Mixing

So the only absolute truth is what everyone feels to be true in him/herself.

Which means that if you feels that there's only one god, this is your absolute truth.

The thing is that everyone has one truth, it's own and it never applies to anybody else on this earth.

So if I feel it's absolutely truth, then it is for me. And I won't try to convince anybody else of my own truth, because that will be disrespecting other people truth.

Everybody has its truth and everybody is right individually.

When somebody tries to convince you of another truth than the one lying within yourself, that's when the trouble starts.

Originally posted by Jee
So the only absolute truth is what everyone feels to be true in him/herself.

Which means that if you feels that there's only one god, this is your absolute truth.

The thing is that everyone has one truth, it's own and it never applies to anybody else on this earth.

So if I feel it's absolutely truth, then it is for me. And I won't try to convince anybod ...[text shortened]... ce you of another truth than the one lying within yourself, that's when the trouble starts.

So the only absolute truth is what everyone feels to be true in him/herself.

That would mean that there is no absolute truth, and that truth is relative.

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

http://www.absolute--truth.com/

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]So the only absolute truth is what everyone feels to be true in him/herself.

That would mean that there is no absolute truth, and that truth is relative. [/b]

No it means that there is an absolute truth, that is absolute for each person individualy.

You're just talking about an absolute truth for a group of person.
No there is no absolute truth for more than one person.

When student will give their opinion in their essay that will be their individual absolute truth. Giving marks is just a system that doesnt even aim to find any absolute truth.

Originally posted by Jee
No it means that there is an absolute truth, that is absolute for each person individualy.

You're just talking about an absolute truth for a group of person.
No there is no absolute truth for more than one person.

When student will give their opinion in their essay that will be their individual absolute truth. Giving marks is just a system that doesnt even aim to find any absolute truth.

No there is no absolute truth for more than one person.

What??? You mean I'm going to die, and your're not???

Originally posted by Jee
No it means that there is an absolute truth, that is absolute for each person individualy.

You're just talking about an absolute truth for a group of person.
No there is no absolute truth for more than one person.

When student will give their opinion in their essay that will be their individual absolute truth. Giving marks is just a system that doesnt even aim to find any absolute truth.

No there is no absolute truth for more than one person.

But aren't you applying this statement to all people?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]No there is no absolute truth for more than one person.

What??? You mean I'm going to die, and your're not???[/b]

What I meant - in my crappy english - was

There's no absolute truth that are the same for two persons
Even when you are watching the same film or reading the same book you don't feel/see/understand/notice the same things.

There are as many absolute truth as people and they are all true individualy.

Something I never quiet get is why people wants to agree on things.
You got your truth, I got mine and it's good that way.
We dont have to argue about it, we dont have to try to convince the other one that we are right and he is wrong.

You think what you think, I think what I think and it's perfect that way.

And we're not fighting one again the other or we're not in any type on conflict here, we just have different truth, each individualy being absolutely true for each of us

Originally posted by Jee
What I meant - in my crappy english - was

There's no absolute truth that are the same for two persons
Even when you are watching the same film or reading the same book you don't feel/see/understand/notice the same things.

There are as many absolute truth as people and they are all true individualy.

Something I never quiet get is why people wants to a ...[text shortened]... here, we just have different truth, each individualy being absolutely true for each of us

So you think (1 + 1 = 2) is not true for everybody?

What would be wrong if I said (1 + 1 = 3)?

Oh I am sure that 1+1 is three, but thats a different story.

I think you mixed knowledge and faith.

Everything that comes from the outter world is knowledge
Everything that comes from your inner world is faith

What I felt being wrong when I was a kid was commonly accepted by my family and everybody around as true. But I sticked to it and still believe the same thing. It's my truth and has nothing to do with knowledge.

Honestly, I dont feel much inside me about what 1+1 could possibly be, again its just a system.

Originally posted by Jee
Oh I am sure that 1+1 is three, but thats a different story.

I think you mixed knowledge and faith.

Everything that comes from the outter world is knowledge
Everything that comes from your inner world is faith

What I felt being wrong when I was a kid was commonly accepted by my family and everybody around as true. But I sticked to it and still believe ...[text shortened]... Honestly, I dont feel much inside me about what 1+1 could possibly be, again its just a system.

