Of course, regardless of which eyes one employs, the actual truth is not affected a whit. Which, in turn, does not make it any less curious that there seems to be little agreement about which truths are objectively true ;)
I suspect that unless all are willing to undergo a thought experiment on the order of Descartes’ there will be little agreement on the matter of actual truth. We’d have to agree to take everything off the table – including space, time, geometry, particles, energy – and obviously people, possessions, persuasions, prejudices. We’d have to ponder whether we are figments of each other’s imaginations, parts of vision or visions --- indeed if and, if so, then what we are.
As an example, much of the objection to God I’ve read on this thread is that He cannot be omnipotent on the one hand and have created evil on the other. The presumptions in that statement are myriad, e.g. good v evil, their origins, that omnipotence and evil are mutually exclusive, that mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God, the significance of events within space/time to events outside space/time, etc.
So, if anyone seriously wants to explore actual truth I strongly suggest they first clear the table entirely and then build a language by defining each term as it used.