'I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist -
nor a religious fundamentalist.'

we know Foxy you are the type that believe all women and don't believe all women. You don't need to explain yourself.

runner,

Do try contributing something of more substance
to the discussion.

Besides, not sure what on earth you're on about.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I really am not expecting an answer from him. mhaze is a bit the same. I'm mainly doing this because it is a bit of fun deflating puffed up opinionated types and I get to do a bit of research on top of it as well as refining my positions.

No stress here at all.

SteeleRedux,

<<As Wikipedia explains; “Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.”>>

That's my understanding of logical fallacies as well. There may be some truthful facts in the content BUT the reasoning is erroneous and that creates a logical fallacy. This prevents rational dialogue between you and me.

loudmouth2,

<<I'm quite happy with the notion that nobody or nothing 'made' the laws of physics, that they have always operated impersonally and regardless.>>

Are you saying you agree with the philosophy that time + energy + chance created the ordered laws of physics?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Truth is that which stands/remains at all times: past, present and future. While Truth is
« absolute, information, even when correct, can only be referred to as "relative truth",
« conditional on circumstances and perspective. English has no word for "relative truth" –
« the Sanskrit word is "mythyA" :
« http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/satyam.htm »
.

Thank you for sharing your definition of “truth” with me and introducing me to Advaita, the source of your spiritual philosophy and definition of "truth".

I find the Hindu Advaita philosophy quite impressive and intend to take the time to study it further, with interest.

My initial impression is that while I am amazed at the breadth and depth of the logical construction of the Advaita definition of “truth” – citing a certain number of modern scientific theories, especially in the domains of physics and astronomy – it makes no mention of scientific facts which run counter to the definition and actually contradict it.

I suspect that contemporary proponents of the Advaita spiritual philosophy have “cherry-picked” some of the latest scientific knowledge in order to illustrate their definition and prove their point while leaving aside anything that contradicts it.

Be that as it may, I still find the basic philosophical thought very interesting and well worth further investigation.

However, I must confess that while I respect your religious (or, should I say, “spiritual philosophical”) beliefs, Yuyutsu, your definition : “ that which stands/remains at all times: past, present and future” seems to me to be more appropriate as a definition of the word “eternal” than of the word “truth”.

Judge for yourself. Here is the OED definition of the word “eternal” :

« Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning »

In my view, "truth" is not the only thing that is eternal. Love (true love) is also eternal – even lies are eternal.

But while truth, love and lies are all eternal, each word has its own specific meaning. Each has its own definition that is different from the definition of the word "eternal".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiORm4tW_VA

.