, just say so.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
So I'll argue, perhaps weakly, that they construct it. They are given the pieces to make truth, through merit of the fact that they can put forth ideas that really work. Words and concepts can be put forward that people believe in, that give them purpose and fulfillment. That seems to be the truth for all intents and purposes, as far as we can know. It also is a quality of real respect between people, to allow each of them to subscribe to what they decide is truth.

It could also be that we partake in making truth, just as the biblical god allows adam to name animals.

But if you think we find the truth, then we probably have no role in making the truth. It also might be possible, if the truth needs finding, that it cannot even really be apprehended by humans. It also would mean that some people believe in false truth, which may lead to a lack of respect between people. If the truth is hard to comprehend, it might also only be understood by a select few, so this introduces power into the equation.

So how does the truth come to us. Through our own hands, or through the hands of other forces, or is it a collaboration of some kind.

God created creators to create new things -new even to God.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
So exactly as I said, your test for truth is "I like it!"
That's the ol' Library of Congress Defense, waving your arm at a building full of books and saying "The answer's in there."

State a specific example of an absolute truth.

Or if in fact you don't have such an example, just say so.

The Word of God is infallible is an absolute truth but you are seeking worldly absolutes.

There are millions of absolute truths. Here are just a few:
1) Humans have volition and can choose between right and wrong.
2) Murdering an innocent person (without provocation) is wrong.
3) Water and food are necessary for animal survival.
4) The universe exists.
5) Humans are conscious.
6) Sunshine is necessary for survival on Earth currently.
7) Lions hunt for food.
8) Gravity exists.
9) Evolution is true.
10) The Earth has an atmosphere.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Word of God is infallible is an absolute truth but you are seeking worldly absolutes.
Same problem as before ─ what objective test will tell you if someone's infallible or not?

It's rather like God's omniscience ─ how does God know there are aren't things he doesn't know?

As for your list of purported absolute statements, and leaving aside that not one of them was uttered by a god, Point A is this: there are three major propositions whose correctness can't be demonstrated because the demonstration requires the assumption that the proposition is already correct ─ that a world exists external to the self, that the senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool. Point A applies to all your purported absolute statements, which entail those assumptions hence can't be absolute statements.

Point B is that even leaving Point A aside, conclusions of science are based on empiricism and induction, hence can never be protected against some counterexample we don't presently know of.

(So you can see why there are no absolute truths.)

Some observations less fundamental than those can also be made about your examples eg ─
1) Humans have volition and can choose between right and wrong.
Humans who are unconscious, catatonic, have certain kinds of brain damage, or are dead, all lack volition. And there's no objective absolute right or wrong, only a set of judgmental tendencies we've evolved as gregarious primates, padded out with a great many different sets of cultural norms.
Murdering an innocent person (without provocation) is wrong.
There's no single definition of murder; or the defenses to a charge of murder; or when an unlawful killing is manslaughter; or when a death due to someone's negligence is murder. All you end up with is the tautology, "Unlawful killing is unlawful".
3) Water and food are necessary for animal survival.
Nope, that's a generality. You can't show that there are zero exceptions.
4) The universe exists.
Points A and B take care of that.
5) Humans are conscious.
Translating that as 'humans are aware', Point A, not least the assumption that our senses are capable of informing us of the external world, applies.
6) Sunshine is necessary for survival on Earth currently.
Nothing absolute about a statement that claims to refer to an ephemeral condition.
7) Lions hunt for food.
Except baby lions, zoo lions and dead lions, of course.
8) Gravity exists.9) Evolution is true.10) The Earth has an atmosphere.
Points A and B each time.

So no absolute statements so far. The lack of a purported example from scripture is odd, given that's where is discussion started.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Same problem as before ─ what objective test will tell you if someone's infallible or not?

It's rather like God's omniscience ─ how does God know there are aren't things he doesn't know?

As for your list of purported absolute statements, and leaving aside that not one of them was uttered by a god, Point A is this: there are three major propositions whose correctness can't be demonstrated because the demonstration requires the assumption that the proposition is already correct ─ that a world exists external to the self, that the senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool. Point A applies to all your purported absolute statements, which entail those assumptions hence can't be absolute statements.

Point B is that even leaving Point A aside, conclusions of science are based on empiricism and induction, hence can never be protected against some counterexample we don't presently know of.

(So you can see why there are no absolute truths.)

Some observations less fundamental than those can also be made about your examples eg ─
Humans who are unconscious, catatonic, have certain kinds of brain damage, or are dead, all lack volition. And there's no objective absolute right or wrong, only a set of judgmental tendencies we've evolved as gregarious primates, padded out with a great many different sets of cultural norms.
There's no single definition of murder; or the defenses to a charge of murder; or when an unlawful killing is manslaughter; or when a death due to someone's negligence is murder. All you end up with is the tautology, "Unlawful killing is unlawful".
Nope, that's a generality. You can't show that there are zero exceptions.
Points A and B take care of that.
Translating that as 'humans are aware', Point A, not least the assumption that our senses are capable of informing us of the external world, applies.
Nothing absolute about a statement that claims to refer to an ephemeral condition.
Except baby lions, zoo lions and dead lions, of course.
Points A and B each time.

