*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.
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?
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.
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.
Funny that you should say that, I didn’t observe WWII or the Civil War. And yet that they happened is a fact.
I said facts are observed, I didn’t say “In order for something to be a fact, it must have been observed 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?
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 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.
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.
That objective reality exists, and can have logic meaningfully applied to it, is a worldview.
TVAA
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.
TVAA
Sorry about that, I hit submit instead of preview. Let’s try again:
I didn’t say it was perfect, but it gets me through the day.
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.
No, they will consider God to be a truth. The existence of God, as yet, cannot be proven as fact.
Now that is a fact.
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.
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
Sorry, your feeble attempt to somehow convince me of your intellectual superiorty didn’t work. Nice try though.
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?
Like this one perhaps? Please cite your source for this definition.
In an attempt to answer the OP…
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.