Proof of Truth? Really? How would you be convinced to change your mind?

Everything is subjective. Offering proof of anything is merely a subjective opinion. People that think they are proving something to anyone are not only delusional, they are asking for major headaches.

Every known subject or topic of conversation ever posed by humans is open for interpretation. Believing something or having faith is up to the individual.

Teaching is a form of brainwashing used to convince unsuspecting and undeveloped minds of specific doctrines concerning every subject.

The words used to describe were invented, we only know them because they have been taught, the meaning of them is brainwashed into our subconscious.

Every single word used in every single language in every single civilization was invented by humans, cultural and environmental and tribal semantics taught from generation to generation.

Pick 4 separate countries with different languages and all of them will have different opinions about everything or similar opinions about some things, they will all use their own version of semantics to describe their beliefs and faiths about every subject.

They will all offer their own proof and portray it as the only truth, how can any of it be refuted? Simple, because they all have their own debate that the truth is wrong and the proof is false.

Calling anything the truth and providing evidence of the truth will always be refuted. The only one that can change perspective is the one with the eyes and ears and brains, the truth is what you think it is and proof will not do anything to change it.

I can tell you there are angels and you will call them demons. I can tell you the Sun is the center of the Universe and you can say prove it. I can tell you jesus christ existed, but that he is not my savior and you will quote me scripture as proof. I can laugh at your scripture and tell you it is a story of fiction and you can tell me I am going to Hell. I can tell you chemtrails are manufactured geo-engineering for climate control and population destabilization and you can tell me I am delusional. I can tell you 9/11 was a conspiracy and you can call me a fanatical windbag.

We can agree to disagree about everything because your perspective is subjective to my objective and my objection is subjected to your perception.

I always find it extremely ironic whenever someone claims to believe in the original 'story' but when confronted with evidence that their 'story' is in reality a fairy tale, all of a sudden they need proof.

When it comes to conspiracies, since WHEN has there ever been proof?

We can lay out the truth for all to see but until one learns to recognize it, it's useless.

The key is in learning to discern between truth and lies.

Below is an excellent summary on this:

originally posted by: crankyoldman
The word "proof" is a major problem. What you mean by proof is a way to show you in ways that are agreed upon as proof. Currently this written, science, or first hand. There is plenty of that, an inordinate amount of it, some found on the web, most not. So proof isn't what you are after, as there is more then enough of that to be easily had.

There are no conspiracies, none, there are only plans, that, when they are all put together can equal what we call a conspiracy, but that thread that connects the plans is weak as the plans are sadly seen in parts, rather then a whole.

The key to understanding what is really happening is to look at the great symbol. The all seeing eye. It stands for the unseen, not the bilderberg or any such stuff, but the unseen folks who control this reality - they see all. They also control all. At the top of the NWO as you describe are beings largely beyond your comprehension, in fact they programmed you not to comprehend them, so they may remain hidden. Their agenda is something beyond those of the stooges they employ. The NWO, CFF, Trilateral etc. are all made up of employees of these unseen. Most have zero idea about that they have gotten themselves into, and most will never know, but they are simply doing the bidding of the unseen, and, were the unseen to ever return to physical reality (something unlikely at this point) they would all be killed first as they sold out their own people for money and the unseen do not trust them.

To grasp what I have said you need to be able to comprehend the entire picture, not the way it has been presented to you, but the way it is. You have to be able to use senses beyond your standard system, and you have to be able to understand symbols that you have no programming for and this is not easy as there is so much going against it.

Do not ask for proof, you will never get it - ever. Ask to "know," as to "understand," ask to "feel," but don't expect another to show you something you cannot comprehend yet as that is impossible - you need to understand the language first, before you can see what is happening on the levels you question.

a reply to: Murgatroid

All truth is subjective. Laying out facts are subjected to perception rendering any truth to speculation. That is why you cannot prove anything. For every perspective there is an alternate subjection. Trying to convince anyone that your truth is theirs is fruitless, unless they agree with the assessment.

The OP is correct in pointing out that many cultures and environments and languages are using semantics for the same perspectives, how any one person decides to observe is entirely up to them.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Just because someone disagrees with your version of the truth does not mean they refuse to see it. Perhaps your version of the truth is wrong and it is you who refuses to see.

You proved my point. My truth is different from your truth and my proof is not necessary to convince you, you are the only one that can make that determination. All the proof in the world would still be subjected to another perspective.

a reply to: searcherfortruth

I was actually agreeing with the OP and you as well BTW...

Am I incorrect?

a reply to: searcherfortruth

You are a wise person in my opinion and your version of the truth is agreeable to me, however, regardless of that fact what our perception is of another version of truth is completely our choice.

What anyone wants to believe and have faith in is simply their opinion and never will be proven to all.

Funny thing is, even though there are many perceptions made from different perspectives, there still really is only one truth and the source would be the only one to actually know it, all we can do is create our own version.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
You proved my point.

Ummm, that was the whole intent behind the post.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. One feels the trunk and says it's a great snake, another feels its ear and says it's a huge leaf. Neither have a more valid interpretation than the other. But if one did a little more investigation and said it's an elephant, he'd be right!