So no absolute statements so far. The lack of a purported example from scripture is odd, given that's where is discussion started.

I’ve already mentioned the Manifestations of God.. They are absolute truth. They not only prove Hod exists anotyer absolute truth but that we are spiritual beings which is anotyer absolute truth as animals cannot know God.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I’ve already mentioned the Manifestations of God.. They are absolute truth. They not only prove Hod exists anotyer absolute truth but that we are spiritual beings which is anotyer absolute truth as animals cannot know God.
What real thing is the word "God" intended to denote? That is, if we find a real candidate, what test will tell us whether it's God or not?

Is a "manifestation of God" real or imaginary? If it's real, what real quality does it have that shows it's "of God"?

What is this statement you mention that proves God exists?

And, what quality of a real thing is correctly called "spiritual"? What test will tell us whether our candidate real thing is "spiritual" or not? Or is "spiritual" only a quality of imaginary things?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
So I'll argue, perhaps weakly, that they construct it. They are given the pieces to make truth, through merit of the fact that they can put forth ideas that really work. Words and concepts can be put forward that people believe in, that give them purpose and fulfillment. That seems to be the truth for all intents and purposes, as far as we can know. It also is a quality of real respect between people, to allow each of them to subscribe to what they decide is truth.

It could also be that we partake in making truth, just as the biblical god allows adam to name animals.

But if you think we find the truth, then we probably have no role in making the truth. It also might be possible, if the truth needs finding, that it cannot even really be apprehended by humans. It also would mean that some people believe in false truth, which may lead to a lack of respect between people. If the truth is hard to comprehend, it might also only be understood by a select few, so this introduces power into the equation.

So how does the truth come to us. Through our own hands, or through the hands of other forces, or is it a collaboration of some kind.
"Truth" for how to live being simply the best possible way for humans to live, among all competing ways...

That "truth" exists before anyone discovers or reads about it, prexists any formulation of it, because it's dependent on our nature as beings with certain shared and inherited characteristics that remain constant.

People can construct a wording for such a truth, but it exists before any of their wordings, and in a perfect form.

Christ is one who found or knew the perfect forms.

Example:

Instead of the partial, limited form: "Refrain from doing to others things you don't want others to do to you." (Don't do certain actions)

Christ instead states the full, perfect, proactive form: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you." (Both: a) don't do certain actions, and b) do certain good actions instead of no action.)


And the thing is, He also states other truths in full perfect form also, even ones we take decades to really appreciate.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
What real thing is the word "God" intended to denote? That is, if we find a real candidate, what test will tell us whether it's God or not?

Is a "manifestation of God" real or imaginary? If it's real, what real quality does it have that shows it's "of God"?

What is this statement you mention that proves God exists?

And, what quality of a real thing is correctly called "spiritual"? What test will tell us whether our candidate real thing is "spiritual" or not? Or is "spiritual" only a quality of imaginary things?

We know of God by His ‘signs’. His Essence is beyond human understanding to grasp like a painting cannot comprehend its painter but the painting itself is proof the painter exists.

The greatest proof God exists are His Manifestations which appear from time to time Who reflect His attributes such as love, mercy, justice, compassion and so on. These Educators taught humanity how to reflect God’s attributes. Without these Educators we would be incapable of expressing love, Justice, compassion and so on and would simply be like wild animals roaming the planet with no spiritual ideals or knowledge like the animals.

These attributes of God are eternal, never changing and have no beginning or end. The entire universe exists because of the law of love. The elements are held together by the law of attraction. These attributes of God are absolute truths never changing and always existing. If God withheld His love for us for a second all existence would cease to exist.

Baha’u’llah mentioned another absolute truth when He wrote of God’s Religion.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future”

The purpose of man’s existence is to know God. From the beginning which has no beginning And forever God will send Manifestations to humanity. This is an unchangeable absolute truth that recorded history verifies that there have always been Manifestations appear on earth to teach us about God. The earliest recorded is Krishna but before then there were other Manifestations.


Another absolute truth is freedom to accept or reject God. Just like God has sent Educators to us from eternity and will continue to do so, man has always been able to choose to accept or reject these Manifestations.

God always was and is and always will be is another absolute truth.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Actually, we never see an object as it really is. We only see the light that the object reflects. Some objects absorb all of the visible spectrum except for the wave length that our brain interprets as the color green.
Some don't reflect any of the visible spectrum, and look black to our brains. It isn't the color of the object, it is the color of the reflected light which we assign to the object.

