My kinda girl. Truth is definitely not negotiable. Truth is fact, and facts are truthmakers. Bazinga!

I think our terminology differs, if I replace truth with reality, I agree with what you say. Reality is what is, existence exists regardless of how it is perceived, flawed or otherwise. Many people believe in the Big Bang Theory, to them it is proven true by many complex observations and for many projects, projects and projections it serves the purpose. It is not true to me, I don't accept all of it, there are other possible explanations for the observations. However I think the problem here is maybe I have used the term truth either incorrectly, or at least in a way that differs from others. Words aside, I agree with you.

It is reality that exists without perception. Perception requires observation. If a tree falls in a forest with no-one around to hear, does it still make a noise? I have the words the other way around, our perception colours reality to form what we call truth. And the earth isn't perfectly round, it hasn't always been roughly round and it is unlikely to remain round indefinitely. So we consider the earth being round as a truth, as it is "approximately" true for us, but it is far from a universal truth, it has not and will not be for all of time. To say that the earth is round now, also cannot be a universal truth because of the limitation of "now".

Just my unclear way of expressing myself sadly. I consider truth and reality to be different. So to me, just because something is true to someone, doesn't make it real. But they believe it to be true, so it is true to them. The awkwardness of our words I think. If someone believes something that is not real, would not be called out by a lie detector. Because to them it is the truth however incorrect it may be. I regard truth as personal not universal, hence seeking universal truths.

Yes, I am equating truth to strongly held belief, perhaps i should have used that word instead.

Reality is totally independent of peoples truths, we could be wrong about everything ie our understanding of what is real is incorrect. 2 people facing one another, one says that tree is to the left, the other says it is to the right. Far too over simplified I know, for primitive people the sun revolved around the earth, that is not the reality, but to their understanding it was true.

YES! Thank you for that. I keep repeating myself with people who talk about "their truth". Truth is not relative, nor is it negotiable. When someone says that, I'll suggest they substitute the word "truth" for "opinion". It's important to see the difference. Otherwise, any kind of real truth can be denigrated.

@Rugglesby I think I'd avoid "truth" in these cases to avoid confusion. I understand what you're saying, but it seems like "perspective" is more precise and doesn't butt heads against less relative connotations of "truth."

In the words of a past Prime Minister of Canada... "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

I was so embarrassed...

yes, and "the truth" the ultimate truth, is what i would call reality. I always tell people there are at least 3 side to every argument, the side from the parties involved and the truth.

Of course... And this is the only one I know of!

I would only give that one a maybe, the laws may be constant, but we don't know them all, as far as I know we don'y have a unified theory of relativity, suggesting tat both the existing theories are flawed. All the physical laws seem subject to change. So again, reality is, but our understanding is incomplete.

@Rugglesby , You're a tough nut to crack! The physical laws of this universe are not subject to change, only our understanding of them is.

@The original post literally claims that truth is belief. I presented the issues that are in the grey area to discuss what is “correct” as opposed to what is “true” because I believe the term “universal truth” applies to moral issues and not measurable physical attributes. Those issues are inherently muddy.

the earth has not existed for all of space time, nor will it continue to do so. I love the solar teapot argument, I use it a lot. I use the term universal truth to try and give myself an understanding of reality. Universal truth remains constant throughout space time so can't be accountable to changing human moral values. And maybe it is ok to kill redheads as long as you eat the meat? I am a meat eater, my sense of morality can justify that, but this is coming to an end and I believe I will change my ways. Cannibals eat/ate humans, morally that was ok with them. We get eaten by sharks, I hate that idea, but it is not immoral. BTW, I am a ranga, ie redhead, so please, I was only joking when I said it was ok to eat us.

I never said the earth always was or that the earth was always round. I said the earth was never flat which is true both before and after the existence of the earth Gingers are only good in thin pickled slices with sushi and as breadmen, so most of you guys are safe

@jwm03h - I'm referring to facts that cannot be contradicted by other facts, such as the existence of the sun. Data collection of facts that do not wholly support a given observation are derivations of a truth, not truth itself.

agree totally, Etymology has been a big factor in a lot of this discussion, and if we partially solve that by using the same words, the majority of the discussion would conclude that it is our perception and understanding that is in error and the facts remain absolute.

@irascible - there are personal "opinions", not personal "truths". Truth and facts are non negotiable. The concept of "personal truth" is logically fallacious if you look up the meaning of "truth".

Theorems are true by definition.

In another universe you mean? Perhaps, but there's no point speculating about that, especially when the discussion is about universal truths.

Or for very large values of 1

Only if you are mixing apples and orenges.

very good, thank you, have given me something else to consider.

In fact we do know that the human eye can NOT see every colour that exists uv and ir just for starters. Hence our term visible spectrum. What we learn about sub atomic particles will change a lot of what we now call knowledge in my opinion.

I'm not totally convinced of that one yet.

the speed of light is not constant, it is supposedly so in a vacuum, the theory is also that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And this is true, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, it was an expansion of nothing but it did mover faster than light, it seems likely that nothing having mass can travel as fast as light, yet quantum entanglement seems to prove otherwise, the transfer of vibration between electrons in close proximity is instant. So I wonder if anything else, other than nothing can travel faster than light?

The famous "Speed of Dark". When you turn on a light, the dark was always there first.

is that true? or do you just believe it is true? (joking)

@Rugglesby, ummmm... hmmmm Let me think on it!