The truth is objective

[bahman]

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true. The truth cannot be changed and created. It however can be known through the process of creating knowledge. Knowledge however can be false or true. The truth can be found through the process of refining the knowledge. The truth therefore is objective since everybody would agree with it and it does not depend on opinion, perception, or emotion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are lost and is simply making statements that are not true because it is merely your opinion.

What is true is its alignment with reality which must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence & realization of reality, perception, cognition and description [FSERC]; the most credible and objective FSERC is the scientific FSERC.

Often, the majority will echo 'water is H20' ignorant of the necessary qualification;
but that "water is H20" is real & true is only true when qualified to the a specific science-chemistry FSERC.
In another specific science-chemistry FSERC, water is not H20 if ions are to be taken into account.

There whenever it is asserted X is Y, it must be qualified to a specific human-based FSERC with its respective degree of credibility and objectivity.
Note the critical basis, i.e. human-based, i.e. based on a collective of subjects thus not dependent on a subject's opinion, beliefs, and judgments, so it is objective.

There are no standalone and absolutely unconditional unqualified "X is Y" truths.
If you insist show me where it is?

[Age]

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true.

Why can the truth not be in just one statement?

The truth cannot be changed and created.

So, the truth that you human beings believe that the earth is flat cannot be changed. And, so forever more, as long as you human beings exist you human beings believe that the earth is flat, right?

It however can be known through the process of creating knowledge. Knowledge however can be false or true.

Can 'knowledge', itself, be true or false? Or, is just more of the case that you human beings express and share either true, or false, knowledge?

The truth can be found through the process of refining the knowledge.

So, what made 'the knowledge' untruthful to begin with?

Why not just start with 'True knowledge', from the beginning, and only?

In other words, why not just express and share what is only True, instead?

The truth therefore is objective since everybody would agree with it and it does not depend on opinion, perception, or emotion.

Have you actually argued, soundly and validly, here that 'The truth therefore is objective', or you just believe this and so just said it is.

Also, if, supposedly, every 'body' would agree with 'the truth', then why do you human beings have so many 'differing and opposing, so-called, truths', which you individually say and claim is 'the truth'?

Also, how is it possible for you human beings to express and share 'the truth' if not through opinion, perception, and/or emotion?

Also, if you would like to find out what the actual Truth is here, which absolutely no on could refute, and which every one could agree with, and accept, then please let me know, and then 'I' will show and inform 'you' of It.

[Age]

You are lost and is simply making statements that are not true because it is merely your opinion.

But, 'you' "veritas aequitas" are not lost and do not just simply make statements that are not true, based on 'your opinions', right?

What is true is its alignment with reality which must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence & realization of reality, perception, cognition and description [FSERC]; the most credible and objective FSERC is the scientific FSERC.

And, 'this' is not just 'your personal opinion', hey "veritas aequitas"?

Not that you will even answer and respond to this clarifying question. Because you know of you did, then absolute contradiction and hypocrisy would ensure.

Also, 'look at' the statement and claim, 'What is true is 'its' alignment with reality'. And, 'see' the absolute 'circular reasoning' of it.

Often, the majority will echo 'water is H20' ignorant of the necessary qualification;
but that "water is H20" is real & true is only true when qualified to the a specific science-chemistry FSERC.

you speak and write here as though there is some actual 'science' or 'science-chemistry' outside of human beings' 'subjective' thinking, opinions, views, assumptions, beliefs, values, et cetera.

'Science', itself, is just 'the studying' of things, through and with 'the, subjective, thinking' within human bodies.

In another specific science-chemistry FSERC, water is not H20 if ions are to be taken into account.

There whenever it is asserted X is Y, it must be qualified to a specific human-based FSERC with its respective degree of credibility and objectivity.

So, 'it' 'must be' 'qualified' to a human being, or human beings, perspective, view, belief, and/or opinion. Well, according to "veritas aequitas" here anyway.

Note the critical basis, i.e. human-based, i.e. based on a collective of subjects thus not dependent on a subject's opinion, beliefs, and judgments, so it is objective.

