WHAT IS TRUTH? From a non-believer to a believer
Here's an exchange of short emails that started Friday, 16 August 2013 and I'm going to end right now, Wednesday, 21 August 2013 at 1600 hr. It's between me and SINO, Someone I NO, I mean I disagree with, as you will see.
SINO: The statement is accurate: "Truth exists even without a human mind to perceive it."
It cannot be a lie to anyone who can understand the sentence.
FRANK: it is the human mind that is saying "the truth" that needs no human mind to comprehend it - so that statement is self-contradictory and is in fact more than a lie - it's a deception.
SINO: You can always twist the truth according to a twisted argument.
FRANK: we cannot claim to know the ultimate, unbiased truth because we cannot get out of this life to look at "truth" in the eye. i can only say, for instance, that the truth i believe in is this ...
SINO: You are correct! But now you acknowledge that there is a truth that we cannot get out of this life to look at in the eye. So the premise that truth is out there even if the human mind cannot perceive it, stands.
FRANK: no it does not - it is the "truth" that we can believe in, not that our belief in it makes it "truth" - truth is always relative, because we cannot be the arbiters of truth. believing in the "truth" does not make it so. arguing convincingly does not make you right; at best, it only makes you a winner in a debate.
SINO: Pride does not succumb to defeat. This one "truth" is universal, winning or losing a debate is not the point. ""Truth is nothing but the opposite of a "lie". This world is full of "lies" so "truth" is hidden and the human cannot believe it's existence. But "truth" is always present even if the human brain does not believe.
FRANK: the human brain is not reliable because it is itself the one saying that it is reliable and knows the truth!
SINO: So back to the original question: What is your truth? Is your truth taught to you by your religion?, etc. Whatever is your "truth" as you believe it, therefore is not reliable because it's your brain that believes it.
FRANK: and so with your brain. so, the truth is relative to one's brain, yours and mine - that' s the best we can do about it. you cannot insist that what your brain perceives (your belief) as the truth is the truth, and what my brain perceives (my belief) as the truth is not. i do not insist on my "truth" - i only believe it.
SINO: What Is Your Truth
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods that could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
FRANK: (I did not answer because I didn't notice. But I don't have to bother now, because it's all the same argument. Read on if you please.)
SINO: No, you got it wrong! I am not saying that what I believe is the real truth. I said, truth exists even if there's no human mind to believe it. Even if I wasn't born, truth exists as it is. That's how this all started. I am not insisting that what I believe is the truth, nor do I say that what you believe in is the truth. Back to: what is your truth?
FRANK: no, you got it wrong. that "truth exists even if there's no human mind to believe it" is the product of the human mind - and the human mind cannot be the arbiter of truth, otherwise the statement contradicts itself.
SINO: What if the human mind did not exist at all? Is there no truth to anything at all?
FRANK: (No answer; I wasn't paying attention)
SINO: Your God said, " I Am the way, TRUTH, and the life . . . ." John 14:16. Now you despise your bible, the foundation of your religious beliefs. If the human mind cannot believe it, then there is no God at all.
FRANK: i do not despise - what i have been telling you is that i believe what i believe, and you cannot dispute a belief, you cannot argue against a belief, because it is a belief and cannot be proven to be truth. the truth as you think of it has nothing to do with belief of the truth.
SINO: A belief is a belief, yes but it's too far away from the "truth" that exists even if you don't have a belief.
FRANK: no matter what you say, you cannot argue against my belief, because it's a belief, not logical. you cannot use reason against belief, and vice versa.
SINO: Belief is not our contention. Truth, whatever it is, exists, I don't give a damn about beliefs.
FRANK: if you're talking about the ultimate truth, belief is always the contention. the human mind can only say there is, or there must be an ultimate truth, but to prove it, the mind cannot because it cannot get out of itself, out of its own bias, out of its own limitations. that's why i must believe in an intelligence higher than my own.
SINO: you are saying it right (correctly), now. The ultimate truth exists even if there is no human mind to believe it. Period.
FRANK: no. no matter if you say i'm wrong, there is no ultimate truth that the human (mind) can comprehend - otherwise, it's not the ultimate truth.
SINO: You stir things up. The sentence is so simple. "Truth exist even if there is no human mind to believe it" That's final. End of discussion.
FRANK: you have to study logical fallacies.
SINO: Logical fallacies? Thanks, but no thanks. I might end up reasoning like you. You are terrific. [By "terrific," SINO means "terrible." Note my response.]
FRANK: the thing is, let's not think we know all the answers - we don't even know all the questions!
SINO: You are saying these because you think therefore you are. There is an inner you that asks the questions but you are content with having the physical body, and that's all. Of course you know all the questions if you tap the inner self. The answers are all there if you explore beyond your physical reality. The truth is explorable but the mind does not believe it until you can fathom the other realms. If your arguments about "truth" as just the product of the human mind ... and it is all a lie or a double lie because it exists as the creation of the mind, truth therefore cannot exist without the human mind. That is your presentation. It is not for me, and we can endlessly stupidly disagree.
FRANK: you can disagree without being disagreeable.
SINO: That is your logic that you impose on everyone you disagree with. It's all yours.
FRANK: the point is not to win or lose but to learn.
[I'm going to end it right here.]
 That is not correct. I actually paraphrased Rene Descartes; note the spelling. This has reference to my "signature" in my emails: "I thank, therefore I am."