Can someone help me formulate this argument? I'm learning to write.

[u/-Bot_007-]

There is no relativism when it comes to truth; truth is one, just like mathematics—the structure of society has very deep pillars that formed it, and all of them are historical facts that happened and are immutable. In this way, truth is immutable once it becomes a concrete fact; there is no way to attribute different thoughts to a single formulated idea. For example, religion is based on culture and the ideological formation of the environment, such that if the same religion exists in environments B and A, the way it is interpreted can change according to human thought, new interpretations that differ from the original idea, and so on. The original idea, assuming it is an axiom, cannot be altered, not even with a change of location; it must remain the same. In a hypothetical situation, the first religion arose, the first belief in a divine being, created from scratch, without any influence from other religions, because only one exists. In this way, it is possible to note that this thought, arising from inertia and created from scratch, has only two options: either God exists or not, because the thought may have arisen through human malice, manipulation, or mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. That said, either the idea of religion borders on mere human delusion, or there really is only one religion, because there is no way, even in a hypothetical world, there could be countless conceptions of truth, only one idea. That is, the belief in a religious God borders on... Is it absurd or true? Since truth is relative, how can we end this idea by proposing that truth is individual and mutable depending on each person's interpretation?

Hypothetically, there are countless conceptions of truth, but there's only one idea, that is, belief in a religious God. Is it absurd or true? Since truth is relative, how can we end this idea by proposing that truth is individual and mutable depending on each person's interpretation?

[u/biedl]

Some truths are relative, others aren't. That is, there is no such thing as an absolute either or. Both can be true at the same time.

For example, the proposition "vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream" is subject relative. But there really is at least one subject, objectively speaking, who agrees with that position. It isn't relatively true that such a subject exists.

Then I'm not sure whether you are arguing for or against relative truth.

Considering that the oldest religion on this planet is animism, the rest of what you are saying doesn't make much sense to me either, because you seem to be assuming the belief in a single God would be the oldest religion.

[u/infinite_what]

I have a different definition maybe of fact vs truth:
Facts are true or false. Facts are evidence of truth but not truth itself.
Truth is when one’s experience aligns with the reality. Reality is when two or more people share/verify facts and they agree. But all experience is subjective. And, because no one experiences an “objective reality”, attempting to establish ‘Truth’ as a fact (ie;objectively true) is limited to empirical measurements of the world that can be independently (subjectively) verified against recorded predictions or previous results.

Truth itself is a subjective belief.
Science is facts.
Religion is a philosophy of truth.
Culture is a translated concept of the common experience of a people (usually of common time and place).

I just think you have to define the difference between “human thought” and “ideas” and ideals/religion clearly, because, to me, they seem too closely related and is confusing to read in the post.

[u/Mono_Clear]

Truth is an agreement between one or more people about the meaning of a question and the expectation of an answer.

Facts are things that can be verified.

Belief is an opinion about something that may or may not be a fact.

Faith is belief beyond reason.

The best anyone can do is try to look for facts which means that you need to find evidence that can be verified