Present awareness wrote: ↑December 27th, 2019, 10:19 am
creation wrote: ↑December 26th, 2019, 8:05 pm
Two people in agreement, also does not make anything not true.
If, as you say, agreement does not make something true, then what does make something true?
Yes.
What makes something true, is a good question and could be a new thread. (Probably already is)
You still did not answer my question. So, it could be inferred that you do not, yet, know what makes something true. Is this correct?
Present awareness wrote: ↑December 27th, 2019, 10:19 amThere is objective truth and subjective truth.
I agree.
Present awareness wrote: ↑December 27th, 2019, 10:19 amYou may like the taste of a certain food and I don’t. Even if you and your friend agree it taste good, it is not true for me.
So, we both already knew, and both already agree that personal subjectivity obviously does not make something, correct?
Present awareness wrote: ↑December 27th, 2019, 10:19 amObjective truth, on the other hand, is as it is, regardless of what one thinks about it.
I agree.
To me, which you do not have to agree with what makes something true is 'agreement', itself. Now, I know you the same old stuff about agreement does not make something true, and I know you went directly to the 'two' people in agreement does not make something true logic also. But I never said 'two' people and I never said the majority of people. I just said 'with agreement'.
I say, if absolutely every one is in agreement on some such issue as being true, then there is obviously no one disagreeing, and so no one saying that it is not true, therefore, what else could make something true other than agreement?
Of course someone is thinking or will say, "But not everyone will agree on something". I will just ask them, "Are you sure you are correct?". And, if they are sure they are correct, then obviously everyone else would also be as sure, and so everyone would be agreeing that this is true, correct?
But, if some people would not agree with the logic that not everyone will agree on something, then they must have a logical reason why, and if they do, then the ones who agree that not everyone will agree on something, do not have a logical reason for this being true. Also, to prove that everyone could agree on something being true, then anyone who says it is not true could be put in a room and by slowly taking the oxygen out of the room they will soon learn and agree that human beings need oxygen to live is true. So, there are some things that everyone could agree with. So, 'with agreement' this becomes true. Just like the one person or two people who like a certain food the fact that they like that certain food is true is made 'with agreement', that is; 'with agreement' by one's self or with agreement by two people. But, also is the fact that not all people like that certain food is also true. So, everyone could 'agree' that not all people like the exact same certain foods is therefore, 'with agreement', true.
If everyone is agreeing that something is true, then for the sake of relativity there is absolutely no saying it is not true, so for all intents and purposes it is true. But, of course, down the track of future what might come along is some knowledge that shows that what everyone agreed true was in fact not true at all. But, obviously, not everyone would agree that anything that is agreed to be true is not able to be changed when further or newer knowledge comes along. So, what everyone could agree with is what is agreed by everyone now does not mean that it is true forever more. Everyone just agrees that it is true for the time being. Only human beings see things as being true or not. Only human beings therefore make things true, or not. Therefore, from the human perspective what, literally, makes something true is 'with agreement'.
To put this into the Objective Truth perspective, to make this "more true", as they say, how is Objective Truth distinguished from subjective truth? The answer to this is if subjective truth is just a personal subjective point of view, which may be true or not true, then Objective Truth is what absolutely every thing would see as being true. For example, human beings might see that the earth is flat, and so all of them might say the earth is flat is true, but from the perspective of earth or from the perspective anywhere outside of earth, earth obviously is not flat. Another example, from the human being perspective they might see the sun revolve around the earth and so all agree and all say that the sun revolves around the earth is true, but obviously from the sun, the moon, or from further afield perspective obviously the earth revolves around the sun. So, although every human being might agree on something being true, that is only another subjective truth, formed just from the relative human being's perspective of things.
Therefore, to see and obtain the Objective Truth is to look at all things not just from the perspective on one human beings, a few human beings, all human beings, but from ALL things. What is 'with agreement' from the perspective of ALL things is the only place where Objective Truth is found and gained.
When absolutely EVERY thing is 'in agreement' on the Truth of any thing, that is what makes the Truth the Truth.
Now, back to how this discussion started. You said, "Opinions vary, so how does one prove their point of view might be the correct one? The short answer is, one may not!"
I then wrote, "Another short answer is, with agreement."
So, which point of view here is the correct one?
Now obviously because I say
with agreement, and because you say
one may not. So, for to prove your point of view is the correct one, then all you have to do is forever more never agree with me. If, however, you were to do that, then you could also never prove that your point of view that
one may not is the correct one, also. This is because people have to 'agree with you', for you to have your point of view proven correct.
So, literally, how does one prove their point of view might be the correct one is, IF everyone ends up agreeing that that point of view is correct, then there is is no saying it is not, so then it would, by its own making, have proven its self to be the correct point of view.
I say a 'point of view', which everyone holds and agrees with is the correct one. A 'point of view' that everyone has and agrees with could only be a 'point of view' that has, literally, come from everyone anyway. That is; A shared 'point of view' comes from the advantage point of looking at and seeing things from the exact SAME 'viewpoint'.
I just rushed through this so I would have left things out and written somethings very clumsily so just let me know if anything needs adjusting, correctly or explained further or more.