But maybe that is moving a bit away from the OP.

No not really. If your senses are dimmed or obfuscated by the limits of the body, then we probably have to no business deciding that there is no concrete truth, or mere truth beyond what those things tell us. You don't see, or hear, or smell things the way they really are. That's because your body senses things with the bias of its own interests and goals. So then you can't hear the totality of all that can be heard, or smell everything at once, because you have a whole lot of switches flipped off, and the ones that are on are probably attenuated
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We know of God by His ‘signs’. His Essence is beyond human understanding to grasp like a painting cannot comprehend its painter but the painting itself is proof the painter exists.
So as I said, no one has a coherent concept of a real god, one with objective existence and objective qualities. It follows, does it not, that to speak of a real God is to speak of something no one knows anything about?

To test this, what is the "painting itself" to which you refer? The universe? If so, why would you want to explain the existence of the universe in terms of magic when we have the researches of evidence-based physics and cosmology to form an understanding of what happened?

Physics simply describes the things that make up the universe and, in abstract terms, the uniformities of behavior we observe in their interaction.

But you want to say that a sentient being pre-existed the universe and willed it into existence.

Physics is a description of real things. By contrast, a real god is an incoherent concept; all the examples are of one or more imagined beings.

The problem of origins won't go away either. My own hypothesis is that mass-energy pre-existed the universe, and formed the contents of the Big Bang. For you, however the problem is enormously complicated by the attribution of sentience, power and purpose to God. Where, and from what origin, did such a being evolve?

And if the universe exists for Man, why is the process so grossly inefficient that it requires septillions of planets and a shade under 14 billion years before H sap sap even comes to exist?
The greatest proof God exists are His Manifestations which appear from time to time Who reflect His attributes such as love, mercy, justice, compassion and so on. These Educators taught humanity how to reflect God’s attributes. Without these Educators we would be incapable of expressing love, Justice, compassion and so on and would simply be like wild animals roaming the planet with no spiritual ideals or knowledge like the animals.
I'm afraid that doesn't stack up either. Love is functional, an evolved set of behaviors relating to surviving, bonding and breeding, and in addition to reinforce first family, and then social, bonding. Nearly all primates are social, and operate in their societies by forming one-to-one relationships with others of their group ─ your place in the peck order relates strongly to your ability to mate and to breed. The larger the primate brain, the more such one-to-one relationships an individual can maintain, and of the primates, humans have the largest of all, as you know. These entail aspects of male and female group bonding, friendships and trust, cooperative action and so on.

Mercy and compassion are aspects of human behavior arising from our mirror neurons, which enable us to see the world through, as it were, the eyes of others. (So for instance, forms of psychopathy are connected to the absence, or small number, of mirror neurons in particular individuals.)

Justice is an evolved judgment, which even very small children display ─ a dislike for the one who harms, and a natural approval of fairness and reciprocity. The studies are there for you to read.

So God seems to be duplicating, or claiming the credit for, the work done by physics and evolution.
These attributes of God are eternal, never changing and have no beginning or end. The entire universe exists because of the law of love. The elements are held together by the law of attraction. These attributes of God are absolute truths never changing and always existing. If God withheld His love for us for a second all existence would cease to exist.
As I said, 'truth' is a quality of statements; attributes as such can't be 'true' or 'false', only reports about them.

As for God being a god of love, people have been asking for thousands of years how all the world's disorders can exist, war, famine, disease, poverty, unfairness, might-is-right, money-is-power, it's-not-what-you-know-but-who-you-know, and so on. You've likely come across the statement attributed to Epicurus to this effect ─
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?​
What's the answer? Why would a god of love sit on his hands through war, famine, plague, tsunami, volcano, accident and so on? Why would he allow genetic malformations?

It's fair to say that God neither says nor does, no?
Baha’u’llah mentioned another absolute truth when He wrote of God’s Religion.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future”
If God isn't real, that's not a statement about reality, however attractive as a reassurance or an aspiration.
The purpose of man’s existence is to know God.
The existence of H sap sap has no purpose, seen from the outside. But since we're an evolved species, the core of our conduct is survival and breeding. As far as the big picture goes, the rest is incidental. To give you the perspective, the only reason you and I exist is because every single one of our ancestors lived long enough to breed, in a line unbroken across 3.5 billion years.
God always was and is and always will be is another absolute truth.
If I might make a respectful observation, you constantly use words long on connotation and not much else; it may well be that your thinking will be greatly clarified when you start pinning down the actual denotations of the words you use. For instance, 'truth' IS a quality of statements, not a thing in itself or a property of objects or beings; and without an objective test for truth, the word has no useful meaning: "I like it!" may be personally satisfying but it advances our understanding of the world not an inch.
 
Top