What is truth

[Blastcat]

Hi guys and gals,

This one goes out to all of my theistic friends.
Apologists and simple Christian folks often talk about knowing "truth" a lot.. but now, I have to wonder what they mean by the term.

Could you help me out?
What is the truth, how do you define it, and do you care about it?

Some people don't care about the truth.
Some people say they love the truth, and that their beliefs are true.

Then I realize.. maybe I don't know what they MEAN when they use the word "TRUTH"

Smile

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by PghPanther]

Hi, PghPanther

Great points!

( too bad I have to say BS.. but there you go )

This subject has a keen interest to me............truth is never defined very well in debates but I like to make the following designation..

As a scientific rationalist I accept all truth as provisional......meaning that it needs to be demonstrated as providing some form of a consistent and predictable model in reality such as the principle of lift over an airfoil in flight for instance.

A provisional truth is open to revision and even rejection or replacement through the process of science if a better model in reality comes about. Such as the revision to Newtown's laws of gravity in special conditions of velocity and/or mass where time and space become relative as in Einstein's theory and perhaps someday a revision to that if we come up with a quantum gravity model that is consistent and predictable.

I agree and applaud that definition. I especially like the "provisional" part. I think, that other than in science, that part is usually overlooked. "Truth" isn't static, but dynamic, in that sense. If I understand correctly, you are saying that truth is an EVALUATION ... and as such.. subject to change due to changing circumstances, such as new data... new methods... and so on. Do I get it?

Now......

.....all theist I known when they proclaim truth are talking of an absolute truth............one that comes from a final authority that is not subject to revision or rejection ever.............no matter what models demonstrate against that claim.

I've met quite a few theists who don't do that... but yeah, a lot of them do. In these forums, it's very common. I think that most fundamentalists are like that.

Until this distinction is made between the two the debating of truth is worthless and unproductive......

Well, of course I don't agree.

First off, we have to UNDERSTAND what we mean by the term... then we can make better distinctions. Otherwise, we might just be assuming. I think that discussing what is truth kinda BASIC... Because we are all discussing if religious beliefs are TRUE, and to what extent. So.... we should KNOW what each other side is TALKING about. Some people might discover that their definitions don't work. And they might change their minds. I call that "learning". A valuable exercise, in my estimation.

That's "MY truth".. lol.

Now what I would challenge any theist with is that there is no absolute existential objective truth..........they say yes and it stops with God.

Well, I already have a Christian who says God=truth.
And I have to tell you, that makes it difficult.

Then, I babbled about how circular it was to say that.
Looks like I can learn a thing or two in this discussion.

I find that exciting.

I say.........God may claim he is the all powerful and eternal absolute but do we know that?

Right. Some people SAY things as if they are true... doesn't mean they are true. The very best liars sound REALLY truthful.

and even if their God claim exists.......how does this God even know it is the final absolute authority of truth?

er.... because? OH I KNOW.....
It knows everything. So it knows that TOO.

(I expect congratulations for that one.)

God may be the result of a programming from another deity or life source greater than it just to make it think that.......God's whole authority could be an illusion to itself if he has no way to examine yet another reality onion layer above it?...........

OH that blew my mind.

God HIMSELF could be DECEIVED....WoW...
Is that a new spin on the Cartesian Demon?

Matrix WITHIN a Matrix?

For the most part, theist use God is a convenient backstop but they cannot justify it as absolute and neither could this God if it existed because once you got beyond the only reality we know that exists so far then there is no stopping the game of where the backstop to authority may exist.

I agree. Where we don't KNOW.. we can plug in anything at all .... Magic?... why not.
Old myths being true?.. bring it.. it's all good in the great "beyond".

We may never end up knowing any existential claim absolutely but the consistent and predictable models of science in the reality we live in have done a marvelous job so far in our management of diseases, and progressing as a civilization over the claims of absolute truth.

Yes, agreed. We do pretty good with our limited scope.

and its funny..........while provisional truth is open to revision absolute truth claims that are not open to that is where we have a plurality of absolute truth claims by different religions.......... and even with theist within the same faith on doctrine and dogma......

The ironic monster staring back at us in the mirror IS us ...

....and it is in these absolute truth claims where you need to have your faith strengthened in them to avoid doubt......

Doubt in absolute truth?

Oh... many theists tell me that they believe 110%
And the irrationality of that number.. is... well, it makes ME believe that they believe. And it makes me believe that they REALLY don't think well.