The only things I can truly know are the things I experience first hand; we all seem to get a lot of our experiences from the same source though (the real world). Let's say two children are with their mother. She's baking a pie for desert and tells the children "don't touch it. It's hot". If a child decides she's just trying to keep them from spoiling their appetites before dinner, he can get his proof quite easily; just touch it and see if it burns! After burning his finger while his sibling laughs, he may try to save face by saying "It's not really hot! I'll prove it!", he could bring a piece of paper touch it to the pie and demonstrate that the pie isn't hot enough to burn the paper. You may say the pie is cold compared to a candle, or molten lava; still, it being hot enough to blister you when you touch it is a verifiable fact. An objective third party can say the mother was right and the boy was wrong, but anyone who sides with the boy is not being objective. The closer we are to the common source of the experience, the easier it is to get proof. Some things aren't mere opinions, they are facts.

There are things I've never seen for myself, such as the Great Pyramids or the Stature of Liberty. If I say they don't exist, it's not just my opinion; they either exist or they don't. Anyone who actually went to see for themselves could prove to themselves that I'm wrong, even if they couldn't convince me.

There are rules of math and logic, the basis of which we all know. The Greeks called them axioms (from Greek for worthy) because they required no justification. Example: if a=b, and b=c, then a=c. Anyone who thinks can understand these concepts in some way, even if they can't understand how others describe them, or how they're taught at school. If you familiarize yourself with these axioms and study their implications you will have powerful tools such as Bayesian probability theory to help you draw conclusions from your experiences.

There are facts, and there are opinions. We can disagree on opinions. If I like a movie and say it's good, that only means that I like it; you may hate it and say it's bad, that doesn't mean everyone will hate it. But if we disagree on facts, at least one of us is wrong.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Your argument is a paradox / lie.

If it were correct it would be self-defeating.

That is, if subjectivity were true, it would mean subjectivity cannot therefor be truth - because it presupposes that there is no truth / everything is subjective.

It is false.

a reply to: VP740

Just because you are taught something doesn't make it the truth. Just because facts are presented and facts are refuted doesn't mean either way is true. All of it is subjective. Every single thing in the known Universe is open for interpretation from every perspective by every subjective experience that you or anyone has.

There is only one truth and it will never be proven by any mortal being inhabiting this planet ever.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Actually it has been proven time and time again, by you and everyone that exist. Your opinion is subjective and therefore is not quantifiable proof of anything.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

And what about YOUR opinion?

You just made his point.

Yeah I know, but those New Age "deepitys" sound SO kewl...

It’s easy to see that all of these claims are illogical when applied to themselves. All one has to do is ask, “Is it objectively true that there is no objective truth?” or “If my reality is that the realities presented in this book are false does that make it true or false?”

New Age Relativism

...lack of rational thinking rampant among new agers, things like:

"the only thing that is real is me"
"my thoughts and feelings and my own well being is the only thing that matters"
"I am the universe, the universe is me"
"love and light is all that is needed"
"thinking about other people's pain lowers my vibration so I will not concern myself with anything other than my own well being"
etc.

New Age Bull$hit, The Truth and The Reasons

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting.

"All truth is relative."

• If the statement "All truth is relative" is true, then this would be a truth. If it is a truth, that means the statement "All truth is relative" is not relative. Therefore, not all truths are relative (since you claim your truth is not relative) and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

"There are no absolute truths. "

• The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.

• If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

"What is true for you is not true for me. "

• If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
• If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
• If you say yes, then relativism is false.

"No one can know anything for sure. "

• If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.

"That is your reality, not mine. "

• Is my reality really real?
• If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality?
• If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?

"We all perceive what we want . "

• How do you know that statement is true?
• If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?

Refuting Relativism

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

It is not merely an opinion - it is an observation of logical truth.

Even you, in the post above the one I am replying to, contradict yourself.

"There is only one truth and it will never be proven by any mortal being inhabiting this planet ever."

Is that statement true or false? Is that the one truth?

You know you are wrong. Just go back to the drawing board.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I agree being taught something doesn't make it the truth.

Facts can be presented. Lies can be presented as fact. Theories can be refuted. Lies can be uncovered. Facts cannot be refuted, only ignored.

If you accept facts and ignore lies, you will be closer to the truth, you will understand it better. If you accept lies and ignore facts, you will be further from the truth. Some things will remain unknown, but we can always learn, and bring ourselves closer to the truth.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Most scientologist’s would agree with you as well.

Just one more HUGE red flag among many...

In fact, it is the first step toward a sort of chronic self-hypnotic state that ultimately automatically converts the scientologist’s subjective world into the objective world. To a scientologist there is no objective universe, but for the one he or she deigns to be true.* Over time that subjective reality is thoroughly shaped and molded by the universe view of L. Ron Hubbard. Once fully converted to accepting that wholly subjective, albeit influenced by indoctrination, universe view as objective fact, a hard core scientologist can act rather insanely.

No matter how hard you try to convince him about the existence of an objective fact he will increasingly cling to his ‘reality’ (which after all to him is the only true source of objective fact) no matter how fanciful or insane that reality may be. Ironically, that is insanity according to Hubbard’s own definition – unable to sense and perceive that which just about everybody else is able to.

Are Scientologists Trained to Lie?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Sure it is and the fact you insist it is not, is proving my point once again.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Did not seem that way, instead what you did was post another members post. You did nothing to make me think you agreed. Fortunately, I am not overly concerned. You can pretend whatever you want.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

We see what we want to see...