# A question for Christians about "truths" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012 "2003-07-12T18:02:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/21 "2003-07-13T21:26:05Z")
\*_TVAA: \*\*\* The given information is not sufficient to determine which one is incorrect (duh)._ Thanks. Fact: each claims to be hungrier than the other. Truth according to TVAA: in my worldview, logic dictates they cannot both be correct. Truth is a way of looking at facts inside a larger theory. ---
**Author:** ![WildChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ec9cab/32.png) [@WildChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildChild)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/22 "2003-07-13T21:26:18Z")
Fact: noun; !. something knowm to be true. 2. Truth or reality of something. 3. piece of information. 4. (law) Actual course of events. 5. (law) Something based on evidence. Truth:noun; 1. True quality. 2. something factual. 3. true statement. 4. obviuos fact. 6. honesty. 7. descriptive accuracy. 8. conformity. 9. Loyalty. 10. (U.K.) Accuracy. Basically they’re the same. Has anyone else ever looked them up?😃 ---
**Author:** ![king\_of\_spain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7cd45c/32.png) [@king\_of\_spain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/king_of_spain)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/23 "2003-07-13T21:30:59Z")
Possibility #4: Hunger isn’t something that can be quantified or measured comparatively at all. In which case any sentence containing the words “hungrier than” or “as hungry as” would be in one sense meaningless…although it would _not_ mean that such a sentence cannot communicate useful information. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/24 "2003-07-13T21:43:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WildChild \* > \*\*Basically they’re the same. Has anyone else ever looked them up?😃 \*\* Sure but dictionaries are descriptive more than prescriptive; we have two different words ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ with two slightly different meanings (otherwise we could delete both of them and just use ‘marklar’ in place of either). Facts are _observed_, truths are _known_. ---
**Author:** ![WildChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ec9cab/32.png) [@WildChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildChild)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/25 "2003-07-13T21:56:57Z")
Funny that you should say that, I didn’t _observe_ WWII or the Civil War. And yet that they happened is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/26 "2003-07-13T22:06:06Z")
I said facts are observed, I didn’t say “In order for something to be a fact, it must have been observed by **WildChild** ”. ---
**Author:** ![WildChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ec9cab/32.png) [@WildChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildChild)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/27 "2003-07-13T22:24:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*Sure but dictionaries are descriptive more than prescriptive; we have two different words ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ with two slightly different meanings (otherwise we could delete both of them and just use ‘marklar’ in place of either). > > Facts are _observed_, truths are _known_. \*\* I said basically, _snifflez_ To get down to it I think it depends on context & opinion anyway. A Christian who has attened a revival will consider God to be a fact. An undeniable part of life and the Universe. Simply because s/he knows that they have _observed_ God in action. Does that mean that He is really there, or is it still just a truth (to them), because **Mangetout** has never _observed_ this phenomenon? Or are we getting off track and being picky? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/28 "2003-07-13T22:25:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **Thanks. Fact: each claims to be hungrier than the other. Truth according to TVAA: in my worldview, logic dictates they cannot both be correct.** Incorrect. Using the standard, non-trivial definitions of the words they use, we can apply logic to find that there are no possibilities where both statements are true. “Worldviews” have nothing to do with objective reality. > [@](#): > > \*\*Truth is a way of looking at facts inside a larger theory. \*\* Truth has nothing to do with our perspectives or viewpoints. The way in which we look at the world and our attempts to describe it is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/29 "2003-07-13T22:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WildChild \* > \*\*I said basically, _snifflez_ > > To get down to it I think it depends on context & opinion anyway. A Christian who has attened a revival will consider God to be a fact. An undeniable part of life and the Universe. Simply because s/he knows that they have _observed_ God in action. Does that mean that He is really there, or is it still just a truth (to them), because **Mangetout** has never _observed_ this phenomenon? > > Or are we getting off track and being picky? \*\* The person who has ‘observed’ God may _believe_ in the factuality of his existence but (as a logical possibility) be simply mistaken; fact is observed, (apparent)observation does not create fact - the horse goes before the cart. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/30 "2003-07-13T22:34:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > “Worldviews” have nothing to do with objective reality. That objective reality exists, and can have logic meaningfully applied to it, is a worldview. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/31 "2003-07-13T23:45:42Z")
TVAA > [@](#): > > Incredible. You’ve gotten the definitions completely wrong! A fact isn’t necessarily true or false: it’s a statement that must be either true or false. A false statement can still be a fact, technically speaking. A true statement is one that accurately reflects the state or condition of the world. All true statements are facts, while not all facts are true statements. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/32 "2003-07-13T23:55:30Z")
TVAA Sorry about that, I hit submit instead of preview. Let’s try again: > [@](#): > > Incredible. You’ve gotten the definitions completely wrong! I didn’t say it was perfect, but it gets me through the day. > [@](#): > > A fact isn’t necessarily true or false: it’s a statement that must be either true or false. A false statement can still be a fact, technically speaking. This is absurd. A fact cannot be false. 1+1=2. That is a fact. There is no discussion. But if you tell me that a virgin gave birth to son, and tell me it’s truth, I’ll tell you you’re full of crap. The **fact** is that a virgin cannot give birth. That truth is an error and not supported by the facts. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/33 "2003-07-14T00:11:23Z")
> [@](#): > > A Christian who has attened a revival will consider God to be a fact. No, they will consider God to be a truth. The existence of God, as yet, cannot be proven as fact. > [@](#): > > Or are we getting off track and being picky? Now that is a **fact**. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/34 "2003-07-14T00:57:57Z")