Such a belief system is totally incoherent and illogical.

If you believe that something is true, for example, that there is a God, and someone else believes that there is no God, you cannot both be right. One of you is wrong.

Either there is a God or there isn't a God.

There cannot both be a God; and not be a God at the same time.

If you continue to insist that both are right, then you are saying that absolute truth does not exist. Such a stance in itself is incoherent and illogical.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you believe that something is true, for example, that there is a God, and someone else believes that there is no God, you cannot both be right.

Off course we can. Thats what you dont get.

You just cant figure an individual system, you can only think in groups, in a truth that applies to everyone.

A believes in god --> thats its truth
B doesnt believe in god --> that its truth

You just want to draw a conclusion that will encompass A AND B. You dont need to do that, its of no relevance. Just respect their own individual truth, dont try to build a system

Why do you want a truth that is the same for eveyone?

Originally posted by Jee
Off course we can. Thats what you dont get.

You just cant figure an individual system, you can only think in groups, in a truth that applies to everyone.

A believes in god --> thats its truth
B doesnt believe in god --> that its truth

You just want to draw a conclusion that will encompass A AND B. You dont need to do that, its of no relevance. Just res ...[text shortened]... idual truth, dont try to build a system

Why do you want a truth that is the same for eveyone?

What you are saying lacks logical consistency and thus it does not make sense. It is non-sense.

If you wish to continue believing in non-sense, you are welcome to do so.

I usually try to make sense of something which I regard to be true.

There are actually three tests for truth.

1. Logical consistency.
2. Empirical adequacy.
3. Experiential relevance.

What you are saying lacks in all three areas.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What you are saying lacks logical consistency and thus it does not make sense. It is non-sense.

If you wish to continue believing in non-sense, you are welcome to do so.

I usually try to make sense of something which I regard to be true.

There are actually three tests for truth.

1. Logical consistency.
2. Empirical adequacy.
3. Experiential relevance.

What you are saying lacks in all three areas.

Do you realize that you are talking like a scientist and that you are to start with limiting the discovery of truth to only 3 tools, three ways.

You are already discarding all the other possible ways of analysing and discovery, like feeling, instinct, dimension that we have no way to access with our current shabby tools.

1. Logical consistency.
2. Empirical adequacy.
3. Experiential relevance

Tell me what you know about Love with those little tools?
Those are good to analyse a pint of milk, but nothing very deep.

I thought that the direction of using science to explain anything in life was refuted since the quanta, but apparently you are part of the remaining that still thinks that science will explain things.

I am sorry but it failed long ago. At this stage science is just merging into spirituality because they reach the same conclusion starting from different perspective.

The whole universe is one, and something can be here and there at the exact same time and in diverse form. It can be and not be at the same time.

But I think mainly we are talking about different things: knowledge and faith. I aint denying that everything you said is truth for scientist doing scientific stuff, I am just saying that outside that little sphere there's a whole world.

Originally posted by Jee
Do you realize that you are talking like a scientist and that you are to start with limiting the discovery of truth to only 3 tools, three ways.

You are already discarding all the other possible ways of analysing and discovery, like feeling, instinct, dimension that we have no way to access with our current shabby tools.

1. Logical consistency.
2. Empiric ...[text shortened]... doing scientific stuff, I am just saying that outside that little sphere there's a whole world.

Before we carry on with this discussion I would like to know something from you:

Can something which has no logic behind it be true?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Before we carry on with this discussion I would like to know something from you:

Can something which has no logic behind it be true?

Somebody who thinks in terms of logic only could never hear my point, because logic has nothing to do with truth.

I was talking about truth as well the other day with a mathematician - wrong move I know I know...

So he said that something is true unless proven untruth and gave as an example:

Original stament: "All crows are black"
-> so if I ever find a white crow this statment is not true anymore

So I say and what if you just discover that the crow was actually black but that you could only percieve as white for a reason that you ignored at the time of your discovery.

There are so many ways our mind and sense can trick us. How can you still believe them and use them to test/prove anything?

Ever heard of sophism? Ancient greek who will for a buck prove you logicaly that something is or that something is not, according to what you wanna hear.

Thats why I only believe my feelings, no matter how crazy they are. If I had been logic, I would have miss all the good fun in my life.