Truth vs. Fact

'Truth' is subjective. What's true for you might not be true for me. Facts, on the other hand, are always verifiable.

Some philosophers say the world is just an illusion or dream, and if that's so, can there really be any "truths" in illusions and dreams?

"You can be in my dream if i can be in your dream" -Bob Dylan
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on" -The Tempest
"Strawberry Fields...nothing is real" - The Beatles
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one'' -Einstein
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes" (James 4:14)
"You are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
I'm trying to free your mind. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it" (Morpheus in The Matrix)
Jesus said "God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners..to release the oppressed" (Luke 4:18 )

David Icke calls our reality a 'Dreamworld', so if we regard Jesus as a 'master of the art of dream manipulation', it'd explain how he was able to bend the laws of physics to create what people called "miracles."

An intriguing follow-up question would therefore be- "Are we in Jesus's dream, or is Jesus in our dream?"..

One then must decide what degree of certainty must be applied to accept a statement as truth. An interesting exchange, recorded by the apostle John in his Gospel at ch 18, vss. 37 and 38 went like this: Jesus proclaimed he came to "bear witness to the truth". Pilate replied "What is truth?" The answer has profound implications for mankind.

Had you been able to ask, say, Aristotle, whether it was true that the sun revolved around the earth, he might well have answered that this 'truth' is self-evident to any observer. He had the exact same set of data, of 'facts', at his disposal that you and I do, but his 'truth' was miles from what we consider to be 'true.'

Ahh, yes. That verfiability certainty thing again

This is worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Imagine an explorer in the deepest Amazon jungle coming across a friendly undiscovered tribe who were eager for knowledge. He decides to stay with them to learn their language, and after a few months he sits down with them and says "Okay let me tell you the truth-
We're on a big ball of mud called earth that's moving through space at 65,000 miles per hour"
Would they believe him?

You mean to imply the Bible was not written as a scientific treatise?

Who wouldda thunk?

No...what is subjective is considerations about truth or true states. Nonetheless whatever is the case to be true is true whether I know it or not.

Facts on the other hand are considerations about what happens to be true to which there is a fair social agreement.

Facts depend on majority agreement, they work to an extent very much like politics does, they can change as our understanding changes, but truth, truth is totally independent of our knowledge.

We may happen to guess at true states, that might be right just as they might be wrong, furthermore, we may even happen to guess at states to which right or wrong does not apply because description of those states is obscure to the point of undecidability, but none of it changes a jot on whatever is the case to be actually true !

A fact is an actual occurrence, so it is potentially verifiable, but so what?

It may be a fact that there is a human-like life form on a distant planet. one day we would expect to be able to verify that, if it is factual, but not today.
So I say "It is a fact that there is a human-like life form on some other planet in our galaxy. "
Is my statement a statement of truth, or fact?
You say it is a subjective belief, so it is my truth.
I say, no, I have a intuitive certainness concerning this, it is an actual occurrence, and one day it will be verified, so it is a factual statement.

Certainly there are many facts, recognized by some, denied by others, that were later verified.
Simply because a fact is not now verifiable, does not mean it is a subjective truth.
Existence is not one moment subjective, instantly transformed to an objective fact, simply because of an event in the mind of a particular human.

As for verification, there are many things I may verify to my satisfaction, that does not satisfy your requirements.
Saying that a fact is verifiable is begging the question.
No such requirement is necessary.
A fact is an actual occurrence, and it may be recognized or not, may be verified or not. Saying it is potentially verifiable is again begging the question, because if we do not agree on the verification process, the statement is meaningless.

Actual Facts are true (and it is a cultural dysfunction for an audience, to find in a claim,
I'm telling you the truth,
Or, this is true,
an increasing conviction about the claimed nature of the claim

For instance, someone claiming to be rich, and is claiming on top of it that his original claim is truthful).

But truth is also a fact.
You cannot have one without the other.

But they aren't synanimous terms for the same concept,
They are both required components in the construction of a claim.

Facts are claims and they are obviously truthful claims.

Facts address the content of the claim, and truth addresses the nature of the claim (not that there is another option as its nature, but it is merely announcing the obvious with the purpose to brainwash).

The concept of truth is invented by deceivers (in a world of honesty, existence and truth are synanimous. If it exists it is true since the content of a lie doesn't​ exist),
The concept of lie, is invented by those attempting to expose them.

I suggest that those wishing to restart this 3 year old thread (whose originator has not been heard of since) should start by reading up on 'theories of truth' if they wish to avoid producing tautological word salad. I refer them also to the Rorty clip I cited above, together with the etymological point that the word 'fact' comes from the Latin facere -'to construct'.

Word salad is to state categorically that "there is no Truth" is a true statement...

this thread is a really good topic

Truth is a proposition that is true (how's that for circular, but usually meaning the proposition accords with reality), independent of opinion or our ability to know that truth.

Fact is a statement of our knowledge about the truth value of some proposition, and we're asserting that we have a high degree of confidence in our knowledge.

Note that all 'propositions' or 'assertions' are made within a stream of verbal negotiation either with another, or within an internal conversation with 'self'. In that sense neither 'truth' nor 'fact' can be separate from the contextual needs of humans who utilise them as concepts.References to 'objectivity' tend to ignore the point that all 'objects' are the focus of a specific ' observer', or groups of observers with mutual needs.

So...no such thing as experience? A neuro-linguistic illusion, as was?...

I concur with one writer's assertion that all we humans call 'observation' involves 'verbalization'....i.e. the encapsulating of experience using words. Such is the essence of establishing 'thinghood'. The word 'illusion' is irrelevent unless disagreement occurs about that verbalization.

and if disagreement does occurr?

but i was talking about experience...