[tacticalogic]

Well, er — yes I disagree. You describe Truth as, in effect, the utterance of "recognized theological thinkers." That is to say, the only access to Truth comes "second hand" to the thinker, by way of human authorities.

I see Truth, however, as the very Order of the universe, as embedded in all aspects of Nature. The world is the way it is and not some other way because it is the reification of its essential organizational principle which is its Truth.

So we have "Truth" as being a something subjective on which there is no general agreement and having no formal definition.

[hosepipe]

I see Truth, however, as the very Order of the universe, as embedded in all aspects of Nature.
The world is the way it is and not some other way because it is the rectification of its essential organizational principle which is its Truth.
------------------------------------------------------------

1) WoW... a divine perception of reality.. making truth an entity..
2) The bible does that... i.e. (Jesus)..

** Is truth an entity?.. Maybe... worth considering..

[BroJoeK]

tacticalogic: "So we have "Truth" as being a something subjective on which there is no general agreement and having no formal definition."

FRiend, it's important to keep in mind that science itself makes no use of, or claims to the words "truth" or "Truth".
Those are reserved for philosophy and theology, and are defined by those disciplines according to their own rules and logic.
In those we sometimes find such qualifiers as "epistimically true", "ontologically true" and "God's Truth".
None of these words have anything to do with science.

Science itself is far too humble to make any such claims.
In science we have only observed facts, confirmed theories plus tons and tons of uncertainties between them.

As to the validity of truth-claims of the various philosophies and theologies, those are matters of some logic and some faith.

Surely, you do not disagree?