Truth

“Truth”

How do YOU define in it?

Are you a Catholic?

Interesting question, I’ll have to think awhile about that before I respond.
Mary.

Truth is what is.

Truth is the correspondence or identity of our minds with what is objectively real.

A more interesting question is “what is real?”

I personally use it only to collectively refer to propositions and statements that are congruent with some aspect of reality; factual statements. When I see some one use it with a capital ‘T’ though I’m never quite sure what is meant (requests for clarity usually don’t result in a definition being provided). The only theme I’ve noticed in it’s usage is that it seems to be attached to something to which people may have strong emotional ties. I look forward to seeing the other responses in this thread.

Nope.

What God said. Its written in the Bible.
Catholic? I thought so. Don’t really know what I am any more, I do know I belong to Christ. He has sustained me longer than the church did, it still can’t make up its mind whether I can come back and commune again. :stuck_out_tongue:

=ThinkingSapien;11771424]I personally use it only to collectively refer to propositions and statements that are congruent with some aspect of reality; factual statements. When I see some one use it with a capital ‘T’ though I’m never quite sure what is meant (requests for clarity usually don’t result in a definition being provided). The only theme I’ve noticed in it’s usage is that it seems to be attached to something to which people may have strong emotional ties. I look forward to seeing the other responses in this thread.

Nope.

I [me] use the “T” to signify that truth is singular per defined issue IMO:)

How do you define Truth?

Are you running for office?

Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

Sirach 22, 11 “worse than death is the life of a fool”

John 14,16 “I am the way the truth and the life.”

That about sums up what we need to know about truth.
You want to get into epistemology? :confused: Why? :shrug:

I think truth is the product of God’s reason. It is the output, if you will, of God’s mind.

I am a hoping to be and trying to be observant Catholic.

Not to argue with your statement, but wouldn’t it follow then that what is “the output of God’s will and mind” is what we call “reality”?

Well personally I see “truth is reality” by way of definition as a tautology. God’s reason creates, incorporates and exceeds reality, our experience of cognizance of some of the truth. But the entirety of God’s reason is the whole of the deposit of truth. At least that’s my view. I think! LOL!

I agree with Biggie.

The source of Truth is God. We humans only know a bit of that complete Truth. We are discovering more each day. But still, the entire amount that is known to man is but a small bit of the total Truth known to God.

It is difficult for any one of us to know what Truth we think we have, to know it perfectly.

Many will disagree with well reasoned statements of truth offered because:
[LIST]
*]they have not yet studied that reasoning sufficiently, or
*]they think they have superior knowledge or
*]because the words used are not the right words that make sense to them, or
*]just to be ornery.
[/LIST]My point is that there is Truth whether we understand it or accept it. Any weakness on our part does not make the Truth wrong.

So it comes down, IMHO, finding a source we can trust and trusting it. But we have to be honest with ourselves: Are we truly looking for Truth or just a source that supports what we personally want to be true?

The best source of Truth I know of and trust is Jesus Christ and the Church He established.

And the only “reality” that we know is what “is”(this fallen world), rather than reality as what ought to be(as God purposed it to be before the Fall).

So therefore “truth” could properly be defined as conforming our minds to the highest good that reality ought to be(in accord with God’s purpose).

Thus any privation of that definition is necessarily false.

I would add the real gorilla in the room is the absence of belief in absolute truth, or the belief in situational truth. If you hold, as we both did, that truth emanates from God himself, then you must also hold that truth is absolute. Since God does not change, truth does not change. This leads directly to the conclusion that absolute right and absolute wrong exist, right being that which accords with the truth and wrong that which does not.

There’s the problem for our time - truth, right, wrong are objective, not subjective. Something cannot be true for me but not for you. Something can’t be wrong for you but right for me. Not if truth emanates from God. And yet how often is that rationalization put forward in our daily lives, in our media, in our own homes and by us to explain our conduct? So consider abortion, the use of birth control, cohabitation, sexual issues, etc…and consider how we explain what we are doing.

Amandil;

So therefore “truth” could properly be defined as conforming our minds to the highest good that reality ought to be(in accord with God’s purpose).

Jesus said two commandments are greatest, does that make them a greatest truth?

Because Jesus was asked about the commandments according to th he Mosaic law, not to define the truth.

Of course the commandments that He said were the greatest commandments are most certainly true.

The “greatest truth” is this: God is. Everything else which is true flows from that fundamental fact.

The problem is that instantly anyone, such as an atheist, will immediately insist that we’re arguing in a circle with that definition.

Amandil;
The “greatest truth” is this: God is.

‘God is’ What?

Can the greatest commandments have a greatest meaning for God?

God loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself, can God love us more than he loves himself?

Jesus Christ who said “I am the truth” not simply “I am speaking the truth” but “I am the truth, the way and the life”, God is the source of all truth and without God there can be no truth.

This I believe is one of the most powerful arguments for theism, because without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless, so the question I ask the atheist is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

C.S. Lewis explains it well I believe.

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. - C.S. Lewis

John Lennox also explains it well I believe

*I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God, for example, in the very fact that we can do science, we believe that the universe is rationally intelligable. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligable? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science. So part of the evidence for God would be the fact that we can do science.

Infact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together.* - John Lennox

It’s not science and theism that are in conflict as most atheists like to claim, it’s actually science and atheism that are in conflict, because atheism cannot even trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

By denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

Thank you for reading
Josh

lol

There are so many men and women today who are like Pilate, upon having the Truth in front of them, they can only think of saying, ‘And what is truth?’ As Pilate, they refuse to see the truth, because they are afraid, because truth makes demands, because truth implies obligations, because truth implies commitment and once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo becomes much harder.

But as I say in my signature, People who live in darkness hate the light and won’t come into the light, because it clearly shows what they have done, but as the light uncovers our sins, love is also there ready to cover them so do not be afraid, God prefers a loving sinner to a loveless ‘saint’

For love of souls, Jesus remains a prisoner in the Holy Eucharist, so that in our sorrow and grief we are being consoled by the most tender of Hearts, by the best of Fathers, by the most loyal friend. But that Love, which is consumed for the good of mankind, is not returned.

Jesus lives amongst us sinners to be our salvation and our life, our doctor and medicine; yet in return, in spite of our sick nature, we distance ourselves from Him.

We should not distance ourselves from Him. He waits for us night and day at the Tabernacle. He will not reproach us for our crimes; He will not throw our sins in our face. What He will do is to wash us with the Blood of His wounds. So do not be afraid;

Jesus did not die on the Cross, and go through a thousand tortures to populate Hell with souls, but rather, to populate Heaven with chosen ones.

Can faithless, rebellious, atheistic, unbelieving men and women possibly say that Jesus Sacrifice at the hands of His executioners was not true, so that they could unleash their rage against Him?

No one can possibly deny it and prove their denial. You, whoever you are who read these lines, do you believe that Jesus died for you? And why do you believe that He did so? no one dies for anyone who is not intensely loved.

My apologies for diverging a bit from the original topic, I just really wanted to share this with you all on here.

Thank you for reading
Josh

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.