Not everything that exists is true.

1. People live until they die.
2. People do not live until they die.

Now, at least one of those statements is false. One is the negation of the other. If one is true, then two is not and vice versa.

You have not really answered my questions.

If you cannot think of anything that exists that is not true other than a statement, then you have decided that the only things that can be true or false are statements.

That is clearly the rule you have made. Why don't you just admit it?

Now my question (that you have not answered) is why would you limit the meaning of the word true (to statements only) and can you think beyond that for a meaning of true?

I don't think you can.

Both statements are true.

But I asked you to name something that exists BESIDES A STATEMENT that is not true.

Thread title:

Can only statements be true or false?

After some thought on this question, I would say no.

Meh.

I would say to give an example of something that can be true or false that is not a statement.

You're playing semantic games, which render your argument quite laughable. I mean either...

"Both statements are true" is true or "both statements are true" is not true. It cannot be both. A thing cannot be both true and false simultaneously. "Dying" is ceasing to live. Thus, unless you completely redefine the words that we're using, both of those statements cannot be true. Redefining words in order to make sense of an argument that makes no sense otherwise is not very compelling.

The premiss "everything that exists is true" is a statement about fact/reality(the way things are/the states of affairs). It is an absolute/universal truth claim. In other words, all it takes to be falsified is one example to the contrary because it claims "everything". If there is just one thing that exists that is not true, then it cannot be the case that "everything that exists is true". False statements exist. "The 1984 Summer Olympics were hosted by the town if Pierceville, Oregon" is a false statement. It exists because I just made it, and anyone reading this has just witnessed that it exists. It is false because Pierceville, Oregon is not the city which hosted the 1984 Summer Olympics.

Thus, it only follows that the claim "everything that exists is true" is false. That which is false cannot be true and vice versa. That is the law of noncontradiction. It governs human thought/belief. So, the claim itself exists and is false.

--

Secondly, I am not making up any rule regarding what can be called "true" or "false". It is only statements that can be called "true" or "false". That is a rule of language games, that is how language works. Again, all it takes is one example to the contrary.

I am sure you believe you are absolutely correct.

And in the context and concept of language you are.

However, things existed before language. There was a time when there were no statements. A statement is simply a mental concept. It can only be deemed true or false by another mental concept. Hence within the confines of the boundaries of mental concepts you are absolutely correct.

I don't consider a statement to be anything real except within the boundaries of mental concepts or ideas.

Outside of those boundaries everything that exists is true.

A bird lands upon a limb and looks directly at a stick insect. The bird continues on about it's way. Can we say that the bird thought/believed that the insect was a stick?

Your belief is not true. What other means do we have other than the context of language?



As I've claimed several times over. I do not hold that statements are the only things than can be true. They are, however, the only things that we call "true". The difference between being true and being called "true" is pivotal to understanding. The difficulty lies in our setting out the content of that which is obviously true but is obviously not a statement.

What other means do we have to do what?

Alright, let's look at what it takes to learn a common language. Let's suppose that there is a student who is in the process of learning how to use the term "tree". The child is quite young, and at the stage where they are curious about things around them. S/he looks at a tree, points to it looking up at the teacher as if to ask "what is that?". This does not happen until after the child has become aware that we use language to name things, however, it is quite clear that the child cannot make a statement about the tree.

I would argue that the child, in order to learn that that is called a "tree" must first think/believe that that exists and that the vocalization "tree" refers to that. In addition, the child must believe the testimony of the teacher. In order to believe the testimony of the teacher, the child must trust that the teacher's testimony is truthful.

But how can it be that that is the case when all of these relations seems to be language based, and the child has no language?

To call things "true".

I don't really understand your question.

A child with no language looks at a tree and points to it and says "DA!"

You assume the child is asking a question about what the name of that thing is, when he may also be exclaiming "Look at that!" and then the child watches the adult to see what kind of reaction the adult gives back.

Eventually the child first learns the difference between asking a question and exclaiming. Instead of "DA!" he might say "DA?" using a tone of voice or a facial expression to communicate.

Language communication first comes in the form of tone and expression before words are ever discovered and learned.


But I still don't see what this has to do with what is true or false. If there are things that exist that are false besides statements, can you give an example?

But you said:

"The difference between being true and being called "true" is pivotal to understanding."

You also said that for a statement to be true it must correspond to reality.

Reality is what exists.

Therefore everything that exists as reality is true.

A false statement is a meaningless mental construct. It is just noise or static. It has no meaning.

A true statement is an agreement that corresponds with reality and what is real.

The statement:

Be blsjsd blah blan da blan blan keeki gaa gaa.

Does the above statement exist? Is it true or false? Is it meaningless?

Well the letters exist. They have been properly represented as intended.
Each letter typed corresponds to the key I hit to type it, so they are correct and true. It is not a statement but is a set of symbols typed as intended. It exists. It is true.

Can anyone (anyone interested) name something that exists besides a statement that is false?

Do ideas and statements actually exist in reality? Or do they simply exist in the mind after meaning is discovered?

If things in the mind can be said to exist, then does everything I think about, like say pigs that can fly, exist?

Flying pigs do exist in my mind.

The idea of flying pigs exists in my mind.

So do flying pigs exist?

According to Creative, yes they must because statements exist and statements are simply ideas in the mind.

What is the difference between the terms "true" and "real?"

If a true statement is something that corresponds to reality, then does that statement represent something (or a state of affairs) that is actual or real?

So does that mean that true = real.

If so, then truth = reality.