Heya guys, I'm on a discord server, and there I had a bet with someone, for buying a round of pizza for everyone, if I can beat him at a topic.

However he wants a audience to decide on who won.

Do you guys mind reading this conversation, about the topic "The nature of truth."

And give a answer on who has to buy everyone pizza?

I'm sure all the guys would love you guys for answering, so we can all have a hot pizza! ;)

I'm the drunk guy, and I hope you guys will be fair.

----

1: Okay so tell me, what is truth in your mind?

2: Well, I like what they are talking about in main, truth, for the individual, or a society is basically what you want to believe.

I don't think saying its a stretch that generally speaking, in a society or in a person, if someone doesn't do what they do, believe what they believe, they automatically find that they are wrong.

I just wanted to start with the emotional aspect of truth

1: Okay, well please continue to lay out your conception: what about the technical aspect of truth? What is it?
If that's the position you're defending the debate may as well be over already

2: Im just laying out some things before we begin

Secondly, if you have a color deficiency in your eyes, which make you precieve the sun as purple, that makes it true in your mind, as you probably never researched color deficiency, and you in your own mind, are sure the sun is purple, which is even true, in a personal reflection, yet not as a general whole
Now as even a theorical and mathematical truth, I was recently explaining how our math says things are identical, for math to even be possible, I would say theorically its the same, yet that wouldn't be true, as theoretically nothing is identical

1: I mean I have a plethora of objections to what you've said, but I think it would be best for you to lay out the most complete conception you can

2: I thought about this topic for a few minutes today, and I had one very interesting insight, you said natural of truth.

I found my one weakness in this subject, that I will even share for free.

That is that I see truth as a Origin, so I found my opinion about the origin of truth, not it's nature.

Nature being a more... Observational thing, then a founded one, don't you agree?

1: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that

2: Well, the nature of a person, for example, has comes from a origin. Something created that truth, or that nature, and the process of the creation of truth, or a persons nature, is often forgotten when talking about this subject.

1: Well, the notion of Truth as an origin of things is sort of incompatible with the idea of truth being what you hope to be true

2: Yeah, anyways I was just clearing that up
Now, I believe you want me to take some sort of stance on this, regardless of my explanation?

1: Yes

2: Ok, then my stance is, truth is the same for everything and everyone, taken in mind, that indeed things are different for the individual, as I'm sure some people wouldn't want to breath water, and some things don't want to breath air. (Like fish.)

1: It being the same for everything and everyone would make it objective in the sense of mind-independent, right?

2: Hmm, I think I can agree about that Truth is universal

1: Is that objective or subjective in nature?

2: Objective.

1: Subjectively universal would mean it's true for all people and other forms of subjective agents
However, we can look a little closer at the ideas

2: Ok, how about the statement that truth is liniar?

1: No, I don't think I could agree to that. I wouldn't even know what that would mean
What is the relationship between true propositions and Truth as such?
How do we tell that something is true?

2: Ok, my answer would be, when it can universally be understood

1: Not to mention the fact that there could hypothetically be universal 'consensus' yet we could still be wrong
If universal is understood as having no exceptions, i.e. true for every instance (here, in the context of assent and understanding, we mean that no person is exempt from believing it true)
Then I don't see how that can conceivably be the criterion for telling that something is true

2: Isn't it the only criterion?

1: Hardly.

2: Well, we found our debate then

1: Well, it doesn't even make a modicum of sense to appeal to a hypothetically universal consensus to buttress truth
Do you deny the possibility that we could all universally believe something and yet it be false?

2: Nothing hypothetical about it

1: For example, the model of geocentrism
I think it's fair to say that there was a universal or near universal consensus on that issue
Yet, it was not true

2: Thats a social or emotional concencus

1: As opposed to what?

2: That isn't based on truth, that based on social interaction

1: Says who
It's a universal understanding
That's what you said
"the only criterion"

2: Its declared a universal understanding

1: How do you distinguish between something that really is a universal understanding and something that is merely declared to be one ?

2: Usually one, nature agrees with, the other one, the people in charge agree with.

1: Sorry, you're not making it clear to me how we would tell the difference
The idea is that the people in charge would declare, in both cases, that nature agrees with them
That is what is shown at the hypothetical

2: As I said, a "deal" isn't a truth

1: I don't know what that means

2: Calling it a concencus, doesn't mean it in its nature is that.

1: But you agree surely that if its nature is that
Then it will be called a consensus
So how do you tell the difference between it merely being called that
And it being true

2: Being true or not

1: Please answer me

2: Well, you added another layer to the debate, not only are we talking about what the nature of truth is, and if its universally understood, you also add, that if we can all in the physical realm, come to a concencus about the truth, thats true

1: I didn't add that, you did
I am getting frustrated by the lack of attention you are paying

2: Look, your just debunking what I'm saying, your not contributing

1: What is the difference between it being universally understood and there being a consensus about truth?

2: Well, one is just something like "Energy and matter exists"
The other one is about if we can work and word it out, so everyone can understand it

1: You're saying a consensus is more articulated?

2: I spoke about emotional truths, and necessities for math and theory

1: Where did you speak about necessities for math and theory

2: All these "half truths" are needed for a concencus

1: Now you'll have to define what a half truth is

2: Like seeing the sun as purple by a eye deficiency

1: So an anomalous perception is a half truth?
And of course you mentioned your 'emotional truths', which you defined as what people want to believe
I thought we were having a coherent conversation
But now you're bringing back all the dumbest stuff that you've said in an absurd remix

2: Its a truth in your mind, if you would completely understand the subject, to the point you will analogically research the light particles, you would understand your wrong

1: So you believe it to be true, but is it actually true though?

2: Ok, lets say I tell you I'm a... Doctor? You will either call it being false true, or it being true, true
Regardless, you have no idea, in the nature of truth

1: I literally don't even understand the question

2: I tell you, I'm a doctor.

What do you see as the truth in that moment.

1: I don't know what you're on about
If it were relevant, and I felt like you displayed some of the requisite competence and knowledge
I probably wouldn't call you a 'big fat liar'
but I don't see what bearing this has on our conversation

What is the difference between it being universally understood and there being a consensus about truth?

2: Well, I'm saying that a concencus about if im a doctor or not

1: Try to spell out to me what the criterion is

2: Is baseless to the foundation of the truth

1: Because my idea is that they are the same

2: Exactly

1: Something being 'universally' understood simply means that there is a consensus about it being true

2: No, you think they are both the same, thats your flaw in this debate

1: I pointed out, there is no distinction between these two things, therefore I didn't add anything, I just rephrased what you said in my own words
Okay but you haven't made it clear what you even think the distinction is
Why is a simple statement somehow not a consensus about truth in virtue of it being a simple statement

2: As I said, a concencus in an agreement, is policial, not scientific

1: How is saying "energy and matter exists" not a consensus on truth
If we all universally understand it to be true

2: Well, everyone understanding, if asked or shown, is something else then a universal concencus or agreement

1: What does it add to inject the term political
And it's not clear how you distinguish between a consensus motivated by truth
And one which is not
They are both purported to be about truth
How do you tell them apart

2: Can we agree, a lot of people don't know the truth, or don't believe the truth?

1: I don't see how that's relevant, but sure

2: You don't see how thats relevant for a concencus?

1: I don't see how that's relevant to what is under contention
Which apparently you are doing a piss-poor job of tracking
I am running out of patience for this conversation with you
And you will shortly be exposed as a liar when you fail to buy all these pizzas
Which we all know you're not going to do, if you lose
(read: when you lose)

2: I actually, intend to keep my end of the bargain, I calculated I can possibly buy half the server a pizza today