What is your criteria for truth?

No such thing as a ‘subjective truth’. Unless of course, you hav ea subjective definition of the word subjective.

What we know is what we are. That is the total truth.

I’d say that agreement between a variety of methods and sources is probably the best criterion for truth. If we have one source that talks a lot about this great warrior, I’m inclined to be skeptical. If that great warrior also matches up to things like the Heroic cycle and literary archetypes, I’m probably going to say that the story is, for all intents and purposes made up. Sure, there might have been a warrior who kinda resembled the guy in the story, but history has obscured the truth enough that all we have is a myth. So the story can be viewed as “true” in terms of a story about the human psyche and all that (endurance should be taken into account) but it is not historically true.

On the other hand, if we have numerous independent stories about a warrior general and monuments with inscriptions of his name at the places he is supposed to have conquered, I am inclined to say that the event is historically true.

Likewise with scientific concepts, there needs to be repeatability, it needs to be able to be integrated into the system it is a part of (or the system it is a part of needs to be modified in a manner that allows for its inclusion in a parsimonious manner), ect. One lone scientist saying something means very little, but consensus between many who have independently repeated/observed the event or its ramifications.

And so on. The trick is not to have one criterion.

I think there is a ‘godlike’ being out there somewhere. And I think that’s why we created religions in the first place. We feel a pull from the outer worlds. “There has to be something else out there that knows more than I do”. Getting deep into my philosophy, that ‘pull’ is actually gravity and the funny thing about it is it IS from those ‘omniscient beings’, because everything is everything therefore everything affects everything.

Actually, I know there are beings out there that know about us. I know that somewhere in the infinite universe lies an alien being that is omniscient, else we wouldn’t be trying to evolve into omniscient beings. Only problem is they are only human beingd, so obviously they can’t be everywhere at once in an infinite universe…

It’s true if it’s the most beneficial to believe.

No, you do not believe in heaven because you do not think it is as beneficial.

My concept of truth is that it can only be personal - cannot be imposed - does not depend on concensus. If our truths happen to be similar we can call that concensus - while still realizing that concensus is not exact - exact truth is dependent on individual consciousness.

To me something must first take my attention. It must mean something to me for me to want to be close to cirtain of the truth.

Then I will examine it intellectually. On my own at first and then with others so there is an opportunity to iron out any inconsitencies I may have missed.

Then If the answer is unsatisfactory I will try to examine the resons why people do not agree, and see if any of the arguments can then be disguarded due to alternative agenda’s

Finally if it is still unclear I accept that it is beond my capacity for reason and follow my “heart” as it were

unfortunately I believe that this is the common view of truth in todays society. Truth know a-days is defined simply by what the majority of people say. I believe that there has too be an absolute truth out there somewhere. otherwise, how could people around the world accept the same BASIC morals?

I deny all objective truth that I cannot feel or understand for myself.

Therefore most people’s truth for me does not exist.

I study truth only in that I try to understand other people’s obsessions and absurdisms.

One can say that etched blood in violence and truth are always distant neighbors as men constantly revolve around absurd hysterias.

Truth is amorphous, having no shape and knowing no forms, particularly in the subjective. What may be true for me may not be true for you as pertaining to various areas of existence and that cannot be empircally verified by various means such as test and trial.

Everytime I attempt to dissect truth and attempt to arrive at conclusions I find myself more confused? Is this dangerous?

Maybe all is truth, there are no “untruths”. Is there a truth to truth? Maybe it doesn’t exist

What is true is what you feel it to be

I can go with that. :slight_smile: Well done.

I especially liked that.

Believing in heaven would be beneficial if it was true, if not then it’s gonna be detrimental to believe in.

Maybe you’d comprehend the statement better if phrased slightly different - The truth is most beneficial to beleive.

You must understand the ‘nature’ of truth as so to immediately understand zeuses statement as correct, The logic of both mine and zeuses statements coincide but my statement states the ‘nature’ of truth so as to comprehend the necessary premise before understanding benefit as a valid requirement for the truth (though that is generally, not in all circumstances is it true).

Lets see if that did anything.

Truth is just a delightful hysteria that brings satisfaction whether it arrives from somthing physical amongst the natural order of things that just “is” or even if it is a imagined nonsensical “ought” like that of a heaven above.

Afterall the asylums are fool of pleasant people in the fathoms of their own universes created by theirselves willing to go insane on anyone that they view remotely to be a threat.

Yes, like i said the logic of both our statements coincide, i was going to type up more but i’m tired so i’ll check back tomorrow.

deleted