I've been on this board for over a year, and I've encountered more versions of the Truth than I ever thought could exist. Each version has its advocates, and I assume that each advocate earnestly believes that his/her version of the Truth is the actual Truth. I also have to assume that each advocate took the time and effort to challenge their version of the Truth, and that each version was up to that challenge; succeeding in proving itself to be the Truth, as tested and accepted by the advocate. I can accept that each advocate tested their Truth, and that their Truth passed their test, but what I don't know is what constitutes a true challenge to such a premise as the Truth, especially when the Truth in question pertains to the full and complete nature of human existence.

So, I'm hoping that you folks can help me out a little.

I have one question, and I hope I can get a wide cross section of serious responses to it. And maybe it's not an easy question, or one that lends itself to a quick list of bullet points, but considering the issue it concerns, I think it's a question that deserves to be seen as important. Especially when you consider how a person's honest answer to it affects their view of reality and what they feel can possibly exist as true. So, here's the question.

If a man walked up to you (no one you've ever seen before, and there's nothing remarkable about this man either physically or in how his presence affects you viscerally) and he told you that he possesses the Truth about life, about reality, about the concept and/or existence of God, about humanity, and about why you (specifically) exist; what list of questions would you need this man to answer correctly, for you to take him seriously as someone who just might be the one guy who actually has that Truth?

1. Now, keep in mind that in the past, people would expect such a man to have extraordinary abilities - to be able to perform "signs and wonders" as proof of his access to the Truth - but we all know now days that advanced technology enables the performance of "signs and wonders". Miracles can easily be the employment of advanced technology, and advanced technology isn't proof of anything other than access to advanced technology. Certainly not proof - not any longer - that a person possesses the Truth concerning the largest questions about what is real.
   

I'm looking for a list a specific questions - no more than 5 from anyone, just to focus the criteria a bit - that would make or break the argument that this man has the goods, and that this is a notion that deserves serious consideration. Just 5 or less questions that you'd require this man to fully and completely answer. Questions with answers that may not be provable (since they'd be answers that you couldn't Google, or else why bother asking them) but that would be pertinent to the subject at hand, and would either clash horribly with each other to prove this man to be wrong, or unite with each other to prove that something this man has is important to look into.

I honestly don't know what it takes to triage this effort, and would love some guidance. After all, not everyone has the opportunity to spend a dozen years or so studying under this discipline or that guru or some other religion, and there has to be some way that a learned seeker filters out the hits from the near misses. One truth is that having the right questions is the first step toward having the right answers. Can you help?

1. Who are you, exactly?

2. Can you prove your identity?

3. Where did you come from?

4. Can you prove your origin?

5. What is the purpose of this information you call truth?

Then I would tell him to tell me everything and go on from there.

On a personal note....I'd ask where was I before this life experience? What brought me here? Where will I go after this life? Please explain the cycle of life and death and who or what controls it. What religion or philosophy on earth best represents God's intentions ?

Originally posted by Condemned0625
1. Who are you, exactly?

2. Can you prove your identity?

3. Where did you come from?

4. Can you prove your origin?

5. What is the purpose of this information you call truth?

Then I would tell him to tell me everything and go on from there.

This is what I was hoping for. Straight-up questions to ask this person.

Still, since I doubt that there is a bio-metric card issued to people who may have been handed the Truth, identity questions may not prove to be helpful. Hell, how many extra-dimensional, God-incarnate board members have their been checking here in the last year alone? I've lost count. As far as proving origin, even if this perfectly normal and unremarkable man was able to prove that he's anything but normal and unremarkable, does that mean that he's got the Truth concerning what's real and what's not real? Not necessarily, I would think.

There must be a series of questions that would cause the internal consistency of this information to either prove itself to be potentially significant, or reveal itself to be patently false. After all, this is about triaging the information. Not about the man who possesses it. Any exceptional person can lie, and any normal, average person can be handed a package to deliver.

Though you've defined what this person claims to know, it's still kind of vague. What is "the truth" about God, for instance?

The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.

The only things I would ask would be:

1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.

The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."

If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
On a personal note....I'd ask where was I before this life experience? What brought me here? Where will I go after this life? Please explain the cycle of life and death and who or what controls it. What religion or philosophy on earth best represents God's intentions ?

If you go into Barnes and Nobles, there's a whole section that's stuffed with books that will tell you all of this, and each one is only the same in that they all use the same type font (Times New Roman). I would think that these would be questions to ask him after you've verified that he's got the Truth.