LOL So, 'now', according to "veritas aequitas" as long as there is a 'collective of subjects', and thus 'more than just one subject', only, then 'it' is 'objective'.

you could not get much more contradictory and inconsistent here "veritas aequitas".

There are no standalone and absolutely unconditional unqualified "X is Y" truths.
If you insist show me where it is?

All you are, essentially, saying and trying to argue for here is: All 'human based truths' are based on you human beings, and/or on your human being based thoughts and views of things.

[bahman]

You are lost and is simply making statements that are not true because it is merely your opinion.

What is true is its alignment with reality which must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence & realization of reality, perception, cognition and description [FSERC]; the most credible and objective FSERC is the scientific FSERC.

Often, the majority will echo 'water is H20' ignorant of the necessary qualification;
but that "water is H20" is real & true is only true when qualified to the a specific science-chemistry FSERC.
In another specific science-chemistry FSERC, water is not H20 if ions are to be taken into account.

There whenever it is asserted X is Y, it must be qualified to a specific human-based FSERC with its respective degree of credibility and objectivity.
Note the critical basis, i.e. human-based, i.e. based on a collective of subjects thus not dependent on a subject's opinion, beliefs, and judgments, so it is objective.

That is the duty of philosophers, not scientists to find the truth.

There are no standalone and absolutely unconditional unqualified "X is Y" truths.
If you insist show me where it is?

As an example, the mind is a changeless substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

[bahman]

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true.

Why can the truth not be in just one statement?

I cannot write the truth in one statement. Can you?

The truth cannot be changed and created.

So, the truth that you human beings believe that the earth is flat cannot be changed. And, so forever more, as long as you human beings exist you human beings believe that the earth is flat, right?

The earth being flat is false knowledge.

It however can be known through the process of creating knowledge. Knowledge however can be false or true.

Can 'knowledge', itself, be true or false? Or, is just more of the case that you human beings express and share either true, or false, knowledge?

Yes, knowledge can be false or true like the earth is flat.

The truth can be found through the process of refining the knowledge.

So, what made 'the knowledge' untruthful to begin with?

Why not just start with 'True knowledge', from the beginning, and only?

In other words, why not just express and share what is only True, instead?

We don't know what is true knowledge so we assume something which could be false or true.

[Age]

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true.

Why can the truth not be in just one statement?

I cannot write the truth in one statement. Can you?

Yes.

And, by the way, if you really cannot, then you, contradictory, 'just did'.

The truth cannot be changed and created.

So, the truth that you human beings believe that the earth is flat cannot be changed. And, so forever more, as long as you human beings exist you human beings believe that the earth is flat, right?

The earth being flat is false knowledge.

But, it was, once, 'the truth', and so-called 'true knowledge', right?

It however can be known through the process of creating knowledge. Knowledge however can be false or true.

Can 'knowledge', itself, be true or false? Or, is just more of the case that you human beings express and share either true, or false, knowledge?

Yes, knowledge can be false or true like the earth is flat.

But, 'that' was not 'knowledge', itself.

'that' was just a False belief and a False claim that you human beings were holding onto, expressing, and sharing among each other.

Like the other False beliefs and False claims that you human beings are holding onto, expressing, and sharing 'currently' among "yourselves", in the days when this is being written.

The truth can be found through the process of refining the knowledge.

So, what made 'the knowledge' untruthful to begin with?

Why not just start with 'True knowledge', from the beginning, and only?

In other words, why not just express and share what is only True, instead?

We don't know what is true knowledge so we assume something which could be false or true.

Well here is another prime example of the absolute absurdity, which existed, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written. Which leaves absolutely no suprise at all in 'why' it took these human beings so, so long to 'catch up' in coming to, also, learn how to recognise, find, and 'know' the actual Truths of, and in, Life.

Also, this one would not have, yet, recognized that it has, once more, just written the Truth, in one statement.

