A while back on one of these forums there was a thread started on this topic of truth. That thread is now closed but I dont believe the thread served its purpose unless the purpose of the question was merely to be left unanswered! The thread starter was "Alexander" and this is his statement: "Best definition of truth I ever read came from Marx: "Truth is agreement with fact." In essense, this equates truth with observed fact. Therefore, there is no "absolute truth" or "the truth" - all we have is just observed fact(s). Is there any better definition of truth? Another person in opposition to Alexanders claim was namely "pelastration" he stated:I ask you and Marx a very simple question: What do you mean by truth? Please give me the mathematical coordinates, or the weight, the height, it's motion in an inertia frame, ... . If you can't ... welcome in the Babylonistic world of semantics. Next question: what makes an observation a fact? Next question: What is the signification of your statement ' there is no "absolute truth" or "the truth" - all we have is just observed fact(s) for mathematics? this is a profound refute and confute! I would like to elaborate on pelastrations comments. Truth is what is &what is right.Let me go further to say that Truth is what is right,was right and will be right.Truth is simply the existence of right/acuality/real. Truth is the fact that does exist. EX:Many witnesses at an occurence of a car crash may have different testimonies of what they had seen(based upon time differential,angles of view,degrees of sight,hearing,senses in general.Plus the contributing factors of thought such as discernment,reasoning,understanding and the list goes on...) No matter how many stories of individual entities(persons/cameras) come in to play they dont in themselves refute the others but work in harmony to explain and understand a fuller awareness of the whole truth. There may be in the audience an individual(for example)who blatantly lies(for kicks perhaps)and throws a spin on the completion of fully understanding the circumstances of truth-However,this LIE doesnt change the truth,destroy the truth in any way.It merely blankets the awareness of truth from the truth seeker(s)& changes the outcome of the response to the circumstances. The truth already happened,one cant change the happening. I stated that "this LIE doesnt change the truth,destroy the truth in any way" & it cant. A lie/unreal/nontruth cant change what is but it can alter/change our position, our awareness on what is by deception;which is the nature & definition of a lie,is to deceive. ANY THOUGHTS?