That is, every truth claim is either true or false. It can’t be both. Therefore, one must choose. Law of Rational Inference: (A = B, and B = C, then A = C). Coinciding with the previous four, the law of rational inference may be helpful in deciphering truth claims.
So the second test for the truth of religious claims is to see if those claims fit the world. Hinduism, for example, says the world is an illusion—Maya. We’re not real. God is just dreaming about us and we are part of that dream, so to speak.
Understanding a philosophy 's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation of that philosophy. This necessity is driven by the varying, and conflicting, claims of different philosophies. The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own.
In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. They are tools of verification, and as in the problem of the criterion, the reliability of these tools is disputed.
arises when a term is used with more than one meaning within a single argument. Usually, what happens is that one meaning is acceptable in one part of the argument and another meaning is acceptable in another part of the argument . Because the term is repeated, it looks as if the argument follows a single thread throughout; however, if we notice the shift in meaning, the line of reasoning is broken.
Begging the Question. Because an argument's premises are supposed to support its conclusion, a question-begging argument cannot be a good argument; if the truth of the conclusion is in doubt, the argument offers no independent reason to believe the conclusion is true. Inconsistency.
So the second test for the truth of religious claims is to see if those claims fit the world. Hinduism, for example, says the world is an illusion—Maya. We’re not real. God is just dreaming about us and we are part of that dream, so to speak. Our “salvation” involves transcending the illusion and to get back to the godhead.
Basically, you respond to religious truth claims in the same general way you deal with any other claims. The first way we know something is by authority. Frankly, most of the things we think we know we don’t know because we’ve discovered them ourselves, but rather because someone we trust told us they were so.
If the foundational tenet is false, then everything built on top of it begins to crumble.
When we say that a thing is true—and this is the garden-variety definition of “truth”—we mean the thing itself corresponds to the way the world really is. This is the “correspondence” definition of truth. A thing is true if it corresponds to the way the world really is. Simply put, if you know what a lie is, truth is just the opposite.
Think about everything you know about the past before your own lifetime. Think about everything you know about things that are too small for you to examine yourself —the microscopic world, for example—or too big, too distant for you to examine, like distant stars. Think about every place you think you have accurate information about that you’ve never personally visited. Think about everything you think you know about disciplines in which you didn’t personally do the primary research.
So first we might be able to verify the truth of a religious claim, at least in principle, based on the authority of the one who made it. If he’s a credible authority—if he’s trustworthy—then we can trust what he says.
Coherence is the most potentially effective test of truth because it most adequately addresses all elements. The main limitation lies not in the standard, but in the human inability to acquire all facts of an experience. Only an omniscient mind could be aware of all of the relevant information.
(March 2015) In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. They are tools of verification, and as in the problem of the criterion, the reliability of these tools is disputed.
Coherence. See also: Coherence theory of truth. Coherence refers to a consistent and overarching explanation for all facts. To be coherent, all pertinent facts must be arranged in a consistent and cohesive fashion as an integrated whole.
See also: Scientific method. Correspondence is quite simply when a claim corresponds with its object. For example, the claim that the White House is in Washington, D.C. is true, if the White House is actually located in Washington. Correspondence is held by many philosophers to be the most valid of the criteria of truth.
The opinions of those with significant experience, highly trained or possessing an advanced degree are often considered a form of proof. Their knowledge and familiarity within a given field or area of knowledge command respect and allow their statements to be criteria of truth.
This indicates that correspondence is a perfectly valid definition of truth, but is not of itself a valid criterion of truth.
The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own. An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable.
Law of Identity: (A = A). The law of identity simply states that something is what it is. Douglas Groothuis compares this to a person saying to another, “You aren’t acting like yourself today.” The person infers the identity of the individual as a particular thing. [1] The claim “An oak is a tree” infers that oaks are identified as trees.
Law of Excluded Middle: (A V ~A). The law of excluded middle shows that a claim must either be the thing it claims to be or not. It cannot be both. An oak cannot be milk. Therefore, if a person needs shade in the summer, then the person must decide whether the shade from the oak’s leaves will be beneficial or milk. Since milk does not provide shade, the person must choose the oak. But, perhaps the milk would provide a refreshing beverage, but it cannot be chosen to provide shade.
Law of Bivalence: (A⊕~A)= (A V ~A).[2] The law of bivalence simply notes that one must choose between proposition A or proposition ~A. That is, every truth claim is either true or false. It can’t be both. Therefore, one must choose.
Test the premises. Premises, or statements, are either true or false. Do things that begin to exist have a cause? Certainly! Homes have a reason for their existence, to provide shelter. The second statement is also true. It is nearly unanimously agreed that the universe had a beginning, a starting point. Both premises in the Kalam are true.