That is; these people instead of just waiting, openly, until they obtained the actual irrefutable Truth first, they would instead prefer to just 'assume' some thing is true, even if it was completely and utterly False. And, worse still they would 'jump to conclusions', based from and on nothing at all but those made up 'assumptions' only, and then even worse, they would actually 'believe' that their own made up 'assumptions' and 'conclusions' were true. Even worse they would actually express and share their own 'made up assumptions and beliefs' as though they were actually true. And, the worse part of all of this is when these adult human beings were expressing the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions, beliefs, and misinterpretations they were instilling them into the the younger ones, who would then pass on the same False and Wrong beliefs to the following generations, while never guiding and instructing how to question and challenge what is being 'fed into' them.

As can be clearly seen and proved True countless times throughout human beings history.

In fact one only has to take a very quick glance into this forum to bear witness and see this irrefutable Fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are lost and is simply making statements that are not true because it is merely your opinion.

What is true is its alignment with reality which must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence & realization of reality, perception, cognition and description [FSERC]; the most credible and objective FSERC is the scientific FSERC.

Often, the majority will echo 'water is H20' ignorant of the necessary qualification;
but that "water is H20" is real & true is only true when qualified to the a specific science-chemistry FSERC.
In another specific science-chemistry FSERC, water is not H20 if ions are to be taken into account.

There whenever it is asserted X is Y, it must be qualified to a specific human-based FSERC with its respective degree of credibility and objectivity.
Note the critical basis, i.e. human-based, i.e. based on a collective of subjects thus not dependent on a subject's opinion, beliefs, and judgments, so it is objective.

That is the duty of philosophers, not scientists to find the truth.

Philosophers has to have the most credible and objective truths, i.e. scientific truths to ground their philosophical truths.

There are no standalone and absolutely unconditional unqualified "X is Y" truths.
If you insist show me where it is?

As an example, the mind is a changeless substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

Here we go again?
What is mind is contingent upon the human-based framework and system [FS] of which the most credible and objective is the scientific FS.
In the case of the mind, we are confirming its real existence grounded on the science-psychology FSK [complemented with science-biology] the most credible and objective.

On what other credible and objective framework and system are you grounding your claim "the mind is a changeless substance" and "with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause."

Obviously it cannot be,
"I, Bahman, said so or my mind said my mind is a changeless substance" which is circular??

[bahman]

Why can the truth not be in just one statement?

I cannot write the truth in one statement. Can you?

Yes.

And, by the way, if you really cannot, then you, contradictory, 'just did'.

What is your statement?

[Iwannaplato]

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true. The truth cannot be changed and created. It however can be known through the process of creating knowledge. Knowledge however can be false or true. The truth can be found through the process of refining the knowledge. The truth therefore is objective since everybody would agree with it and it does not depend on opinion, perception, or emotion.

So, if someone doesn't agree with what you wrote here, it isn't true?

[Age]

I cannot write the truth in one statement. Can you?

Yes.

And, by the way, if you really cannot, then you, contradictory, 'just did'.

What is your statement?

What is 'my statement' in regards to 'what', exactly?

What you asked me would be like me asking you, 'What is your statement?'

[bahman]

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true. The truth cannot be changed and created. It however can be known through the process of creating knowledge. Knowledge however can be false or true. The truth can be found through the process of refining the knowledge. The truth therefore is objective since everybody would agree with it and it does not depend on opinion, perception, or emotion.

So, if someone doesn't agree with what you wrote here, it isn't true?

Agree on what? Disagree on what?

[bahman]

Yes.

And, by the way, if you really cannot, then you, contradictory, 'just did'.

What is your statement?

What is 'my statement' in regards to 'what', exactly?

What you asked me would be like me asking you, 'What is your statement?'

Your statement in regards to the truth.

[Age]

What is your statement?

What is 'my statement' in regards to 'what', exactly?

What you asked me would be like me asking you, 'What is your statement?'

Your statement in regards to the truth.

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true.

[bahman]

What is 'my statement' in regards to 'what', exactly?

What you asked me would be like me asking you, 'What is your statement?'

Your statement in regards to the truth.

The truth is a set of statements in which each statement is true.

So you agree that the truth is a set of statements and not one statement?