What questions would you use to verify that he does have the Truth?

Originally posted by adjensen
Though you've defined what this person claims to know, it's still kind of vague. What is "the truth" about God, for instance?

This is what I'm trying to determine whether this man knows. The vagueness is deliberate, since the specifics of any premise are unimportant until you've determined a means of challenging that premise with a very effective means of testing its internal consistency.

The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.

The identity of the person should never enter into the determination. This is where human beings get redirected. Cult of personality, is what they call it. Adolph Hitler had his entire personal history suppressed in order to create himself as unique and someone who could be anointed. Identity is a trap in this sort of situation.

The only things I would ask would be:

1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.

The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."

The man in question may not be remarkable in any sense whatsoever, and may have only (only?) been presented with the specifics of reality in a macro sense. Certainly yoiu're not expecting him to also possess your personal information. After all, if this man was given the inner workings of reality, why would that information include your personal history? Do you think this man would have to be a psychic?

If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.

What would be that validation criteria? That's what I'm looking for. Your validation criteria.

Originally posted by NorEaster

The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.

The identity of the person should never enter into the determination. This is where human beings get redirected. Cult of personality, is what they call it. Adolph Hitler had his entire personal history suppressed in order to create himself as unique and someone who could be anointed. Identity is a trap in this sort of situation.

I disagree, because if someone is saying that their basis for the claims they are making is some personal enlightenment, then who they are is the only means by which their credibility can be evaluated.

There is, for example, a prolific poster on ATS who makes claims such as these -- he knows the truth, he has been given prophecy by God, and so forth. However, upon looking into him as a person, and the things that he writes, it becomes evident that he is mentally ill and suffers from delusional thinking, so one would be foolish to put any faith in what he says.

Cults exist because people are willing to accept the word of someone that they are enlightened, solely on the basis of their word. I don't buy that.

The only things I would ask would be:

1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.

The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."

The man in question may not be remarkable in any sense whatsoever, and may have only (only?) been presented with the specifics of reality in a macro sense. Certainly yoiu're not expecting him to also possess your personal information. After all, if this man was given the inner workings of reality, why would that information include your personal history? Do you think this man would have to be a psychic?

Well, in the OP, you said "about why you (specifically) exist", so I assumed that this meant that he would have information specific to me, and should therefore know something about me that he should not. If he can't demonstrate that, I would question what he would claim about why I, specifically, exist.

If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.

What would be that validation criteria? That's what I'm looking for. Your validation criteria.

I have my own perception of truth, of course. For me to accept that someone's truth which contradicts mine is correct, I would need to be convinced first that I am wrong, and secondly, that they are right. That is not an easy thing to do, hence the point that I would need something other than "I thought this up" or "It came in a dream" or something along those lines.

How did this person come by this information, and why them, rather than someone else? How does this information fit into the generally accepted view of reality, and if it doesn't, or it conflicts, why does their perspective make more sense than the accepted view, and why has it only been revealed now?

Some of the most brilliant minds in history have been focused on these matters for thousands of years. I think it highly unlikely (though possible) that some random guy in 2011 spent time meditating, and suddenly discovered a truth that had eluded everyone before him, but for which there is no basis apart from him claiming it to be true.

I would assume there are various levels of truth that would be either irrelevant or beyond comprehension.

If the truth of existence were to the effect that we are essentially "meat" computers and our web access is currently somewhat limited, and if I were to accept that as a valid answer I would then be more interested in how to build my "creds" for better access and then be curious as to what services and peripherals were available. But if I were only more interested in how we came about it would be paramount to learning not only how our processors worked, the type of components that comprised the unit, but also how to make those semi-conductor devices. If I were a real "truth geek" I would want to know more about my bios and operating system or at least be wanting to experiment with other browsers. By then I might realize there are a number of "truths" and know that I would just have to find the best truth to fit my own needs.

An encounter with such a man might be satisfied by seeing he was content and at control over his own life and environment, and if such an encounter were to be truly fulfilling it would be because he could convey those "secrets" to me that would enable me to find my own contentment and happiness with ease. But I would also realize if I could bypass all undersired experiences I might relegate myself to a rather dull existence without opportunity to grow.

