What is true/truth?

[FireDragon76]

And if what you say is correct, doesn't help humans much to be able to determine if an invisible God is the truth, wouldn't ya think?

I don't see the fact it involves faith as a detriment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Truth is the conclusion arrived at after all the facts are known.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No. You need to study some psychology. Or look into the duckrabbit for an example of your senses being completely confused. Our senses do not necessarily help us discern truth, if anything they obscure it further. Our 5 senses are often ambiguous and unreliable.

If my senses are unreliable, then I suppose I am unable to read your post. I could be seeing entirely different words, right?

That would be silly and you know it, since you wrote that post with every expectation that other people would be able to read the words that you had typed.

The fact is: our senses are reliable enough to help us discern truth. And where we may misinterpret what we sense, we are able to use our senses to identify and sort out those problems. That's because, for instance, our senses are reliable enough that we are able to discern optical illusions and know them for what they are. This is why we even speak of optical illusions as "illusions".

So, we as human beings, products of evolution, are fully capable of progressing in knowledge based on the evidence that our senses provide us with.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Kylie]

Truth is the conclusion arrived at after all the facts are known.

Actually, you don't always need to know ALL the facts. If I look only in the bottom of my cup and see that it's dry, I don't need to look at the halfway point to know that there is also no water there. I can conclude it based on the fact that the water fills the bottom of the cup first before filling the higher parts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, you don't always need to know ALL the facts. If I look only in the bottom of my cup and see that it's dry, I don't need to look at the halfway point to know that there is also no water there. I can conclude it based on the fact that the water fills the bottom of the cup first before filling the higher parts.

The word truth implies something greater than mere facts, such as the adherence to principal. It has a spiritual quality as well.

You need to know enough of the facts to arrive at the larger truth, as in a trial. Facts can be withheld and thus deny arriving at the truth. Of course you can change the wording to say you have gathered enough of the little facts to arrive at THE BIG FACT.

 

[Kylie]

The word truth implies something greater than mere facts, such as the adherence to principal. It has a spiritual quality as well.

You need to know enough of the facts to arrive at the larger truth, as in a trial. Facts can be withheld and thus deny arriving at the truth. Of course you can change the wording to say you have gathered enough of the little facts to arrive at THE BIG FACT.

Truth is "what actually is." I don't see how it requires there to be anything more than a fact, nor do I see why it must include some spiritual aspect to it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Truth is "what actually is." I don't see how it requires there to be anything more than a fact, nor do I see why it must include some spiritual aspect to it.

You can arrange 'facts' into a lie, thus violate the principle of fact-gathering on a given matter. You can't do that with truth, which is the conclusion reached after all the pertinent facts are gathered. So "what seems to be" becomes "what actually is".

 

[durangodawood]

You can arrange 'facts' into a lie, thus violate the principle of fact-gathering on a given matter. You can't do that with truth, which is the conclusion reached after all the pertinent facts are gathered. So "what seems to be" becomes "what actually is".

The arrangement of facts IS a fact.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The arrangement of facts IS a fact.

It is that.

 

[Kylie]

You can arrange 'facts' into a lie, thus violate the principle of fact-gathering on a given matter. You can't do that with truth, which is the conclusion reached after all the pertinent facts are gathered. So "what seems to be" becomes "what actually is".

Can you give an example of this from the real world?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you give an example of this from the real world?

Sure. It is a fact that the forest roads where I hunt are littered with beer cans. It is the truth that if I want it cleaned up I must do it myself.

 

[Kylie]

Sure. It is a fact that the forest roads where I hunt are littered with beer cans. It is the truth that if I want it cleaned up I must do it myself.

Actually, I meant, can you give an example of a lie that is made up of facts.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, I meant, can you give an example of a lie that is made up of facts.

Perhaps a lie of omission? Cherry-picking facts that while individually true when combined produce a misleading view of the overall picture?

Not that I think this helps with the attempted fact - truth distinction being made here, though, since each individual fact is true even if the larger picture is misleading or false.

 

[Lollerskates]

True-
Adjective
Agreeing with the facts, not false
Real or genuine
Having all the expected or necessary qualities of the specified type of person or thing

What is true/truth to you as a human being? How do you see what is true or truth in your life? Some people say that facts are true if they are only testable with tools and human senses. I say that truth and facts of truth go much deeper than that, to a dimensional level of being.

John 17:17 says
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

John 8:32 says
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

1 Corinthians 13:6:
"Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth."

Galatians 4:16:
"Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"

I've often heard it said, that truth is relative. I see this as a dismissal of the truth, and a cop out. Universal truths exist throughout the very fabric of life. In my opinion, it starts and ends with Jesus Christ. For others, this might not be truth to them. It just seems that as humanity gets closer to annihilating itself, the truth becomes ever more present in our lives. Is Jesus Christ really the truth to you, and if not, why?

Truth is testable not only in the visible, radio, chemical, or pressure spectra of humans - it is testable and vindicated over all possible modes of observation. That includes the entire EM spectrum, philosophy, metascience, and ultimate sights.

Truth is truth - and real truth forces people to either be 100% against it, or 100% for it. It doesn't allow for grey area because the presentation of truth is only undeniable if you use all resources (100%) to ignore and discredit/disbelieve it.

 

[Huntun]

That definition seems to previlege the correspondence theory of truth . Other theories of truth are also part of the philosophic debate and the correspondence theory is hardly something universally agreed upon.

Others include

The Pragmatic Theory of truth
The Coherence Theory of truth
The Semantic Theory of truth
The Divine Command Theory of truth.

Then there is the redundancy theory of truth which claims that "asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, asserting the sentence " 'Snow is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting the sentence "Snow is white". Redundant theorists infer from this premise that truth is a redundant concept, in other words, that "truth" is a mere word that is conventional to use in certain contexts of discourse but not a word that points to anything in reality."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, I meant, can you give an example of a lie that is made up of facts.

Deliberately withholding evidence by a dishonest or overzealous prosecutor that results in a wrongful conviction.

 

[Kylie]

And how do you figure that works? That's withholding facts, not presenting them. The facts themselves are not leading to a lie.

Please give me a sequence of facts that lead to a falsehood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how do you figure that works? That's withholding facts, not presenting them. The facts themselves are not leading to a lie.

False conclusions can be reached if critical facts are missing.

 

[Kylie]

False conclusions can be reached if critical facts are missing.

Then that is the fault of the person interpreting those facts, not the facts themselves. And even if critical facts are missing, any accurate facts will NOT eliminate the truth as an option, will they?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then that is the fault of the person interpreting those facts, not the facts themselves. And even if critical facts are missing, any accurate facts will NOT eliminate the truth as an option, will they?

Facts are just tools. You can build something with them, or destroy something with them.