Truth is a choice

Yap it seams right that I was not mistaken about you, you simply are not honest...no point in addressing your nonsense after all, definitely on ignore now.

This is ridiculous.

You claim that I believe that there is no such thing as truth.

That is wrong. I do NOT believe that, and the fact is that you ignore me when I point that out and proceed to argue against an idea you introduced.

I do not object to the idea that an " actual state of affairs" is a meaningful concept in certain contexts. But you proceed to name this thing Truth with a capital T and trumpets blaring, and ignore every request for a reasonable argumentation for this idea.

I don't see how your reply has anything much to do with my point. I argued that to say that if you believe something is true, it thereby is true, leads to a contradiction, since if A believes p is true, and B believes that not-p is true, it would follow from your view that both p and -p were true. And to say that both p and -p are true is a contradiction. Whether or not people choose their beliefs has nothing at all to do with it. And neither does the question whether or not people believe that the concept of God exists or not. Those two are different issues, and logically unrelated to the the one you raised.

If wether or not people chose their beliefs has nothing to do with it, and my reply to you has nothing to do with your point, how is your point relevant to the issue I am trying to discuss in starting this thread? Perhaps you are slighly off topic?

Your objections would be reasonable if it weren't for the fact that we can all, with little or no effort, think of conflicting truths among humans. There are many aspects of existence in which both p and -p is true depending who you ask. So it is clear that truth value in such aspects is assigned and negotiated. And the only thing that validates the truth of what you believe in is your choice to believe in it.

It would help us to establish what is "a truth that isn't a fact". An example of such a truth is "it is wrong to kill".
A truth that is also a fact is "if you do not get nutrition you will die". The latter is not a matter of choice, but if you do not agree that the former is, then what would you say it is a matter of?

No, only choises that does not involve emotional implications, nor appeal to any subconcious compulsive behaviour, then you can make a concious choise, else people will choose a lie over a truth.

I can't make sense of your claim here that "belief is what decides what is truth", in any circumstance.
Can you demonstrate what you mean? Perhaps, some examples where 'any' truth is decided by belief.
I agree that all of truth is decided by some system of decision.
But, none of these 'methods of decision' include belief as a factor in deciding what is true or false.

Indeed, I suggest that you cannot show that: you believe any proposition is true.
That is to say, truth does not depend on anyone's belief.

How do you prove that you do believe a particular proposition??
Assumption, opinion, etc., are closer to belief than truth.

But you don't mean "conflicting truths among humans". That makes no sense. What you have to mean is conflicting beliefs among humans. That is, people sometimes believe different things, and sometimes those beliefs are incompatible with each other. For example some people believed that the Earth was flat, and others that the Earth was round. Both of those beliefs could not have been true (although both could have been false). When two (or more) beliefs cannot both be true, they we call them conflicting (or incompatible) beliefs. And then, of course, the question arises of which of the conflicting beliefs (if any) is true? But a belief does not become true just because it is believed, since (as we all know) some beliefs are true, and some beliefs are false. But there are no "conflicting truths" there are conflicting beliefs.

There are instances when what is believed true depends on who is asked. But there are no instances when what is true depends on who is asked. The shape of the Earth (whatever it is) is the shape of the Earth, and what that shape is does not depend on who is asked. But, of course, what is believed is the shape of the Earth does depend on who is asked.

Now, that said, it is also true that there are some kinds of beliefs where there is no real question of truth or falsity at all. Suppose I believe that vanilla is the best ice-cream flavor, and suppose you believe that chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor. In such a case, it is not (as you said) that what is true depend on who it is you ask (although what you probably mean is what is believed true depends on who it is you ask) but, rather, there is no truth or falsity at stake here. It is not true (or false) that vanilla is the best ice-cream flavor. There is, in such a case, "no fact of the matter". Such beliefs we call, "matters of taste", and not "matters of fact". Or sometimes we call them, "matters of opinion". Now, it is clear that such questions as what is the best flavor of ice-cream are "matters of taste" or "matters of opinion", and not matters of fact. (Although, note, the question, "what flavor of ice-cream is thought to be the best flavor?" is not a matter of opinion, since we can take a survey and find out the correct answer to that question, do the answer to the question is a matter of fact). But are there other questions that are like the question about the flavor of ice-cream that are questions of opinion and not questions of fact? Well people often differ on that issue. Some will say that all questions of value are questions of opinion and not questions of fact. Even such questions as, for instance, where abortion is wrong or right. Some people will hold that question is a matter of (ethical) fact. And some, it is a question of opinion.

