I've heard interesting theories that say absolute truth does not exist, and rather it is nothing more than the perceptions of the beholder. That is, "truth" varies from person to person, and therefore, no actual truth exists. Your thoughts?

Are we in the matrix . Truth seems to be subjective on some levels but there is always an nugget of truth in everything. Its when it becomes expanded on you run into problems.

Any understanding of Truth must depend on a whole series of questions, some of which I list below in no particular order of importance as topics for thought.

Does Truth have to be absolute and eternal?
What if there were several kinds of truth? or another way of putting it, degrees of truth each appropriate to different kinds of propositions? Is truth an abstract or useufl shorthand word for what "really" are only family resemblances?
What is the relationship between truth and meaning, between truth and language?
Can there be such a thing as a private truth, or must truth always imply a public sharing?
Is there Truth "out there" somewhere, or does truth depend on human meaningfulness that is such because of shared understanding transcendental to the individual (rose tinted glasses)?
Protagoras wrote: Man is the measure of all things, that they are what they are and that they are not what they are not. Nietzsche wrote: Truth begins with two. What insights doe these different understandings give?
What are the guarantees and the processes for arriving at Truth? Are there any at all?
Must Truth always be verifiable?
Is truth perspectival in nature?
Is truth descriptive or normative in nature?
What are the various ways in which we use "truth" in ordinary language?
Is truth merely a function of social definition, or of poltical power?

The answers to these questions, and perhaps subsequently others, will aid in understanding what Truth is, or is not.
Z

"Truth?, Does it really exist? "


Absolutely!

But, in that case, what truths?

E.g., for a religious person, god is an absolute truth.

For an athiest, god not existing is an absolute truth.

Which is truth? Neither? Both? Or is it decided only based on the perception of those encountering the "truth?" But then, would "truth" exist at all?

That's the question I'm asking.

And I think the answer to your specific question depends on the answers to prior considerations I suggested. I think that one must be clear in one's own mind about what truth "really" is before venturing on any further discussion, as it will help clarify whether it even makes sense to talk about truth in some senses at all.
And always, I think we need to make the distinction about "belief" and "truth," and to attempt to clarify the various forms of belief that involve truth-functions.

Is truth something to be "encountered" or something to be made for example is something prior to discussion whether X is true or untrue. One should, I would suggest, think of additional, and OTHER examples of truth, rather than confine oneself religious ones, to clarify the discussion, and prevent it from being limited thereby.
Z

Whatever reasoned arguments, discussions, learned consultations are applied to the question, surely they must initially be based on the individuals subjective perceptions - and those based on being "true to oneself"?

For the most part, in our daily lives, the question of truth does not appear. If Mollie the muppy runs to the door, and I take her for a walk, I do not second guess her, and I do not ask myself, is it a true statement that there is snow on the ground, but simply glance outside and then put on my boots.
We become concerned about Truth, generally, when something happens that intrudes as an exception to our normal world and makes us inspect it by drawing attention to itself. Or we become concerned with the Truth when we are drawn to thinking seriously about something and have the leisure or necessity to examine it from, as it were, outside of ourselves.
Z

We have a mental picture of truth which portrays it as unchanging and "absolute." But this picture might not be correct, and might have its origins in a psychological need for certainty. Or it might not be correct when applied to certain domains or horizons, and actually confuse the issue even more.
Rather than think of the being of truth, it is perhaps more to the point to consider it as applying only to statements of a certain kind. One writes down examples of the various ways we use these statements and then considers why in each case the statement is true, or rather, how do we determine whether it is true or not.


Z


The concept of "truth" or "absolute truth" is a strictly human phenomenon, and so must be considered as only binding (or for that matter, meaningful) upon the human world. We cannot step outside of our world to determine if something is true in the sense that it corresponds in some way, to truth-itself; in that sense, then, absolute truth may exist, but we can never know it or if an assertive truth-value statement is absolutely true.

But within the human sphere, it seems possible that there are absolute truths as well as varying degrees of truth. It may because of the uniformity of the human mind, or a social construction of reality, but we seem to want to say that mathematics, geometry, and logical rules are absolutely true. Plato's teaching the ignorant slave a geometrical proof has been replicated very recently by anthropologists; perhaps there are "innate" structures that by their commonality can come as close as possible to "absolute truths." This is akin to the Locke-Kantian arguments for the existence of absolute truth; in the latter, certain aspects are the world can be known because they are the product of universal conditions of understanding.

We want to say that there are certain characteristics adhering to a statement that make absolute claims for itself:
1. It must be a meaningful statement, and universally accepted by everyone (with the usual exceptions). Reasoned exceptions to the statement will invalidate its absolute claim.
2. It must be, at least potentially, verifiable, or at least not "falsifiable." In other words, everyone could arrive at the same conclusion if they attended to it.

Z

I think that truth and perception are often confused. Truth does not require understanding to exist. It stands on its own without recognition or perception. Basic truth that is. Which would take us to the theory of everything. Simply stated, there is a code that links all things together. Similar to that of a single genetic code (molecular makeup ) that is the base of all things. In my opinion that is the closest that human minds will ever get to absolute truth.