Last I checked gravity is only a provisional truth claim yet I don't see anyone going around needing their belief in gravity strengthened to avoid doubt that it might not work tomorrow.......

We should put a STOP to that. No WONDER people are always dropping things apparently "by mistake". They be doubters. Well, doubters gonna doubt, yo.

Existential truth is only something that can be demonstrated with consistency and have predictable outcomes...........and it must remain provisional subject to revision or rejection if a better model comes along.

Existential truth is not an absolute for anyone or any being if they ever existed..............

Well, I'm not even quite SURE what the word "absolute" means to theists. Language does get tricky with them, doesn't it? But.. I think getting them to think about what truth is.. can be a place to start.

One trick would be to try to keep them using their definition CONSISTENTLY.. which is a whole different bag of cats.

and by existential I mean a statement beyond your own personal subjectivity.........I can say I like cherry ice cream and that would be absolutely true to my own subject experience but to say there is a personal God that exists and is the God of the Bible who is the absolute truth and authority on life is an existential claim that has not been shown to demonstrative provisional qualities of that claim.

I would say that the god statement above is ALSO subjectively true, and perhaps "absolutely and objectively true" TO the individual. Language is tricky. Or at least English is...

Now the real questions is...what is the more prudent process in dealing with existential truth claims in reality as we know it................absolute or provisional?

I rest my case..........

Good case.

But then again, I was convinced before you started.
It's not EASY being a good skeptic, you know.

So, how about I call BS all over it just to prove how much of a great skeptic I am?
Wow.. I'm like SOCRATES here.....

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 28 by JehovahsWitness]

Hi, JehovahsWitness

What was the FUNDAMENTAL SOLID BASIS that you worked UP from? Because, you didn't say.

For all we know, it could be root beer floats

My dear Blastcat,

I summarized what would take the average person at least a few months and possibly years to do in one post. You are effectively at stage #1 and would probably need to study at that stage for some time.

What do you mean "study"?

I'm not interested in making SENSE out of the Bible.. I can't.
I've given up.

But I know enough about the Bible, and what I don't know I can easily look up. I GOT GOOGLE. People interpret the Bible in ALL kinds of ways, making sense out of it in MANY MANY different ways, all very personal, all very interesting, all very subjective.
I think that if I had a really great NEED to do it, I could, and it would be trivially easy for me, given that my imagination is healthy.

So, if you mean by "As with all truth, establish a fundamental solid basis and work up. ", you mean ONLY the Bible... I do have better things to do today. And.. seems to be other ways of knowing reality than just that one book written thousands of years ago by who knows who for god knows what.

They weren't especially GROUNDED in the physical sciences back then. They were WAY more interested in magic explanations. I don't blame them, they didn't have much in the way of what we would call "science" these days. They DID get a whole lot of things wrong.

Making up gods to explain nature was one of those wrong moves.
We do better than that now.

In SPITE of the religious folks trying to hold up the show.

There's no moving on to stage 2 (the second sentence) until you have established whether or not there is a Creator through an objective and honest study of the natural world.

Well I can't do that. A study of the natural world doesn't lead ME to any god creator thingy.

Now what?

This would be like moving on to discuss the exact shade of blue used by Chagall in one of his paintings that doesn't know what the colour blue is - a lesson in futility.

And yet you claim to know what blue that blue is, don't you?
Keep insisting, if you want to. I agree that your method so far IS rather futile.

As soon as you try to defend your beliefs.. it doesn't take long that it all crumbles into a deflection and avoidance technique. Finely honed, that one.

I don't happen to be convinced that you KNOW a lot about color theory.
Nice bragging, though.

I also don't happen to be convinced that you KNOW a lot about God.
Again, nice bragging.

Not so many points for intellectual modesty.
But who needs to be modest with God on their side, right?

If you think that you can do that by skimming through a post on the internet you are as delusional as if you think you can obtain a PhD by watching a nature program.

Skimming through a post

I don't think that, but thanks for the advice.

I can post some links to help you get started but the very fact that you think you can make any observations about stage #2 after a matter of minutes convinces me I have not correctly communicated the hundreds of hours of study it takes to finally understand beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a Creator.

As long as you can convince yourself of something, that's great.
Maybe you imagine that no atheist ever thought of looking into religious propaganda.

Imagine that....what a CREATIVE idea!

