What is "Truth"?

No.. that is a definition that I am talking about. Now if you are suggesting that all definitions are subjective, then there can be no meaningful communication as all communication would be subjective as all words used in communications have definitions.

 

More conjecture coming from the mind of the Gorn Captain. BTW: What is a 'Gorn'?

Do you perhaps know the meaning of the term "seems". Gee I do believe that the use of the term "seems" would remove the comment from the category of declaration and leads into speculation.

 

And yet somehow that isn't the truth.

 

The Gorons are a recurring race in the Legend of Zelda series. The Gorons are a humanoid, rock-eating race that dwell in the mountains. Despite their hulking appearance, Gorons are a relatively peaceful species. They are usually considered, perhaps superficially, to be of low intelligence, although there is no particular indication of this in the games; in fact, there is evidence to the contrary, such as their ability to industrialize ahead of all the other races in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and some Gorons' roles as archaeologists in The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. Aside from Hylians and Sheikah, Gorons are the only race shown both in Skyward Sword and other games in the series. Since Skyward Sword is generally accepted as the first game in the series' continuity, this makes Gorons, Hylians, and Sheikah the oldest confirmed races.

He calls our religion fiction and I would bet most of the spare time the guy has is spent in a truly fictional world.


reva

 

It has been said that , anything is possible,,,, therefore, that would also be possible.

 

I wonder.. has science ever determined what is 'truth'?

 

Wow! These people really don't want to talk about "truth". I heard that the intellectuals on this forum don't like to talk about things that they don't understand, so I guess that 'truth' is one of those things.

 

And still nobody on this forum knows what 'truth' is. Amazing.

 

Doesn't someone want to make another stab in the dark in explaining what is 'truth'?

 

I am beginning to believe that the people on this forum are afraid to enter into and resolve this topic of discussion.

 

That's because they know who they're dealing with, Incorporeal.....you.

A person who rejects science, logic, fact, truth....if it conflicts with what you already believe.

If you like something or believe in something...you expect it to be accepted as fact and don't question it.

If you don't like something...you demand PROOF!....but reject any proof that you are given that conflicts with your cemented beliefs. And you reject even logic if that logic disagrees with you.

As I've said, the best term would probably be that you are a "solipsist"....other terms might fit more precisely..

 

Well, I am not the only one that "they" are dealing with on this forum.

Much in the same fashion as you reject religion and socially accepted definitions of terms used in writing on this forum. Science, logic, fact (something believed to be true or real), truth (still unresolved as to what is 'truth') are all potentially in conflict with religion and you accept them.

If you don't like something (such as religion, Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, or even the 'Bible') you demand proof. Proof = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Yet you reject any evidence that would support Christianity if that evidence conflicts with those things that you like and admire. tit for tat.

Thank you. A fault that most all people suffer from. It is human to be a solipsist. (to be concerned with self preservation).

 

Truth is you're begging.

 

Not hardly... just deeply disappointed in the so-called intellectuals on this forum. A simple question that they cannot seem to answer.

 

Come on folks... we are talking about "truth". Surely the science department has some idea of what it is that they are looking for? Don't they? It is said that they are seeking 'truth' but for some reason the very definition of 'truth' seems to evade them.

 

The word "truth" usually refers to statements supported by acceptable evidence. Both scientists and theologians use this word, despite the fact that what is acceptable as "evidence" to theologians is often not evidence to scientists, as described in this online article:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology_science.htm

Ludwik

 

So, evidence is only acceptable if science deems it to be acceptable? Where is that written in the law?

 

December 16, 2014 (date of last posting) has past by three weeks ago, and none of the members of this forum have since attempted to define what is "truth"... yet several members continue using the term as though they understand and fully comprehend the term. Could such continued usage of the term "truth" without knowing an irrefutable and undeniable definition of the term be an indication of ignorance of that subject matter: or is that act an indication of 'accepting something to be true without proof'?

 

That is the way we use the word truth, yes.
But even if we did not exist, Truth, as an ideal, exists and represents what is factual reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Science does seek factual ideas which are parts of the body of Truth.

 

"science" does not seek anything. It is the scientists that do the seeking. IMHO,,,the scientists are most often looking in the wrong places to receive the "right" answer. Check out the ambiguity of that word "right".

 

In spite of what you say here, science does seek the Truth, and does this by using The Scientific Method.

That method lists every experiments details and welcomes others to repeat and see the same results.
Since everyone sees the same results, we all agree it is True.

 

Please show me one example of science seeking anything without human intervention...(the intervention or involvement of scientists). As for the scientific method... it is based or founded upon assumptions... taking as true things that have no proof.

 

Still there is no resolution to the problem of answering "what is truth".

 

Reiterating a question that is found in the OP: "What is your religious perspective on the word "truth"? "

The reason that I am reiterating that question is because of all the comments made by the non-theists and specifically those that claim to be 'Atheist'. The question specifically asks for your "religious perspective". Having given comments and that question being blatantly noticeable in the OP, I can only conclude now that all those in this thread who are declared Atheists have given their "religious perspective" on the word 'truth'. Therefore, they have acknowledged that they do in fact hold a 'religious perspective' thus making their belief system a 'religious' system.

 

This is absolutely amazing.. None of the declared Atheists are wanting to rationalize (make excuses for their behavior in showing that they do practice a religion) their conduct in this thread. No rebuttals means that the truth about these Atheists is revealed..