Is "truth" personal?

[paradox]

This question is not limited to Christians (even though it seems so) or to any belief or lack thereof but it's rather question of existence or nonexistence of God.

There are many truths about all sorts of things, but when speaking about "truth" I mean the Jesus' role in proclaiming truth,
or more specifically Pilate style curiosity when he asked Jesus "what is truth?", after all Pilates knew the role of Jesus.

In regard to Jesus' role but regardless of your belief in Jesus, "truth" is therefore an answer to existence of God, that is, God either exists or it does not, there is no 3rd option.
If God exists OK because we live for ever, if not we're doomed because there is no life after death as simple as that and that's what's meant by "truth" and what it reveals.

"truth" also literary means something that is true, therefore "truth" in this context unambiguously either reveals God exists or it reveals God does not exist,
thus it's a two edge sword meaning both sides can wound or both can tell the truth.
Truth about existence of God is thus transformative, because it is capable to convert non-believers to believers and vice versa depending on what the truth reveals.

That's what I mean by "truth".

However the fact is that we're not all believers nor we're all atheists, therefore there are only three logical hypotheses about mystery of truth:
1.) truth is not known
2.) truth is esoteric
3.) well known but not universally believable

And this begs the question on whether the truth is personal?

As you can see for yourself all 3 hypotheses imply truth is personal.
But that's a problem because if truth is personal then how it can be "truth", are you not lying to yourself?
Therefore truth is paradoxically also not personal!

Do you think truth is personal?

 

[PureX]

The truth is 'what is'.

The problem for we humans is that we do not possess a capacity for ascertaining the whole of 'what is'. Or even for understanding it if we could ascertain it. So for us, the truth is what we experience and understand of 'what is'. And that is a very relative and partial truth; always subject to error and misunderstanding.

So with this in mind, what does it really even mean for one human to ask another human, "what is truth"? Since neither can know what their asking, or what the answer is. All any of us can know is our own relative, limited, personal experience of truth ... of the great 'what is'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There are a great many "truths." Some truths are personal, others are not. Perspective also plays a role in determining what is a personal truth and what is an absolute/universal truth.

 

[syo]

Do you think truth is personal?

No.

Maya is personal.

 

[F1fan]

Do you think truth is personal?

Well, "personal truth" sounds better than "personal confusion".

The word truth has numerous definitions. It means one thing in court, and another thing in church. The former has to conform with facts, the latter doesn't.

 

[ChristineM]

This question is not limited to Christians (even though it seems so) or to any belief or lack thereof but it's rather question of existence or nonexistence of God.

There are many truths about all sorts of things, but when speaking about "truth" I mean the Jesus' role in proclaiming truth,
or more specifically Pilate style curiosity when he asked Jesus "what is truth?", after all Pilates knew the role of Jesus.

In regard to Jesus' role but regardless of your belief in Jesus, "truth" is therefore an answer to existence of God, that is, God either exists or it does not, there is no 3rd option.
If God exists OK because we live for ever, if not we're doomed because there is no life after death as simple as that and that's what's meant by "truth" and what it reveals.

"truth" also literary means something that is true, therefore "truth" in this context unambiguously either reveals God exists or it reveals God does not exist,
thus it's a two edge sword meaning both sides can wound or both can tell the truth.
Truth about existence of God is thus transformative, because it is capable to convert non-believers to believers and vice versa depending on what the truth reveals.

That's what I mean by "truth".

However the fact is that we're not all believers nor we're all atheists, therefore there are only three logical hypotheses about mystery of truth:
1.) truth is not known
2.) truth is esoteric
3.) well known but not universally believable

And this begs the question on whether the truth is personal?

As you can see for yourself all 3 hypotheses imply truth is personal.
But that's a problem because if truth is personal then how it can be "truth", are you not lying to yourself?
Therefore truth is paradoxically also not personal!

Do you think truth is personal?

Depends on what definition of truth you prefer. Personally i go for "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

I wouldn't call that personal but objective.

There is however a second definition that is favoured by many, particularly religious people "a belief that is accepted as true"

I would say this second definition is highly subjective and as personal as it gets

 

[Secret Chief]

The former has to conform with facts

Or at least sufficient of the jury have been persuaded to be so by the barristers!

 

[paradox]

The truth is 'what is'.

The problem for we humans is that we do not possess a capacity for ascertaining the whole of 'what is'. Or even for understanding it if we could ascertain it. So for us, the truth is what we experience and understand of 'what is'. And that is a very relative and partial truth; always subject to error and misunderstanding.

So with this in mind, what does it really even mean for one human to ask another human, "what is truth"? Since neither can know what their asking, or what the answer is. All any of us can know is our own relative, limited, personal experience of truth ... of the great 'what is'.

