mattdamore

I agree. How does something corresponding to another thing imply that both sides of the correspondance be of the same identity?

I was merely asserting a well-known theory of truth which, I believe, has some merit: The correspondence theory of truth. This idea of truth is a matter of a proposition (belief, thought, statement, representation) corresponding to reality. It's main competitor is what postmodernism is doing to truth: which rejects its absolute existence, especially when relating to the notion of correspondence.

Are you for 'real' that that is a 'fact'!? ;-) j/k I think that reality has nothing to do with the facts in how you are defining the word 'fact'. But I believe that you have skewed understanding of what a fact is. You say, Facts are merely our meager explanation of the truth and a very useful tool . You haven't really proved this pragmatic formulation; you have only shown me how it is you use this version of 'fact' in everyday life and the pragmatic effects/advantages which are fleshed out in its utilization.

I know you may want to say that I'm arguing from authority, but my quote from this authority is not to insure the truth of the word 'fact', but to act as sort of a weighing factor to shift the probability of a my being right over you.

Aristotle once said something of following: Truth is basically the saying of what is that it is and the saying of what is not that it is not. Now, in the sentence above, the facts would be 'what is' and 'what is not'.

Dictionary.com says that a fact is Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. These real occurrences could be equated to the 'what is' and 'what is not' in the above Aristotle quote.

So, when statements of fact are made of reality that can be either true or fase. When it is a true statement, then the fact to which it corresponds is something which describes reality. When it is a fase statement, then there is not a fact to which it corresponds and, therefore, does not describe reality.

I've just never seen this defintion anywhere in any of the literature on the subject of truth and fact. If you could show where it is, or inform if this is something which you have come up with as a result of introspective contemplation, that would be helpful. Also, some reasons would be helpful in assessing its truth. All you really did, was describe to me how it is your definition of fact is fleshed out in real life.

This is too vauge. What do you mean by 'system of measure'?

But a fact ABOUT a river does not have to THE river itself. I don't follow this at all. Here is a fact about the river: it has 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen. I don't see how naming this fact somehow subtracts from the truth of the whole river.

Right; and I would say that this description is just same thing as a fact. The fact is a description about reality. I don't see how you can say that a fact is some kind of prediction of how something behaves. I don't think facts have anything to do with how (epistemological) only that (metaphysical/ontological).

Thanks for your comments.

mattdamore

I wasn't using the presupposition to support the existence of anything; I only contructed a hypothetical reality (which I believe to be actual reality) in which everyone could accept the Christian presuppostion, since within this hypothetical reality I posited Christianity and/or Theism as true.

I wasn't using the presupposition to support the possibility of anything; But I would argue that apart from constructing a hypothetical reality a good case could be made that God is at least possible. Now, I'm not saying that this on its own is good grounds for arguing for more or less of a possibility, but just plain ole' possibility on its own.

Ok. There were 3 states that the poster was attempting to explicate. The state of believing. The state of not believing. And the state of that one lacks evidence. I was just saying that the first 2 states exhaust the options since the 3rd 'alleged' state isn't a state, but a reason for adhering to a state. I realize that it could be another state in other contexts, but within this specific one, I believe that it is not.

Sorry for the confusion.

haverbob

What you are saying is what I believe to be what I call "fact". Truth is reality. Reality and truth are interchangeable. Truth is not a proposition that corresponds to reality, it IS reality. Fact is a propostion of reality, a proposition of truth. I know this sounds really weird, so I'll lay off for right now, but that might be worth a few passes.
Could you restate this?? This sounds interesting but I'm not positive of what you mean. Thanks.
I didn't answer all of your questions because this was one that I thought could really illustrate and thus sum it up. Facts don't subtract from the truth of a river, they just stop short of the truth of a river. Let me use an example, pertaining to "2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen". I travel to the Colorado River and promise my friend that I will bring back some of the Colorado River as a present. So I fill my flask, and bring it back and offer it as a present. So what have I given them?? A peice of the Colorado River?? Or maybe "2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen".? "2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen" is not the river. Can you imagine that?? A "peice " of river?? But that's the way we all think, that's why you instinctively brought up "2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen". Because that's a fact, but not a reality (or truth). Once you gather a peice of that water and harness it in a flask, that is no longer the river nor is it a part of it because it is now, a factual description, H2O, It is not looked at as an "event" or "happening", and a continual and seamless one.

I'll say this. If you think you are going to logically or factually forward the case for God, you have a very brain burning and probably pointless task ahead of you. You are never going to be able to find the right "facts" to explain the concept of "no beginning" that is attributed to God. Start there before you do anything else, because that's the core of the matter right there. All the rest is fluff, if you want to take a logical or factual approach to this. In fact, (no pun intended), If you can't prove God to yourself right now, then why do you believe it's fact? But you still believe, right? So what is this belief in relation to fact? Why do you believe? Your belief has very little basis in fact, and yet you believe. Is this belief "truth"?? See how truth and fact can differ in your mind??