The "whole truth" may be more than I really care to know. I may find I just enjoy the challenge of playing the game, learning to play better, and knowing that would be all the truth I really desire.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster

The world is rife with people who seek to bamboozle others by claiming to know "the truth", so I think that I would side with my friend Madness on this one. I would need to know or see something that demonstrates that this is, in fact, something beyond an instance of someone who claims that he is enlightened and I am not.

The identity of the person should never enter into the determination. This is where human beings get redirected. Cult of personality, is what they call it. Adolph Hitler had his entire personal history suppressed in order to create himself as unique and someone who could be anointed. Identity is a trap in this sort of situation.

I disagree, because if someone is saying that their basis for the claims they are making is some personal enlightenment, then who they are is the only means by which their credibility can be evaluated.

There is, for example, a prolific poster on ATS who makes claims such as these -- he knows the truth, he has been given prophecy by God, and so forth. However, upon looking into him as a person, and the things that he writes, it becomes evident that he is mentally ill and suffers from delusional thinking, so one would be foolish to put any faith in what he says.

Cults exist because people are willing to accept the word of someone that they are enlightened, solely on the basis of their word. I don't buy that.

I also stated that most folks don't have years to spend finding the personality cracks within such a messenger. That poster (the crazy one) is easy to spot, but most aren't. Sociopaths are gifted with the capacity to know what you are expecting from them, and at all times. The person simply cannot be the message. The message itself has to be the focus.

The only things I would ask would be:

1) What is the nature of this truth, where did it come from, and how have you validated it?
2) Tell me something specific about myself that I have forgotten.

The first would allow me to assess the nature of the individual, the second would be a potential validation that they are more than they seem. I suspect that they would draw a blank on the second (or come up with something vague) and that the first would come down to "I figured it out myself and have no basis for believing it, other than my own conviction that it is true."

The man in question may not be remarkable in any sense whatsoever, and may have only (only?) been presented with the specifics of reality in a macro sense. Certainly yoiu're not expecting him to also possess your personal information. After all, if this man was given the inner workings of reality, why would that information include your personal history? Do you think this man would have to be a psychic?

Well, in the OP, you said "about why you (specifically) exist", so I assumed that this meant that he would have information specific to me, and should therefore know something about me that he should not. If he can't demonstrate that, I would question what he would claim about why I, specifically, exist.

What I meant was "why" in the larger scheme of things "you specifically exist". Meaning, why the single human being that's born, that lives and then dies on Planet Earth exists. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my statement.

If, on the other hand, I was satisfied with the answers to both questions, I would listen to what they had to say, and apply my own validation to it.

What would be that validation criteria? That's what I'm looking for. Your validation criteria.

I have my own perception of truth, of course. For me to accept that someone's truth which contradicts mine is correct, I would need to be convinced first that I am wrong, and secondly, that they are right. That is not an easy thing to do, hence the point that I would need something other than "I thought this up" or "It came in a dream" or something along those lines.

To what extent are you married to your own definition of reality, then? As someone who's always been seeking, my own devotion to any specific version has been conditional, and subject to wholesale revision if the case can be made. That said, to get me to stop and listen, I don't have to be convinced that I'm wrong. I just need to find that the alternate version is based on solid principle. I'm not getting married to it, I'm just sitting down for coffee with it.

How did this person come by this information, and why them, rather than someone else? How does this information fit into the generally accepted view of reality, and if it doesn't, or it conflicts, why does their perspective make more sense than the accepted view, and why has it only been revealed now?

Some of the most brilliant minds in history have been focused on these matters for thousands of years. I think it highly unlikely (though possible) that some random guy in 2011 spent time meditating, and suddenly discovered a truth that had eluded everyone before him, but for which there is no basis apart from him claiming it to be true.

edit on 4-1-2011 by adjensen because: dropped word

So, what's the difference between the thousands of years before (let's say) the advent of Christianity, and the thousands of years since? One difference is that humanity's entire grasp of what is definitely real (sub-atomic structure, physics, cosmology, intra-cellular biology, mirco-biology) and a definitive means to accurately test these aspects of reality that were not known before. If anything, the more advanced a civilization, the better shot it has at figuring out its own existential nature.

As far as "why them?". You could also ask "Why not them?" In a lawn, which blade of grass is better than all the others? And what would be the criteria involved in establishing its supremacy? A poll taken of all the other blades of grass to determine which one they think is best? Certainly not the tallest one, since the lawn mower's job is to make sure that the tallest blades are taken down a few notches. Maybe it's about the information, and not about the blade of grass that happened upon it?