I'm not saying of course that everyone that has faith must become a university level expert in biochemistry - that's not the case, but as Malcom X said "by whatever means possible" you have to study until you are convinced for certain one way or the other. If that takes a year of study, so be it, for some very little if any time is necessary at this stage because they come from a religiou backgroun. I hazard a guess though that if one is coming from a staunchly atheistic position, stage #1 will be neither quick or easy process (and no you didn't do it in school or university where your young mind was passively molded by your educators). This is a whole different process but once convinced there is indeed a Creator nothing can shake that conviction - you cannot unring a bell. If you feel you have no need, there is no God and that's that; the rest is futile, I wish you an most excellent life.

You think wrong.

I didn't start off being a "staunch atheist" .. I ACTUALLY started off being a "staunch THEIST". And thanks for the lovely wishes. You too, by the way.

You want truth, fine, you have to FIGHT for it, not piddle about on the internet with navel fluff pickers passing the day, fight, study, read until you the penny drops and read with a humble and open mind.

I would thank you to NOT imply that I "piddle around on the internet".
I would also thank you to NOT assume that I am not humble
I would GREATLY thank you for NOT implying that I have a closed mind.

In fact, if you want to have a serious discussion with me, I would INSIST that you stop putting me down.

I NEVER FALL FOR THAT

If you have a case to make... MAKE IT... don't pretend to yourself that your ADVERSARY HAS MENTAL PROBLEMS and then proceed to TELL HIM ABOUT IT.

All you get is my FANTASTIC LACK OF ENTHUSIASM for whatever ELSE you might have to say. You just shot yourself in the foot, there, buddy.

A word of advice would be to not say you will "report back" because just the idea of replying to someone with opposing views makes our imperfect prideful egos start protecting itself.

I also insist that you SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Do NOT presume to project your failures on to me.
Do NOT presume to give me a "word of advice" when I didn't ASK for any.

I DONT FALL FOR THAT

Stop aiming that gun at your foot

Just do it truth like water will find a way in a sincere and humble heart. That's not you?

What are you implying now?

You don't need anything?

What's that supposed to mean?

You've all the knowledge you require on the subject or (as someone said to me here that made me laugh, you don't need literature with colour ...lol... ie simple clear information that doesn't flatter the intellect and is made for ordinary none academics. Fine, like I said. Have a nice life.

Have a nice life.

You too, I suppose.
Was that a dismissal of some kind?

I DON'T FALL FOR THAT.. so drop it.

This is probably more than I've written directly to anyone in all the years I have been on this board, feel privileged...lol

I don't have to pretend that.

I do feel very privileged, and thank you very much. BUT.. that doesn't mean that I will instantly believe just anything you write. You have to do WAY better than imply that there is something wrong with me to PROVE YOUR CASE.

All you do when you put me down is to PUT ME DOWN.

It doesn't get me off track, and it doesn't prove your point at all, it's against the rules of fair debate and of this forum, too.

So, all around, bad move.
You've just decreased your credibility.

point that gun somewhere else

Seriously though, don't worry about putting all that in the trash, my skin is thick and I got nothing to lose, you however, I sincerely believe have everything to gain; there is nothing so sweet as finding truth when you have been searching for it for years. Anyhoo...

Who says I haven't found "TRUTH".. you do?
Well, if you can convince yourself of just ONE thing today, that's a good thing, right?

If you wanted to convince OTHERS.. bragging and putting people down won't even start.

Bottom line: You ask me how I got where I am now.

Yeah. I asked you how you came to KNOW that your god beliefs are "true".

Read this post a couple of times and you will begin to understand the road I have travelled and the road anyone that wants true faith must travel.

You might imagine that you are the only one doing some intellectual traveling around here. But that would be wrong.

I have spent many hours doing research, like you recommended. I don't believe that "true faith" is a serious method to acquire knowledge. I think it's a VERY flawed one, as a matter of fact. I don't think that "FAITH" is a virtue, but an epistemic vice.

"As with all truth, establish a fundamental solid basis and work up. "

So, tell me, what was your FUNDAMENTAL SOLID BASIS that you worked UP from? Because, you didn't say.






My very best and sincere regards,

I'd be more impressed by your sincerity if you didn't try to dismiss the questions by way of lecturing me on the need for study. I KNEW THAT IN GRADE SCHOOL

Don't presume to talk to me as if I was even younger than THAT. I can assure you, I am not that young.

Do you always talk down to people like that, instead of responding the the ideas?

