• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What makes something true?

maro

maro

muslimah
Willamena said:
What makes something true?
Click to expand...

i believe something is true when it proves itself to be true

what causes truth?
Click to expand...

some truth can be explained ,while others can't

for example , it's true that my friend loves me ,i believe it's true because i can feel it and see it in her actions and beautiful smile

and i can list some good reasons for this truth

it's true that God exists ,i believe it's true because i can feel it , and i can see it in his
wonderful perfect creation , his mercy and care that surrounds me all the time

but i can't state reasons for this , and i am not trying to figure any reasons too ,because i belive this is far beyond my limits
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
A map is said to be true to the extent that it accurately predicts its terrain.
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Willamena said:
What makes something true?
Click to expand...

If you read it on the internet
icon14.gif
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
I haven't quite decided on the nature of causation, but really, something is true if it is experienced as such. If empirical data formulated through the observations of cause and effect (or effect and cause, as it were) cause this truth to be shown as false, then it is no longer true.

Could Truth and False be merely mental states, useless outside of the brain?
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
This is more an epistemological question than one might at first realize. Most people have suggested that truth reveals itself. Who does it reveal itself to? The human mind, our "discerning faculty" as either Locke or Descartes put it. The problem is, how do we know we have really discerned truth, rather than merely thought we did? Truth "proves itself" to be true, as Maro suggested, but we still have to be able to differentiate between when something proves itself and merely seems to prove itself to be true. Chisholm spoke of the "problem of the wheel", wherein, when attempting to apprehend truth, we must first be able to differentiate between true and false appearances. To differentiate, we must have a method for differentiation. However, in order to know that our method is successful---i.e. in order to know that we have successfully discerned truth from falsehood---we must already know true appearance from false appearances. This forces us to assume one of two things: either there is a criterion of knowledge---a method which UNFAILINGLY points us toward truth without requiring us to differentiate between true and false---or there are certain things we inherently know, without needing to differentiate between true and false. Obviously, we're in a bit of an epistemological pickle. :p
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Runt said:
To differentiate, we must have a method for differentiation. However, in order to know that our method is successful---i.e. in order to know that we have successfully discerned truth from falsehood---we must already know true appearance from false appearances. This forces us to assume one of two things: either there is a criterion of knowledge---a method which UNFAILINGLY points us toward truth without requiring us to differentiate between true and false---or there are certain things we inherently know, without needing to differentiate between true and false. Obviously, we're in a bit of an epistemological pickle. :p
Click to expand...
Or, unless truth is the method? Though I guess that could be the same as the first option.
 
S

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
A map is said to be true to the extent that it accurately predicts its terrain.
Click to expand...

We could also say that the terrain is different from the directional markings on the map. Would this mean that only our minds may be true since the illustrations are merely for making predictions? I suppose if the impressions prove useful then there might be something to say about the relative reliable of the senses as well in collecting data initially. The synthesis and interpretation of data is a different story however.

It does seem like truth only has value in so far as it has utility in some context though. For example, we still convict criminals in court, even if the process is messy and imperfect.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Zombie thread!


Presumably something is true if there is an isomorphic relationship between the outside world, one separate from human thought, and the language we are using to describe that world.
 
S

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
It's also possible that "truth" is, as Richard Rorty claimed, just a compliment we pay to sentences that are seen to be paying their own way. I'm not sure whether or not to compliment his proposition as "true" though. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top