Now, however you come down on such an issue as to what kinds of questions or issue or beliefs are questions of fact, and what kinds are questions of opinion, you have to allow that there is that difference between the two sorts of questions, and also the two kinds of beliefs. Is the belief, for instance, that Napoleon was the greatest general the world has ever seen a matter of fact, or is it a matter of opinion. And you also have to allow that there are clear cases of beliefs of fact like what the shape of the Earth is, and also clear cases of belief of opinion, like what the best flavor of ice-cream is. And, also, that some beliefs are of one kind, and other beliefs are of the other kind, even if people may disagree about some beliefs, to which kind those beliefs belong.

Finally, when you say that what is true depends on what is believed true, you must be thinking of beliefs of opinion when there is no real issue of truth or falsity at all. So, you might say that if someone believes that vanilla is the best flavor, then it it is true ("for him") And if someone else believes chocolate is the best flavor, then it is true (for him). And about such beliefs ("opinion-beliefs", we might call them) I suppose you could say that if someone beliefs it, it is true. but what you are really saying is that there is really no question of truth or falsity involved at all, since it is a matter of opinion, and not a matter of fact. But, you can't think that all beliefs are "opinion-beliefs" can you. For instance, that Mars is the fourth planet is not an opinion belief, but it is a factual belief. And about factual beliefs it is not true that if it is believed it is true. Since whether factual beliefs are true does not depend on whether they are believed or not, but depends on the facts, and the facts are independent of our beliefs.

I think you problem is that you think that all beliefs are opinion-beliefs, and have forgotten that there are factual beliefs too. And so, you say that whether a belief is true depend on who it is you ask. But that is not the case for factual beliefs, is it? There is also a linguistic difficulty: I think that many people (you included" sometimes use the term "belief" in such a way as only to mean "opinion", and therefore, you hold that all beliefs are only matters of opinion, and that, therefore, there is no issue of (objective) truth or falsity about them. But you have to remember that many people do not use "belief" only to mean "opinion", but rather to mean something that is true or false independently of what anyone thinks. For instance, when an astronomer asserts that he believes that Mars is the fourth planet, he is certainly not simply asserting his "own" opinion on the matter. The is saying that he not merely believes that Mars is the fourth planet, but that it is true that it is, and that it is true that Mars is the fourth planet whether or not anyone believes it is (including the astronomer himself).

Guys, back up a bit.

First off, what is truth?
I define truth as a concept that classifies human knowledge, understanding and belief. It is a tag we put on whatever we wish to establish the truth value of, but only if it satisfies certain criteria.

All truths that are also facts have criteria that cannot be said to be a matter of choice, at least not directly. That "water freezes at zero degrees celcius" isn't a matter of choice. But if you think that the truth value of that statement comes from the actual physical phenomenon you are mistaken. The truth value of it comes from it's descriptive properties, it's ability to meaningfully communicate a description of this process as it is percieved by us.

And I didn't say that belief decides what is truth. I said that sometimes it is a matter of choice what is true. This is the case when there are no facts to directly support the claim you hold as true. An example of such a truth can be "modern capitalism is fair".
Is that statement true or not? The answer to that question does not depend on what capitalism actually is. It depends on what you believe it is, and how you chose to relate to it.

Remember what I said? All truths that are not also facts...

I think your problem is that you are not paying attention.
And you do not seem to understand that "the actual state of affairs" isn't what "truth" is about. Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with that, but everything to do with our ability to describe it in ways that give meaning.

