'Truth' as a man-made concept has just been refuted.

Proof of any kind

but if you call me on the phone and tell me your cup is on the table, i've no way of knowing it's a true statement. so without my going to your home and observing your cup on the table it's your truth, not mine. for me to believe what you say is true would require faith.

The question isn't about what it takes for one to become aware of the facts by virtue of which the statement obtains.



If the statement is true, then it is true regardless of whether or not one believes. Perhaps I would be able to better understand what you're saying if you could describe exactly what it is that you're calling "your truth". It seems to me like you are referring to that which I hold to be true.



We're not talking about belief though. We're talking about what it takes for a statement to be true. Belief is insufficient for truth, as is faith.

well, i've told you what it takes for a statement to be true to me. you dissagree but that is my view nonetheless.

jrbogie,

If the statement were changed perhaps the idea of what it takes for it to be true would be clear.

"There is a bomb in your car."

Now whether or not you see it or believe it, you really need to know the truth of that statement.

What would it take for that statement to be true?

If and only if there is a bomb in your car, that statement is true.

It does not matter if you see it or believe it or experience it. I don't think you will want to experience it first hand. I don't think you would want to go to your car and get in and start it until you were quite sure one way or the other.

Not believing the statement will not help save your life if the statement is true.

It's no more coherent now than it was then. What are you calling "your truth" and "my truth"?

Really...

It truth was indeed a "truth"...

There would be no need for the word.

Truth would simply BE.

any word mankind voices has its opposit.

and is a 'tool' of man.

Easily twisted by the tongue's and pen's of men.

Till that word is surrounded by but a confusion of Ideas and a fog of babel.

I have to agree with Creative on this.

Truth is.

The only reason we need the word "truth" is to distinguish it from the opposite which are man made concepts. (Lies and Things that are not truth.)

Deceit, lies, misunderstandings, wrong interpretations, ignorance etc.

if i go and see the bomb then i'd agree the statement was true. but i can excercise caution and not approach the car if i think the person making the statement is credible. i would not have to believe that there is a bomb in the car to be cautious of the possibility or even probability that there is a bomb in the car. i can simply think that there is likely a bomb in the car as i think it likely the big bang occured.

when i say that i experienced something that is my truth but not necessarily your truth. what your truth is i cannot say because you use words suchs as belief and faith in describing your truth. words that do not apply to me. nonetheless, we all hold truth individually.

While all of that above is just common sense, you will still, at some point, want to know if the statement is true or not.

The statement that 'there is a bomb in your car' is only true if there is a bomb in your car.

That is what it takes for the statement to be true.

What you believe is irrelevant. What you experience is irrelevant.

what i believe is indeed irrelevant. that's why i believe nothing. regardles, for me to consider it true that there is a bomb i must see the bomb, unil then it's all supposition. a supposition that suggests caution for sure but a supposition nonetheless. saying, 'he told me there's a bomb in the car and i suppose that if what he says is true, maybe it is, maybe not, it makes sense to err on the side of caution so i won't go near the car', would be a common sense approach to the situation. still, i've no way to know that his statement is true.

Supposing that it is possible that there is a bomb in the car is believing that it is possible.



The state of mind is the same.

nowhere in any dictionary have i seen the word 'believe' associated with the word 'suppose.' i see 'hypothesis', 'assume', but no 'belief' or any dirivitive of the word.

Type supposition into the google box...

I believe that there could be a bomb in the car. If I spoke to the person who planted the bomb and he tells me there is a bomb and he appears to be telling the truth and has no reason to lie I will probably believe it even more. I would not claim to "know" it first hand, but I might chose to believe it.

To believe it does not mean that I am absolutely certain, it simply means that I have chosen to believe that he is telling the truth. Why should I not?

But the statement is only true if indeed there is a bomb in the car. What I believe is irrelevant.

For you to continue to claim that you "do not believe anything" is clearly you being unwilling to admit that you were mistaken for having made that claim or else you feel that "to believe" something means that you are absolutely certain of it.

Therefore I don't believe that you don't believe anything.

But you never answered my question about if you believed you are right.

So here is another question:

Do you believe that you don't believe anything?

Do you actually believe your own statement?

sup·po·si·tion/ˌsəpəˈziSHən/
Noun:


An uncertain belief.

Let's try to keep this one based upon statements being true.

What would it take for "I believe nothing" to be true?

Is "I don't believe anything." and "I believe nothing." the same thing?