You remind of one rabbi who said:

What is?
God is.

But I never understood clearly what he meant by that.

However what you said, all that we experience, see, and feel etc. is "what is", is truth is true, so asking what is truth is silly as if one doesn't see or feel anything - makes sense.
But then if that's what you mean, isn't all this what we see and feel etc. or "what is" proof of something?

Depends on what definition of truth you prefer. Personally i go for "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

I wouldn't call that personal but objective.

That's true for what we know but it's limited only to that, we know science doesn't give answers to life questions, thus we're still faced with what is truth?
We have some facts but far from having them all, and reality is limited to what we're able to perceive, ex. we can't see entire universe, thus it's limited.
You can call this truth but such truth is incomplete or partial truth and this is a fact.

There is however a second definition that is favoured by many, particularly religious people "a belief that is accepted as true"

I would say this second definition is highly subjective and as personal as it gets

It is based on belief but so is absence of higher power based on belief due to limited knowledge.
One can look at religion as a theory that is plausible even though there is no empirical proof.
I don't see any scientific theory that is more plausible.

Thus to *know* the truth it seems neither science nor religion can help.
Probably the easiest way is to say we don't know the truth and this could then be non personal.
But I'm somehow not happy with that, what if my hypothesis 2 is an answer to truth? that is, truth is esoteric, this means only religious authorities know the truth.

 

[Alien826]

Because we can only perceive things through our senses, there will always be some doubt as to whether our perceptions accurately reflect reality. When you add to that the problem that we have to deduce a lot of what we believe to be true based on what we can perceive, "what is truth" becomes even more difficult to answer. Generally, we tend to assume that there is some objective level where things are absolutely true, and that is probably a good approach. At least it stops us walking over cliffs.

 

[ChristineM]

and reality is limited to what we're able to perceive, ex. we can't see entire universe,

We can observe and measure the observable universe. Does the rest matter?

One can look at religion as a theory that is plausible even though there is no empirical proof.

I can't, i see religions as a group of ancient tales, certainly not a theory.

Though i guess that depends on your definition of theory.

I don't see any scientific theory that is more plausible.

Gravity?

this means only religious authorities know the truth.

I see it as having belief which to me us a long long way from truth.

 

[paradox]

Generally, we tend to assume that there is some objective level where things are absolutely true

I'm sorry but I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by this?

The word truth has numerous definitions. It means one thing in court, and another thing in church. The former has to conform with facts, the latter doesn't.

There are a great many "truths." Some truths are personal, others are not.

Yes but I think I was clear what I mean by "truth", there is no need for definition.
Truth is either that we're animals or creation, which ever is true.

Which ever of these 2 is true could change humanity in so many ways, that's why is has great transformative potential.
truth since it's not universally accepted or known is personal by design, but to some people it may be well known yet not reaching everyone, and for them it may be non personal, ex. esoteric knowledge.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes but I think I was clear what I mean by "truth", there is no need for definition.
Truth is either that we're animals or creation, which ever is true.

Which ever of these 2 is true could change humanity in so many ways, that's why is has great transformative potential.
truth since it's not universally accepted or known is personal by design, but to some people it may be well known yet not reaching everyone, and for them it may be non personal, ex. esoteric knowledge.

…and this would be an example of a personal truth.

 

[wellwisher]

There is truth and there is the whole truth. Often people use partial truths, so the best logic will draw the wrong conclusion. It is like plotting data on a graph. If we leave out data points we can draw a different curve with the remaining truth.

For example, I can tell you that Joe fell down the stairs after the party. This is true. It may lead you to infer he was a little tipsy and fell down the stairs.

I can then add the truth that Joe does not drink. If I had supplied this extra truth sooner, you may not have concluded the tipsy scenario from the party. Instead you may concluded that Joe was not paying attention and fell down the stairs.

Now I can add another piece of the truth to make you go another way; new curve. The whole truth; all the data, will wall in the options and the projections until we can come to the reality of the situation. Parts of the truth can be true, but they can lead one to conclude what is not true.

This is why free speech is so important, Sometimes many different people have pieces of the truth, but wrong global conclusions due to their missing data. However, if we use all the pieces of truth; instead of dwell on the curves, we may be able to solve the correct puzzle.

Censorship will go the opposite way, by choosing the partial truth needed, so you can lead to the curve you wish everyone to infer.

Fake news can get sued for slander and lie. They have learned that part of truth can do the same thing, while keeping fake news outside the grasps of the lawyers.

 

[paradox]

I see it as having belief which to me us a long long way from truth.

Imagine religious authority saying there is no god.
Would you not consider this poof there is no god?
In other words we would know the truth for sure.

