My belated apologies. I got so caught up in responding to the first part of your post, that I neglected to address the three truths you offered.
>>1.Life is unfair,There is no inherent fairness in the world.Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.<<
I agree good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. I would add that the obverse is true as well; though it oftentimes seems not to occur with the same frequency. I'd say it's more than fair, however, as one would expect good people to be able to live with a little disparity.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mt 5:44-45)
>>2.Time and Energy are two of the riches commodities we possess in life.One never knows how long we live(time)nor how healthy we will be in the future(energy)<<
I agree, and I'm intrigued by the way you show them as being, ultimately, intangibles.
>>3.Love is the giving and sharing of our time and energy towards wants and desires.<<
Did you ever see the movie, "Jerry Maguire?" The movie was a play on the idea of love being equated with money. Do you remember the line, "Show me the money?" It kinda makes sense, in that a dollar, say, is representative of some portion of time and energy spent in labor. This may not be, however, where you're headed with this third truth . . .
Here's my response to your additional questions:
>>Don't we deal with truth on a daily basis?<<
I think we deal more with rules-of-thumb than anything else. Of course, there's a "spirit" of truth always hovering in the background -- and we make certain assumptions about those things held in common by all communicants.
>>If so what do you use as a absolute truth in which to compare these truths.<<
My basis is that there is life after death. My basis is that there is something beyond the circularity of the material plane. I know this because for there not to be would merely increase the deficit -- or vanity -- of our existence. If anything, my universe positively screams of balance. Consequently, my absolute truth is expressed in an echo.
Collectively, however, I'd say we use money -- or economics -- as the absolute truth.
>>What do you use in order to decide if something or someone is being truthful or not?<<
Again, rules-of-thumb mostly. This, of course, is to begin with. Pathos, ethos, logos -- that sort of thing. Ultimately, the individual or idea establishes itself on the basis of its established history -- how well he, she, it lives up to its "promise." Of course, if an individual feels they can afford it (or feels they haven't got anything to lose), and at least sees no immediate harm in a postulate, s/he may accept a truth with the understanding that such acceptance is provisional (provisional that it at least continue to do no harm).
How would you reply to your own questions?