But all truths are facts. To say, "that is the truth" and to say, "that is the fact" is to say the same thing in different word. What is true is that not all beliefs are facts, and so, not all beliefs are true. Some beliefs are true (facts) and some are not.

I am not sure what your view is about the relation between descriptions and truth. What you say is unclear. But what is clear is that whether a sentence is true (maybe that is what you mean by "description", you mean a descriptive sentence) depend, is part on the meaning of the sentence. If I state that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, whether that sentence (description?) is true depend on what "Quito" "Ecuador", "capital" and so on mean. If "Quito" meant what "La Paz" means, and if "Ecuador" meant what "Brazil" meant, then that sentence would not be true, it would be false. But, of course, the very same sentence with all the meaning the same could still be false (even if all the meanings were the same) if the what it expressed to be a fact was not a fact. So, if not Quito, but Guyaquil (Ecuador's second city) were the capital of Ecuador, then the sentence, "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" would then be false, even if the sentence (descrption) remained the same as it now is when that sentence (description) is true.

No. Fact is not the same as truth.
A fact is by definition true, but a truth isn't neccesarily a fact, simply because the requirements for anything to be called fact are not always possible to satisfy.
"Water freezes at zero degrees celcius". This proposition is directly supported by fact, and is true.
"Global capitalism is fair". That is not proposition that is supported directly by any facts, and therefore it is not as simple to determine if the statement is true or not.

Of course, what else could it be ?
That every sentence it is true as a sentence does not amount that every sentence refers to a true state of something to which it try´s to refer, although of course I do think that all sentences refer to some actual condition whether we can or know how to properly clarify to what they actually refer...so a sentence its wrong if it try´s to refer to something which it cannot clarify, although it may be argued that a sentence even when misinterpreting its objective inevitably refers to something else...

One could argue that:

A -if Socrates is a Man
B - and all men are mortal
C - ...therefore Socrates its not mortal
there must be such an unknown category taken as "Man" to which the unexpected condition of Socrates apply´s and which does not follow from the second premise...

therefore to say:

That all Man in B does n´t relate to the implicit notion of Man in A to which Socrates relates in C.

...In this conception the true state of every agent is established by its Cosmogony background and its not independent of the whole in which is integrated...this principle of analysis which I propose fits many worlds hypothesis and integrates the notion of context function in all agents considered.

Nonsense!

A -if Socrates is a Man
B - and all men are mortal
C - ...therefore Socrates its not mortal

The term 'man' refers to the same domain in both A and B...necessarily!
(Logical syntax demands it)
Your argument, (A & B) -> C, is an invalid argument.

Socrates is not mortal, contradicts the premisses, Socrates is a man. & All men are mortal.

It cannot be the case that A, B and C are true.

Don't bother. Fil makes his own rules. If they sparkle and dazzle him that's good enough for him.

1 - Can you read the does not follow part ???
If it is to teach me the obvious then your are far more stupid then what I anticipated...

2 - I don´t make my own rules but instead try to make every possible variation of a rule and see how it fits with the context, or what it can ad that was not considered before...(often I do it against my own beliefs just to see what comes out of it)

Dictionary, WordWeb Pro:
believe.
Any cognitive content held as true
The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
Detected by means of the senses

sum:
Any perception by means of the senses.

True:
Conforming to definitive criteria
A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated

wordweb is not that good, but the point is, belief is based on perception, while true is the result of a comparison.
Not the same.

Or in simple terms, although conception depends on perception for judgment, it is not that which judges. Judgment is the result of a comparison, perception is raw data.

I don't agree with either of you.
Facts are 'states of affairs', situations, happenings.
Factual truth is that truth which describes a state of affairs, and is decided in virtue of 'the facts' by a correspondence theory.
I agree with you in that, all truths are not just 'factual truths' but also include 'logical truths' tautologies...mathematics.

My definition on close inspection does not contradict the one you presented, but instead points out to transcendental elsewhere systems that may for all we know have true value...nevertheless it does not relate them once the premisses cannot follow from each other in the same system...