As far as information having been overlooked, when was the last time that anyone actually bothered to look any harder than to choose an established premise and accept it? Monotheism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, alien-theism, All-ism, we-are-the-All-ism; it's all pretty worked over, and has been for at least hundreds of years (even though the alien wrinkle is fairly recent, it's not a true explanation of reality, but just a rationale for why humans believe in any theisms at all) Since the Theory of Relativity, no one's touched the issue of reality other than to suggest that its origins can't be known by either theologists or scientists.

So, why wouldn't this information - if it was in the possession of anyone at all - break loose from the traditional mold? The traditional mold is either thousands of years old, or it states that the Truth is impossible to ever know. Both sort of put any new breakthrough into the box where whatever it is would clash with the accepted wisdom.

What would be your specific questions to challenge its potential authenticity?

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
I would assume there are various levels of truth that would be either irrelevant or beyond comprehension.

Of course, you do know that this is quite an assumption.

If the truth of existence were to the effect that we are essentially "meat" computers and our web access is currently somewhat limited, and if I were to accept that as a valid answer I would then be more interested in how to build my "creds" for better access and then be curious as to what services and peripherals were available. But if I were only more interested in how we came about it would be paramount to learning not only how our processors worked, the type of components that comprised the unit, but also how to make those semi-conductor devices. If I were a real "truth geek" I would want to know more about my bios and operating system or at least be wanting to experiment with other browsers. By then I might realize there are a number of "truths" and know that I would just have to find the best truth to fit my own needs.

And if the Truth were to not even be in the area code that you've so effectively described here? What then? Would it even be worth challenging for you? What if it did turn out that we are (at some level) "meat computers", but that this was beside the point of what is true about reality? What then? I understand the desire for gaming tweaks, but is that all you'd be interested in?

An encounter with such a man might be satisfied by seeing he was content and at control over his own life and environment, and if such an encounter were to be truly fulfilling it would be because he could convey those "secrets" to me that would enable me to find my own contentment and happiness with ease. But I would also realize if I could bypass all undersired experiences I might relegate myself to a rather dull existence without opportunity to grow.

So, why would you assume that such an ordinary man, one possessing such overwhelming information, would be serene and/or content? Would you be? Would you feel in complete control of your life? Why would you assume that anyone would be if required to handle such important information?

Maybe because the classic image of the enlightened guru sitting on a pillow and being tended to by followers comes to mind when you envision such a person. If ignorance is bliss, then what do you think full realization is like? Just a thought.

The "whole truth" may be more than I really care to know. I may find I just enjoy the challenge of playing the game, learning to play better, and knowing that would be all the truth I really desire.

edit on 4-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

So, what would be your means of challenging the Truth this man claims to possess?

Interesting thoughts my friend,

I have followed many teachers of truths in my day. I suppose I have worked out a pretty reasonable test to ensure they are what they preach.

Do they live their truth?
Do they expect worship for their truth?
Do they expect obedience for their truth?
Do they expect reward for their truth?


Once they have passed these four tests, there are no questions to ask. In passing the tests they have demonstrated the way for one to find the truth on their own.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Interesting thoughts my friend,

I have followed many teachers of truths in my day. I supposed I have worked out a pretty reasonable test to ensure they are what they preach.

Do they live their truth?
Do they expect worship for their truth?
Do they expect obedience for their truth?
Do they expect reward for their truth?


Once they have passed these four tests, there are no questions to ask. In passing the tests they have demonstrated the way for one to find the truth on their own.

With Love,

Your Brother

What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?

Originally posted by NorEaster
What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?

Does it bring me closer to mankind, or does it cause division.

If it causes division, it is a liar.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by NorEaster
What questions would you ask of the Truth itself?

Does it bring me closer to mankind, or does it cause division.

If it causes division, it is a liar.

With Love,

Your Brother

And this would validate his claim to possessing the thorough knowledge of who and what we are, why we exist, the nature of reality, and the truth about God?

And what if the Truth moved you further from mankind? What if the Truth was nothing at all what you've always assumed it to be? And yet, it was indeed the Truth. What if the technical aspects of it were somewhat disappointing? How would you know that your rejection of it was not due to your own preconceived notions and established expectations?

This is why a series of specific questions seems important. Besides, most folks haven't spent years with enlightened teachers. This effort is on their behalf.