I think you just AVOIDED to answer the questions and comments you found too CHALLENGING, so you went on an ad hominem attack, instead.

Hey.. it's way EASIER, after all.
Doesn't get you ANYWHERE, though

Because I don't fall for that sort of thing.
Impugning my critical thinking skills is NOT explaining your positions.

It's AVOIDING

[Blastcat]

t pure silliness empirically. IS IT RAINING ON YOU?... YES OR NO?

"It was raining" is a statement and one way to determine its truth would be to check what happened weather-wise. The answer would depend on where you were. So "yes" or "no" could equally be correct. But if that brings on a headache, we can pretend I never mentioned the weather.
[/quote]

You can go ahead and pretend anything you like

When I have a problem defending an idea, I don't pretend that it never happened ...
I deal with it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 32 by Blastcat]


Blastcat,

You asked me how I got where I am, what method I used. I shared. What more do you want? You seem to have all you want, you're happy with hour theological ideological position, not looking for anything more. Fine excelleent, marvelous I'm happy for you.

I sorry if you thought I was talking down to you, that was not my intention I was trying to emphasis the time and effort it has taken me to find what I have. I take it you are happy with the conclusions you have come to, so I wish you every happiness with it (not being sarcastic, being sincere). What more do you want me to say?

Peace out,

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay, I'm going to come back to this, because... well I don't know really, let's just say that the spirit moves me to.

What was the FUNDAMENTAL SOLID BASIS that you worked UP from? Because, you didn't say.

I'm sorry I thought I was clear. The solid fundamental basis upon which everything else is based is that there exists a loving a Creator.

I'm not interested in making SENSE out of the Bible.. I can't.
I've given up.

May I ask, did you at one time desire to "make sense" of the bible and found you could not? Was there something specific in the bible (specific passages or books) you wanted to "make sense of" but couldn't?


JW

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 26 by PghPanther]

Hi, PghPanther

Great points!

( too bad I have to say BS.. but there you go )

This subject has a keen interest to me............truth is never defined very well in debates but I like to make the following designation..

As a scientific rationalist I accept all truth as provisional......meaning that it needs to be demonstrated as providing some form of a consistent and predictable model in reality such as the principle of lift over an airfoil in flight for instance.

A provisional truth is open to revision and even rejection or replacement through the process of science if a better model in reality comes about. Such as the revision to Newtown's laws of gravity in special conditions of velocity and/or mass where time and space become relative as in Einstein's theory and perhaps someday a revision to that if we come up with a quantum gravity model that is consistent and predictable.

I agree and applaud that definition. I especially like the "provisional" part. I think, that other than in science, that part is usually overlooked. "Truth" isn't static, but dynamic, in that sense. If I understand correctly, you are saying that truth is an EVALUATION ... and as such.. subject to change due to changing circumstances, such as new data... new methods... and so on. Do I get it?

Now......

.....all theist I known when they proclaim truth are talking of an absolute truth............one that comes from a final authority that is not subject to revision or rejection ever.............no matter what models demonstrate against that claim.

I've met quite a few theists who don't do that... but yeah, a lot of them do. In these forums, it's very common. I think that most fundamentalists are like that.

Until this distinction is made between the two the debating of truth is worthless and unproductive......

Well, of course I don't agree.

First off, we have to UNDERSTAND what we mean by the term... then we can make better distinctions. Otherwise, we might just be assuming. I think that discussing what is truth kinda BASIC... Because we are all discussing if religious beliefs are TRUE, and to what extent. So.... we should KNOW what each other side is TALKING about. Some people might discover that their definitions don't work. And they might change their minds. I call that "learning". A valuable exercise, in my estimation.

That's "MY truth".. lol.

Now what I would challenge any theist with is that there is no absolute existential objective truth..........they say yes and it stops with God.

Well, I already have a Christian who says God=truth.
And I have to tell you, that makes it difficult.

Then, I babbled about how circular it was to say that.
Looks like I can learn a thing or two in this discussion.

I find that exciting.

I say.........God may claim he is the all powerful and eternal absolute but do we know that?

Right. Some people SAY things as if they are true... doesn't mean they are true. The very best liars sound REALLY truthful.

and even if their God claim exists.......how does this God even know it is the final absolute authority of truth?

er.... because? OH I KNOW.....
It knows everything. So it knows that TOO.

(I expect congratulations for that one.)