I suppose what you're saying is that they would never say such a thing because they believe rather than know.

…and this would be an example of a personal truth.

That we are either animals or creation is certainly not personal truth, it is a fact since there is no other possibility.

I agree that there are many truths about many things, I said that in OP, but here by "truth" I mean that higher power either exists or it does not,
one of which is true and other one is false.
"truth" is knowing which one of these 2 if true.

But then, is there grater truth than knowing this?

 

[sun rise]

Therefore truth is paradoxically also not personal!

Do you think truth is personal?

This is my "truth": The experience of truth is personal. Truth itself is universal.

 

[KWED]

Generally, we tend to assume that there is some objective level where things are absolutely true, and that is probably a good approach. At least it stops us walking over cliffs.

But gravity is "only a theory". Apparently.

 

[idea]

This question is not limited to Christians (even though it seems so) or to any belief or lack thereof but it's rather question of existence or nonexistence of God.

It's not God/no God
What is the nature of God? In pantheism, God is the universe itself. Incorporeal, inmaterial ? Light, perhaps God is just an idea?

Before deciding if God exists, God must first be defined.

It is similar to ask "Does love exist"? Depends on how you define it. Shades of it, spectrum, pieces here and there.

 

[Nakosis]

This question is not limited to Christians (even though it seems so) or to any belief or lack thereof but it's rather question of existence or nonexistence of God.

There are many truths about all sorts of things, but when speaking about "truth" I mean the Jesus' role in proclaiming truth,
or more specifically Pilate style curiosity when he asked Jesus "what is truth?", after all Pilates knew the role of Jesus.

In regard to Jesus' role but regardless of your belief in Jesus, "truth" is therefore an answer to existence of God, that is, God either exists or it does not, there is no 3rd option.
If God exists OK because we live for ever, if not we're doomed because there is no life after death as simple as that and that's what's meant by "truth" and what it reveals.

"truth" also literary means something that is true, therefore "truth" in this context unambiguously either reveals God exists or it reveals God does not exist,
thus it's a two edge sword meaning both sides can wound or both can tell the truth.
Truth about existence of God is thus transformative, because it is capable to convert non-believers to believers and vice versa depending on what the truth reveals.

That's what I mean by "truth".

However the fact is that we're not all believers nor we're all atheists, therefore there are only three logical hypotheses about mystery of truth:
1.) truth is not known
2.) truth is esoteric
3.) well known but not universally believable

And this begs the question on whether the truth is personal?

As you can see for yourself all 3 hypotheses imply truth is personal.
But that's a problem because if truth is personal then how it can be "truth", are you not lying to yourself?
Therefore truth is paradoxically also not personal!

Do you think truth is personal?

I view "truth" as whatever is actual and I can perceive as real.
However I don't see truth as a static idea. Truth is constantly changing. Right now, for me, there exists no God. This is the truth of the reality I perceive. Later, maybe some God will make themselves known to me. To me, the existence of God to me will be the truth. Until then, the truth for me is that God does not exist.

Therefore, my truth can obviously be different from your truth. So truth is the reality of one's personal experience.

 

[PureX]

Depends on what definition of truth you prefer. Personally i go for "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

I wouldn't call that personal but objective.

There is however a second definition that is favoured by many, particularly religious people "a belief that is accepted as true"

I would say this second definition is highly subjective and as personal as it gets

I like your definition, and I understand why you chose it. But to be honest, both your definition and the one you ascribe to "religious people" are entirely subjective. Simply because "fact and reality" are both very relative and therefor subjective determinations from a human perspective. Which is the only perspective we have. Fact "A" is true or untrue depending upon the facts being used to determine it's relative validity. In fact, facts are neither true nor untrue, they are only valid or invalid relative to the criteria (context) being used to determine their validity. Does Santa Clause wear a red suit? Yes and no, depending on the context being used to assess the validity of that proposed fact. And the same is true of reality. Which reality are we talking about? The one that transcends all our human capacities to experience and understand? Or the reality that we each experience and understand, personally (and therefor subjectively)? The former is basically theoretical and unverifiable, while the latter is all we have, but is limited, relative, and subjective.

What you really ended up choosing is consensus for your means of determining truth. And that's as good a way as any, and better than most. I have no argument with it except that it's not "objective".

 

[ChristineM]

Imagine religious authority saying there is no god.
Would you not consider this poof there is no god?
In other words we would know the truth for sure

If religious authorities said there is no god I'd wonder what they had been taking to bring them to their senses.

I read a report some years ago about British church leaders, a fair proportion would admit anonymously and privately that they did not believe in a god but publicly they would say otherwise.