Mar 8, 2009 3:34:08 PM cite

Truth is the substence that remains beyond all opinions..

by geraboldy

Mar 5, 2009 12:20:07 AM cite

......a load of bollocks

by Evangelical Atheist

Feb 19, 2009 4:35:20 AM cite

There are many who claim that truth is changeable, and varies from one time to the next, and this is correct when the truth is based on belief that may be inconsistent. There are many such truths that pass in and out of fashion. There are some who hold that all truth is subjective, and this is a valid philosophic view of the world. These subjectivists believe that physical reality is but a manifestation of their intellect, and nothing outside of their mind has any real existance. These ideas are in sharp contrast with the objectivists, who accept the truth of physical reality and the constancy of the true facts based on observation and experimentation. Subjectivists say that everyone are like the occupants of Plato's cave, viewing only the shadows of things that are not real but are only the silhouettes held in front of a light to cast shadows on a wall. However these subjectivists first acknowledge the reality of the physical world and then seek to deny it. They will argue at great length to convince others of the fiction of the existence of anything or anyone outside of their own cognizant awareness. They attempt to convince everyone else that no one else exists. If as they say everything is but a product of their own mind and has no existance outside of their own awareness, who are they trying to convince? If I am but a product of someone else's imagination, they are arguing with themselves and trying to convince themselves of the truth of their own belief's. Indeed these beliefs must be false for if I and the rest of the world do not exist, why do they bother to acknowledge us. To say that there is no verifiable truth, or that truth is subjective is to deny the reality of the physical world, and claim that all is the product of someones mental activity. If reality is but a dream and we are only the product ov someone's mind then that person could learn to control their thoughts and we would all dance to their whims. I certainly do not feel in control and I do not accept that another is controling my actions. There are many true facts based on physical reality and only when the object of that truth ceases to exist will that truth be negated. Truth based on observation and experimentation does not change, that truth may become more detailed or refined over time but scientific principles are not changing as many seem to think. The laws of physics and nature are immutable and it is only the depth of our understanding that gives the appearance of change. Scientific theories are based on the data and knowledge available at any one time and as knowledge progresses these theories advance and become more precise and accurate. Scientific theories are like mathmatecal equations, change the variables and the answer will change, but the equation, like the theory, remain the same and is still used to provide the correct answer. The truth is there for thoese who will just look and see what is in front of them, but many are blind to the truth and refuse to believe what others have found. The truth is that meny have a romantic and poetic notion of the world and the reality of existance. The truth is that many will not accept the truth.

by thedoc

Feb 16, 2009 12:00:38 AM cite

Truth is the foundation from which it came.

by Roark Thurston

Feb 6, 2009 12:30:26 AM cite

This is an interesting twist on this thread, that those of subjective and objective thought are having a dialogue on truth and facts. There are some who argue that all perception is to be questioned and can only be validated by intellectual debate, and seek to determine the nature of reality by reason and thought alone. Counter to this are those who observe and record these perceptions, and when observation is consistent, use this to describe the nature of reality. Unfortunitly there is no middle ground for those who hold these opposing views of the world. The proponents of using reason and debate to acquire knowledge will probably not accept the findings of those who rely on observation and experimentation. And those who favor examination of the physical world will want to see concrete evidence. Dialogue is likely to be pointless as the debate would be at cross purposes and would achieve nothing, except that each side would validate their own view by accepting or rejecting, in turn, the evidence or arguments that are presented. Those who observe and record will continue to do so as there has been no valid evidence to disprove their findings, and those who look to cognition and debate will reject any findings based on the physical reality.

by thedoc