Dear Dennis, I do not have exactly good idea about the typology of truth. Any way, this diagram may help to go you in depth about this

What is the criterion for being a type of truth? My own inclination is to say that there is at bottom only one type of propositional truth but it can found in different subject matters (e.g. the true propositions or truths of science, math, cooking, birdwatching, football commentary, ethics, or even religion), and might be determined in different ways (e.g. observation, reflection, experience, or reason, depending on whether the propositions are a priori or a posteriori), and might involve different relations to their truthmakers (e.g. correspondence or coherence).

The adjective “true” can of course be applied to things that aren’t propositions, (e.g. true grit, true love, true religion, "the one true God", "twelve good men and true", "true to life"), but if those can’t be cashed out in term of allegedly true propositions, then “true” merely functions as a term of approbation.

The Hebrew sages speak about 50 gates of truth, but a living human being can only enter 49 gates.

Follow answer ...

Greeting

Truth cannot be many. There is one and ONLY ONE truth.....and this is none other than TRUTH.

Pankaj Tomar

Your answer is rather cryptic. Can you explain what you mean and why you think it is so?

@Pankaj Tomar How is truthfulness false? That makes no sense. If someone is falsely said to be truthful, that implies he is not truthful. One can have false beliefs regarding a person's truthfulness, but that doesn't make truthfulness itself false....

Political truth

The task of man is research, error, and correction to reach the outskirts of the truth.

The most beautiful words written by the prestigious physicist Lessing:

 "If I stood in front of God and found on his right the whole truth and on his left search for it .. I knelt on my knees, and I said, God gives me what is on your left, the whole truth is only worthy of your majesty."

Negative energy inside me say.. " The biggest truth is that every truth is a lie. "

Sorry... I must be positive more..

In my view, there is no absolute truth

Best Regards Dennis Mazur

@ Osama Rahill

Please explain why it is not absolutely true that 2 + 3 = 5, in base 10.

@ Hussam Ali Mohammed

Please explain how "2 + 3 = 5, in base 10" could be a lie. To me, such a claim is not a matter of failing to be positive, but of being incoherent.

I know not Truth -- all i have to do is to be open to IT and IT will find me --while undertaking the process of the minimization of EGO ; for time is an illusion

Wulf Rehder

"How should one respond to Heidegger's analysis of truth? One objection is that original truth ultimately fails to qualify as a form of truth at all. As Tugendhat (1967) observes, it is a plausible condition on the acceptability of any proposed account of truth that it accommodate a distinction between what is asserted or intended and how things are in themselves. It is clear that propositional truth as correspondence satisfies this condition, and notice that (if we squint a little) so too does instrumental truth, since despite my intentions, I can fail, in my actions, to use the hammer in ways that successfully articulate its place in the relevant equipmental network. However, as Tugendhat argues, it is genuinely hard to see how original truth as unconcealing could possibly support a distinction between what is asserted or intended and how things are in themselves. After all, unconcealing is, in part, the process through which entities are made intelligible to Dasein in such a way that the distinction in question can apply. Thus, Tugendhat concludes, although unconcealing may be a genuine phenomenon that constitutes a transcendental condition for there to be truth, it is not itself a species of truth. (For discussions of Tugendhat's critique, see Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002.)"

• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#Car

do you mean how many truths are there in religion?

@Seyyed

Not necessarily.

A very enjoyable discussion but I still don't know what Heidegger's concept of truth was and obviously I will have to start reading.

Jesus IS The Way, The Truth and The Life. He stated it out loud. It is recorded in Sacred Scripture. I have experienced it. Millions across 2 milennia have testified to that. Try it out for yourself.

Nilda Rivera

Interesting. Would you please use your acquaintance with Jesus to ask him about the truth or falsity of Goldbach's Conjecture? I, along with millions, would be interested to know.

Whoever said that 《for those who want to believe a grain of sand is enough evidence but for those who do not want to believe a mountain of evidenceis not enough》had you in mind, Mr. Pfeifer.

Nilda Rivera There is of course no mountain of evidence, just a lot of wishful thinking. I too have many hopes but those are not grounds for belief, and I do want there to be such grounds.

Pray, Pfeifer, is better than hoping.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8)

"I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.' (Matthew 17:20)

Alas, Nilda Rivera , either the above are lies and prayer is not efficacious, or no true Christian has ever prayed for an end to e.g. cancer (which I find implausible), or ... just maybe ... there's no one at the receiving end of prayers?

In my opinion there is only one definition to the pure truth as truth may not be hidden or coloured.