Have we forgotten 3rd grade English class so soon? Despite the common usage of the term (which applies only to true statements), technically a fact is any statement whose validity is empirically determined. Its opposing concept is the opinion, which cannot be said to be true or false at all. ---
**Author:** ![Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/35a633/32.png) [@Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susma_Rio_Sep)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/35 "2003-07-14T01:02:50Z")
Truth is what works in the mind or outside the mind. Now, if you have something that works both inside the mind and outside, then you have a more reliable truth than one that works only in one but not in the other domain. So, if enough people want to maintain a truth that works only in their mind, then they have to make up many other truths in their mind in order that they all will be functional among themselves within the mind. The trouble with such truths which by example are most religious truth is that they mold behavior outside the mind. No trouble, as long as the behavior is harmless at most. But so soon as it causes any trouble to anyone not espousing such truths, then the law will step in to tell you to just keep your ‘truths’ in your mind. Susma Rio Sep > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*Christians, > > Here are two sets of statements: > > **A statements:** > > 1. 2+2=4. > 2. The earth revolves around the sun. > 3. Most people have 2 hands and 2 feet. > > **B statements:** > 4. God created the universe. > 5. Jesus died for our sins. > 6. We were all born with original sin. > > I’m wondering whether you differentiate between the type of “truth” represented by the A statements, vs. the B statements. Do all 6 statements represent immutable facts of reality, or does subjective opinion enter into any of this? \*\* ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/36 "2003-07-14T01:25:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Have we forgotten 3rd grade English class so soon? Sorry, your feeble attempt to somehow convince me of your intellectual superiorty didn’t work. Nice try though. > [@](#): > > Despite the common usage of the term Isn’t that the whole point of this thread? Isn’t that, essentially, what the OP is asking us to clarify? What, are we supposed to use some arcaic definition of “fact” that no one uses anymore? > [@](#): > > technically a fact is any statement whose validity is empirically determined. Like this one perhaps? Please cite your source for this definition. ---
**Author:** ![ImNotMad2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@ImNotMad2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ImNotMad2)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/37 "2003-07-14T03:55:07Z")
In an attempt to answer the OP… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*Christians, > > Here are two sets of statements: > > **A statements:** > > 1. 2+2=4. > 2. The earth revolves around the sun. > 3. Most people have 2 hands and 2 feet. > > **B statements:** > 4. God created the universe. > 5. Jesus died for our sins. > 6. We were all born with original sin. > > I’m wondering whether you differentiate between the type of “truth” represented by the A statements, vs. the B statements. Do all 6 statements represent immutable facts of reality, or does subjective opinion enter into any of this? \*\* Belief does not shape truth. If I tell you I believe that 2+2=5, then I am wrong, no matter how sincere I may be about it. Those who claim that belief does shape truth are relativists. Relativism is a humanist concept. So, a Christian who claims subjectivity to the truth of the B statements is borrowing relativism from the humanists. Such a compromise is how the cults are born and the result is hardly Christian anymore. “4. God created the universe.” A “Christian” who will not admit this fact is really either an Atheist (though perhaps still a cultural Christian only) or an Agnostic at heart–not a Christian. “5. Jesus died for our sins.” Althouth there are some so-called “Christians” who do not believe this, those who do believe it, believe it as a fact. Indeed, this one fact separates true Christians from the rest of the world–that Jesus paid the penalty in our place for our sins, so that we don’t have to. Nothing we can do on our own can make up for our sins. The penalty for sin is death; that Christ died in our place is the central theme of Christianity. Without it, you have only a cult. “6. We were all born with original sin.” If we were not born in sin, then Jesus would be unnecessary. Without Christ, there is no Christianity. If this is merely a subjective belief, then Christianity is a lie. My point is that a true Christian will see all 6 statements as immutable facts of reality. As soon as subjective opinion enters into this, you no longer have a Christian in the true sense, but either a doubter or a liar. ---
**Author:** ![mama2nate\_anna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9a28c/32.png) [@mama2nate\_anna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mama2nate_anna)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/38 "2003-07-14T04:18:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ImNotMad2 \* > \*\*My point is that a true Christian will see all 6 statements as immutable facts of reality. As soon as subjective opinion enters into this, you no longer have a Christian in the true sense, but either a doubter or a liar. \*\* Finally some sense instead of all this fact vs truth stuff. 🙂 As a Christian I have to say “yes”. I believe all 6 statements are objective truth. I may not be able to prove it right now, but that is why we are called to have FAITH. The Bible says that “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” Does this make me nuts? Nope, it means I believe there is more to “reality” than just what we can see with the eye or measure with a ruler. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/39 "2003-07-14T20:45:36Z")
> [@](#): > > As a Christian I have to say “yes”. I believe all 6 statements are objective truth. You mean **subjective** truth, right? By definition, the last three in the list cannot be **objective** truth if one must rely on faith, rather than observable evidence, to believe them. > [@](#): > > Does this make me nuts? Nope, it means I believe there is more to “reality” than just what we can see with the eye or measure with a ruler. No, it does not make you “nuts”. But, you cannot expect others to believe your ‘truth’ just because you do. I am amazed at how many other Christians (hopefully not you) just expect everyone to automatically accept their doctrine because “the Bible says so”. I’m afraid I find that very difficult to do. I prefer to see with the eye and measure with the ruler… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/40 "2003-07-14T23:34:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mama2nate&anna \* > \*\*Finally some sense instead of all this fact vs truth stuff. 🙂 \*\* The implication is that the debate over terms is not actually ‘sense’, but I believe this to be wrong; unless we are very clear about what we mean when we say ‘truth’ or ‘fact’, then there is no point using the words at all. Might just as well say that the existence of God is an undisputable _snid_ and also a verifiable _frooj_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012.md?page=3)