God may be the result of a programming from another deity or life source greater than it just to make it think that.......God's whole authority could be an illusion to itself if he has no way to examine yet another reality onion layer above it?...........

OH that blew my mind.

God HIMSELF could be DECEIVED....WoW...
Is that a new spin on the Cartesian Demon?

Matrix WITHIN a Matrix?

For the most part, theist use God is a convenient backstop but they cannot justify it as absolute and neither could this God if it existed because once you got beyond the only reality we know that exists so far then there is no stopping the game of where the backstop to authority may exist.

I agree. Where we don't KNOW.. we can plug in anything at all .... Magic?... why not.
Old myths being true?.. bring it.. it's all good in the great "beyond".

We may never end up knowing any existential claim absolutely but the consistent and predictable models of science in the reality we live in have done a marvelous job so far in our management of diseases, and progressing as a civilization over the claims of absolute truth.

Yes, agreed. We do pretty good with our limited scope.

and its funny..........while provisional truth is open to revision absolute truth claims that are not open to that is where we have a plurality of absolute truth claims by different religions.......... and even with theist within the same faith on doctrine and dogma......

The ironic monster staring back at us in the mirror IS us ...

....and it is in these absolute truth claims where you need to have your faith strengthened in them to avoid doubt......

Doubt in absolute truth?

Oh... many theists tell me that they believe 110%
And the irrationality of that number.. is... well, it makes ME believe that they believe. And it makes me believe that they REALLY don't think well.

Last I checked gravity is only a provisional truth claim yet I don't see anyone going around needing their belief in gravity strengthened to avoid doubt that it might not work tomorrow.......

We should put a STOP to that. No WONDER people are always dropping things apparently "by mistake". They be doubters. Well, doubters gonna doubt, yo.

Existential truth is only something that can be demonstrated with consistency and have predictable outcomes...........and it must remain provisional subject to revision or rejection if a better model comes along.

Existential truth is not an absolute for anyone or any being if they ever existed..............

Well, I'm not even quite SURE what the word "absolute" means to theists. Language does get tricky with them, doesn't it? But.. I think getting them to think about what truth is.. can be a place to start.

One trick would be to try to keep them using their definition CONSISTENTLY.. which is a whole different bag of cats.

and by existential I mean a statement beyond your own personal subjectivity.........I can say I like cherry ice cream and that would be absolutely true to my own subject experience but to say there is a personal God that exists and is the God of the Bible who is the absolute truth and authority on life is an existential claim that has not been shown to demonstrative provisional qualities of that claim.

I would say that the god statement above is ALSO subjectively true, and perhaps "absolutely and objectively true" TO the individual. Language is tricky. Or at least English is...

Now the real questions is...what is the more prudent process in dealing with existential truth claims in reality as we know it................absolute or provisional?

I rest my case..........

Good case.

But then again, I was convinced before you started.
It's not EASY being a good skeptic, you know.

So, how about I call BS all over it just to prove how much of a great skeptic I am?
Wow.. I'm like SOCRATES here.....

I enjoyed your responses..........let me further explain what I mean with the theist in absolute truth claims.....

Let's say a Christian theist says.........."Christ is the son of God and his sacrifice on the cross and your acceptance of that is the only way to salvation".

Would not that have to be an absolute truth claim for the theist who believes that?

How could it be revised or even rejected for a better model on reality?

It can't to the Christian theist so it has to be absolute now and forever in their mind.

If it is not complete and needs revision or God forbid rejection then their whole world view comes crashing down around them.

On the other hand, a provisional truth claim is one which is earned by data demonstrable in working models within reality and is not immune to revision if necessary.

How in the world can a Christian claim revision on their statement?

Another factor is provisional truth claims recognize no authority with demonstration of a model........

........where absolute truth claims demand absolute authority with no demonstration allowed that conflict with it.

Basically to be a theist you are SOL when it comes to reality...........

[PghPanther]

So, how do you know that your beliefs are true?
Why do you think they happen to be true?

What method do you use to find out?

As with all truth, establish a fundamental solid basis and work up.

For a religion or a belief to be true, since its purpose is the worship of a god, it must first be established that there is a God. This can be done by an honest evaluation of the physical universe around us. Having established there is enough evidence in the natural world to conclude there is not only a Creator but a loving and ordered one. The next step would be to find out if He has sought communication with humans.