Karl Pfeifer, my God created time, space and the visible universe with a Big Bang, established over 300 constants to support human life on Earth, designed the double helix of DNA and the wheel in the innards of microorganisms, gave us altruism and love. What was all this necessary for? As proof of His existence and loving-kindness. Why, then, do cancer and other illnesses, hunger and misery, sociopaths and sadists exist in the world He created? Because human sin corrupted creation. We -the human race- have polluted our water sources and genetically altered crops, designed weapons of mass destruction and unfair economic systems for unfair wealth distribution, created mass media, entertainment idols and the 15-minutes-of-fame variety. But we blame God for our mistakes and get angry with Him for not keeping our planet pristine and not making us immortals. Know this, that while your body is mortal your soul is not, and one day you may find yourself wondering whether you should have stood on Pascal's side when casting your bet.

Nilda Rivera See how you've changed the subject? Rather than directly addressing and explaining the inconsistency associated with the quotations from Matthew and the efficacy of prayer, you talk about corruption of creation. Am I to conclude that the claims of the quotations from Matthew are merely hypothetical because no one can ever meet the necessary preconditions on account of corruption of creation?

Karl, I was merely using your own subterfuge -invoking scientific mysteries as proof that absolute truth eludes us.

But now you try to discredit the Scripture verses I cited because their fulfillment seems a fantasy to you in light of the existence of corruption in creation.

You see, God does not deal with it yet for there is a time already established for that. Science tells us our universe, our planet, our countries and our societies are on the verge of collaps, and the signals are clear. Why? Because everything tends to degradation and caos. Why? Because of the corruption introduced by sin. But when a human being recognizes his or her sin keeps him or her away from God and His loving-kindness and order, and accepts God's truth that only Jesus can save us from corruption, THEN the prerrequisites are met for asking and receiving. BUT no one will change God's will to deal with sin and corruption once and for all at His appointed time. Meanwhile, those who are clean will strive to be even cleaner and those who sin will keep on sinning. The truth is that there will come a day of reckoning and Jesus is the only safe haven. And that truth isn't hidden at all.

God will not renounce His sovereignty because of human prayers, no matter how well intended they are. His plan to erradicate all kinds of corruption is already underway. Jesus is The Way and The Truth and The plentiful Life you wish for. He has made it possible for us to escape the bond of sin and delight in intimacy with Him, so that even though creation is still full of the corruption of sin, we are free of it. You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Jesus is The Truth.

There may ultimately be many truths currently vouchsafed solely by faith, but whether we have a right to believe them is another matter. Here are a couple of links concerning the ethics of belief:

• http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/clifford01.htm [scroll down for full text, approx. 3000 words, of William Kingdon Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)]
• https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-evidence-is-always-morally-wrong?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=daf47631a0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_07_01_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-daf47631a0-69085417

I'm continually surprised that people like you, Karl Pfeifer, can come up with arguments such as that. The quest for truth and significance are innate and cross-cultural across all ages of human history. I can't even fathom denying someone her or his right to belief on the grounds of whether they have a right to it. Twisted.

Nilda Rivera RE: "I can't even fathom denying someone her or his right to belief on the grounds of whether they have a right to it."

So you believe that Nazis and white supremacists are morally entitled to hold their unsubstantiated beliefs about race and racial conspiracies? Now that would be truly twisted.

Belief is internal, actions are external. You have the right to believe whatever feels true to you, and yet, that right does not extend to your acting upon it, for the whole of society has a moral interest in the acting out on beliefs, and other's well-being and physical integrity have to be considered preferently, Karl.

Nilda Rivera Beliefs have consequences, even if you don't act on the beliefs yourself. Children are inculcated with their elders' beliefs at an early age and children are trustful. If you believe something you are accepting it as true, so why wouldn't you act on it if you also believed the consequences in the long run outweighed any short-term concerns?

I think there is a moral responsibility to hold our beliefs to a high evidential standard. Collectively failing to do so will in the long term lead to general credulity and bad habits of judgement. An uncontentious example from my schooldays was the widespread belief that chain letters were capable of delivering what they promised (e.g. postcards from around the world, in the case of chain letters sanctioned by some primary schools). In some countries such beliefs, carried over into adulthood, resulted in widespread investing in pyramid schemes* and people losing their savings. Nowadays, antivaccinationists have a lot to answer for, too. You might be tempted to say, well, there are some areas of belief that should be regarded differently. To me, that's like saying it's possible to be only a little bit pregnant; people's evidential habits affect the entire range of their beliefs.

__________

* And it can't always be attributed to human greed either. Even some charitable organizations invested in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi schemes.

Hom Nath Chalise The diagram you've posted very nicely illustrates inferential relations which are truth-preserving (or valid) in the case of good deductive arguments or yield high probabilities (strength) in the case of good inductive arguments. Unfortunately, this in itself doesn't reveal anything about what truth is. Rather, it just tells us what follows from various sets of propositions, when they are (or are assumed to be) true, false, or have a certain probability.

Capturing the nature of truth in a theory is no easy matter:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/