Truth vs Fact.

[bhsmte]

That's probably why we're in the pickle we're in.

One way to look at it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem is that in your examples of "truth" you cannot demonstrate them to be true. So how do you know?

Would it help if I presented a better example?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would it help if I presented a better example?

I sincerely doubt it...but go ahead. Maybe it would help if you told us what the difference is between the truth and your opinion as you see it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I sincerely doubt it...but go ahead. Maybe it would help if you told us what the difference is between the truth and your opinion as you see it?

Regarding subjects that I'm interested in there is no difference. I don't see very many things in shades of grey; too old I guess.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Regarding subjects that I'm interested in there is no difference. I don't see very many things in shades of grey; too old I guess.

Lol so a better title for this thread would've been..."Wanna hear the truth? Just ask OldGuy"

 

[paulm50]

Usually there is little difference between truth and fact when closely examined. Here I present what I consider to be an example of the difference.

It is a fact that immigrants seek a better life in America because of problems in their native lands.

It is the truth that they should stay and work to solve those problems in their native lands.

Note that the truth statement contains a moral element.

Comments or other examples?

The problem is their inability to change to solve their own problems in their own lands. In fact if they really wanted a better life in the West, they would change when they get here.

In Europe we see this very clearly. We have huge problems with migrants who think they should keep to their old religions and cultures. Be they FGM, arranged marriages, honour killings, teaching their children a foreign culture, food traditions, oppression of women, living in ghettos by choice. If they're unable to change once in the West, the chances of them changing their homeland are very long.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

worldly rivalry diverts... until you visit the graves

???

I mentioned that because the thread was turning into a bit of a political apologetic about which system and which particular ideology is the best. The quote came from the koran, and is about pileing up of worldly goods. Visiting the grave may mean a trip to the cemetery where our mortality is remembered, or actual death which puts an end to our worldly advances and fortunes.

Aslo, rivalry and keeping up with ther Jones family, or trying to have more and compare, is not that healthy a psychological approach to happiness. Its more productive to be mindful, and focus non happiness immedictaly, rather than that gained through comparing with others.

It fits in to the OP topic obliquely, because for me ethical is factual and truthful, but the "truth of goodness, the full life" etc is often said to be misconceived (in my faith anyway) in purely worldly terms. Like being wealthy, or the national economic interest etc. Focus on this primarily and it corrupts the soul.

So actually worldly rivalry, even if aiming at YOLO (you only live once) happiness, is life denying a lot of the time.

Froma a hadith: "The Religion is nasihah (sincerity and sincere advice)."

Much of the time, because it leads to a mad scamble for more, a materialistic jihad (struggle, effort, striving), and so the "grave" (visiting the grave) may mean also that poor life, the unhappy mind which results from a overly competitive, and worldly based drive and culture.

It is sometimes mentioned that many wealthy people are not that happpy, they are stressed and afraid - not that content. So although wealth and worldly goods are necessary, and good in due measure, making them the sole objective can actually undermine the initial secular purpose of the balanced life.

Koran 57:20

Know that the life of this world is only play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children, as the likeness of vegetation after rain, thereof the growth is pleasing to the tiller; afterwards it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes straw.

 

[juvenissun]

Seriously? But isn't truth commonly defined as, "in accordance with fact or reality" or even just "fact"?

E.T.A. as in the swearing in of witnesses: "I swear ... to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ...". What is this if not swearing to recount only the facts?

That is what this thread is talking about. In the swearing, they are the same thing. It is an abbreviation of: "tell the true facts", or simply "tell the facts".

If the truth is defined as the way an atheist would do, then the court hearing would absolutely be a disaster.

 

[juvenissun]

That sounds pretty confident. Perhaps then you can respond to the Euthyphro Dilemma (paraphrased) - is it absolute truth because God says so, or does God say it because it is absolute truth? in other words, is the word of God absolute truth by definition, or are the absolute truths independent of God?

In this case, it is the simplest question to answer: Whatever God says IS the truth.

However, the hidden logic extension could also include: what God does not say may also be true. But it would be in the category of interpretation and is subjected to review.

 

[KCfromNC]

Except for those pesky facts which assembled in one place yields the (gasp) godawful truth.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, since it has no relationship to anything else you've written so far in this thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

This thread is perfect for this moment. What you said are FACTS. They have nothing to do with truth.

Don't try to confuse me with the facts, I know the truth!

 

[paulm50]

In this case, it is the simplest question to answer: Whatever God says IS the truth.

However, the hidden logic extension could also include: what God does not say may also be true. But it would be in the category of interpretation and is subjected to review.

Agreed 100%.

When I hear from god and not a man claiming he hears from god. I will do as he says.

And no replied that I have to believe god's talking to me to hear god. I believe he can talk to me, if he's god. It's just that he has nothing to say to me.

David Koresh and Charles Manson both believed they could speak to god. As does this man.

Are they all wrong?

 

[paulm50]

That is what this thread is talking about. In the swearing, they are the same thing. It is an abbreviation of: "tell the true facts", or simply "tell the facts".

If the truth is defined as the way an atheist would do, then the court hearing would absolutely be a disaster.

Tell the facts.

Fact, men wrote the bible. Their claim that god was speaking to them isn't a fact. Unless you can prove it with facts.

If the truth is defined in the way the religious define it, then they would tell the jury. You have to believe I'm telling you the illogical is true, just because I tell you.

To be honest this has been how religion has been allowed to act for the last maybe 15,000 years. Now we have proof much of what the bibles say is wrong and the writings of men, telling us to believe, or else.

 

[SkyWriting]

Usually there is little difference between truth and fact when closely examined. Here I present what I consider to be an example of the difference.

It is a fact that immigrants seek a better life in America because of problems in their native lands.

It is the truth that they should stay and work to solve those problems in their native lands.

Note that the truth statement contains a moral element.

Comments or other examples?

The truth is that they come to America for many reasons.

So the truth is, morality is not required in a truth statement.

 

[bhsmte]

In this case, it is the simplest question to answer: Whatever God says IS the truth.

However, the hidden logic extension could also include: what God does not say may also be true. But it would be in the category of interpretation and is subjected to review.

When you can come up with a reliable way to determine what God says, let us know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The truth is that they come to America for many reasons.

So the truth is, morality is not required in a truth statement.

This is also true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, since it has no relationship to anything else you've written so far in this thread.

Au contraire, it is my point exactly. We assemble facts to arrive at truth. That is why both terms are used. The "whole" truth means not only certain facts, but all relative facts. Mitigating circumstances are an example of facts the clarify other facts and contribute to the "conclusion of the matter", the truth.

My whole point is that the terms "fact" and "truth", while synonyms, often have different meanings.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't try to confuse me with the facts, I know the truth!

My truth is different from yours.

 

[juvenissun]

Tell the facts.

Fact, men wrote the bible. Their claim that god was speaking to them isn't a fact. Unless you can prove it with facts.

If the truth is defined in the way the religious define it, then they would tell the jury. You have to believe I'm telling you the illogical is true, just because I tell you.

To be honest this has been how religion has been allowed to act for the last maybe 15,000 years. Now we have proof much of what the bibles say is wrong and the writings of men, telling us to believe, or else.

Both of your replies to me are out of the topic.

 

[juvenissun]

When you can come up with a reliable way to determine what God says, let us know.

Read the Bible.

Of course, this is to assume that you are a Christian. If you are not, then you can not enjoy any absolute truth, because it does not exist to you.