Logically if God is loving (as the physical world we living in testifies) and since humans constantly seek to know and communicate with other intelligent beings, it stands to reason that Our creator would satisfy what seems to be a fundamental human need to know Him; after all he has provided the means by which all other needs can be satisfied.

Even the most prefunctory overview of the relatively few books that claim to be direct communication from the Creator to mankind shows the bible stands out as different (in terms of distribution, translations, and arguably effect on mankind's history) so starting (or even ending) with that book one will see that it gives evidence of being divinely inspired meaning containing the thoughts, ideas, instructions from our Creator.

A study of the bible, therefore equates to a study of what is truth. From there continue to go where the evidence points.


In a nutshell,

JW

All claims of validating a God from the physical universe around us were first proposed in a prescientific period of humankind where it was assumed that complexity equaled design with intent................it does not!

Before you claim that ignorant bronze and iron age humans had a lock on understanding the physical world learn what science had demonstrated to be valid with working models in reality.

Your so called complex design of the physical world is nothing more than broken symmetry of a prior state manifesting within the standard model of particle physics and given enough time in an open system of energy input (aka the sun) provides for the recombination of atoms most capable of valence exchange (aka carbon) leading to replicating molecules.....

Now if you don't understand what I just said then you have no business claiming a theological explanation for something you don't even understand to begin with.

Stop and think for a minute.....

Would you examine and understand electricity and its use in the modern world by taking the advise of a culture that thought thunderstorms where an approach by God with judgment and thunder was his voice as believed in both the OT and NT of the Bible?

and BTW......you don't fight for truth..................that is the stance of a theology defense of their insecurity of what they believe that more often than not conflicts with other theological claims.

Truth is provisional (earned) through examination and allow it to be revealed through working models of consistency and predictability.

Example......The truth is that air flowing faster over a airfoil that creates lift can be designed and engineered into a plane for flight is not something you fight for......it is something that is revealed through examination and working models that show its consistency so much so that you can predict how to design the scale and weight of a plane for lift and flight before its even made!

Theists have no clue as to what they are talking about.................

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Hi guys and gals,

This one goes out to all of my theistic friends.
Apologists and simple Christian folks often talk about knowing "truth" a lot.. but now, I have to wonder what they mean by the term.

Could you help me out?
What is the truth, how do you define it, and do you care about it?

Some people don't care about the truth.
Some people say they love the truth, and that their beliefs are true.

Then I realize.. maybe I don't know what they MEAN when they use the word "TRUTH"

Smile

Truth is the accurate depiction of any event. Everything else is a truism.

[RonE]

Hi guys and gals,

This one goes out to all of my theistic friends.
Apologists and simple Christian folks often talk about knowing "truth" a lot.. but now, I have to wonder what they mean by the term.

Could you help me out?
What is the truth, how do you define it, and do you care about it?

Some people don't care about the truth.
Some people say they love the truth, and that their beliefs are true.

Then I realize.. maybe I don't know what they MEAN when they use the word "TRUTH"

Smile

IMHO, "reality TV" has the same relationship to reality that religious use of "truth" has to truth.

[bjs]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Context matters.

Sometimes the term truth can refer to any accurate statement. 2 + 2 = 4. The sky is blue. George Washington was the first president of the United States.

There is also a philosophical concept of ultimate Truth. This was described in Platos allegory of the cave. Here are a few links to read up on it:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resou ... ve-analogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

The short explanation is this:
Imagine someone sitting tied to a chair in a cave facing a wall. There is a fire behind him and he sees shadows on the wall, and that is all he knows. Eventually he gets free and turns around. Now he is closer to the truth because he sees the fire and what was casting the shadows instead of just the shadows. Then he leaves the caves and sees the trees and birds and such and his understanding of truth is even greater. At first he had only seen shadows of cutouts of birds, but now he has seen a genuine bird. At last he looks up at the sun and he is looking at the ultimate Truth, the source of the light. Everything else has just been reflecting that light.


Ultimate Truth is a rich and complex idea that I cant fully explain this post. It points to the basis of reality, the purpose and meaning beyond philosophical materialism. It is the ground Being of what exists and what is good and what is worthwhile.

When some people says say that Jesus is truth, as EJ pointed out in post 3, they are saying that Jesus is the incarnation of that ultimate Truth. The infinite Being, the One who is in all and above all, stepped in the physical world in a visible form. They are saying that the Truth, which is far beyond human comprehension, which created and sustains the world, is found in Christ Jesus.