What IS Truth?

That is where your logic is flawed. Interpretation and presentation, a basis to any fact other than (sub)conscious fact, is key to making the fact plausible. In this case, what shapes the fact decides whether or not it is objective or subjective. This was my argument. It is valid, and therefore, apposing arguments aren't.

The thread is leeching off of truth that is presented, not conscious or sub-conscious concepts.

 

....why are we bringing religion into this

 

Whatever contributes to proving the point that the certain debater is trying to get across is acceptable. If not, debates would be skewed, and filled with "Oh-I-Didn't-Mean-That" posts."

 

A plausibility isn't necessarily a fact.

 

plau-si-ble :

1. Seemingly or apparently valid
2. Giving a impression of truth
Like I said, it requires more than (sub)conscious acceptable validity.(Here for lack of a better word.)

 

Neither apparently valid or impression of truth is the same as truth.

 

What IS corect?
Is there anything in existence, which we can call correct? Maybe even 1+1=3?
Just because everyone thinks its 2, it's just the same thing as God. Does it exist? Some people believe, some don't. Most people believe 1+1=2, what if it does not?

 

Of course not, but the post was leeching off of "Interpretation and presentation, a basis to any fact other than (sub)conscious fact, is key to making the fact valid[plausible]. In which case, my point stands.

I use this as a reference, and an example.

1 is the figure we use to the describe the concept of a certain amount. 2 is the same. It origin defined it as 3, then it would be 3+3=2. Origin does not define it as 3, though.

 

This is not about semantics. 1+1=2. If you have one bottle on a table, and you put a second bottle next to it, there are two bottles on the table.

If you were to use different symbols than 1 and 2, the outcome would still be same. You would just present it with different symbols. I could write it in Norwegian: En pluss en er lik to. It's presented in a different language, but the scenario it describes is the same.

 

So there is no such thing as lying? If I believe a lie to be truth, then it is truth? The opposite of truth is false, just as the opposite of false is true. Truth can not controdict itself. I really do not understand you logic.