Thanks for the lesson, Duty.
I'm fully aware of what I was doing though and I knew that someone would would write a reply about logic. So thanks.
But before you can talk about logic, reason, or proof. Your presupposition is that I believe in reason and logic. And before you can talk about those things, I think you have to come to an agreement about truth.
What is truth? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? If two people can't agree that there is true and false in the world, it's pointless talking about logic.
I mean... truth is even MORE basic and logic or reason. Let's put it this way. It's hard to have a discussion on quantum physics if you can't agree on addition.
If you assert "there is no truth" then you are directly contradicting yourself, as you are stating a truth.
Since we have a contradiction there, we must conclude the opposite, there is not not objective truth. Simplified: there is objective truth.
Second, there are many things that we all, as humans, have natural brain structures that could not function if we didn't assume certain truths. For example, we have to take our senses as giving us truth, unless circumstances give us reason to doubt them.
Logically understanding the world is a natural function in our brains. It mostly happens in the frontal lobes. We're not the greatest at it, as there is benefit to saying "there is a tiger in the grass!" when there is only sparse evidence to support it. However, we have the capability to understand the
actual structure and mechanics of the world. "This volcano will cool enough for me to escape across it!" doesn't work because it is convenient or just because we believe it.
So we have the capability to understand the world for what it truly is. As time has gone on, we've become more adept at this, and is why we build airplanes instead of chariots now. In our pursuit of understanding, we have developed tools, clarified our understanding, and even investigated into the rules of understanding/how we understand.
This is where logic comes in. It is the tool we have developed directly in response to the question, "What are the rules of understanding?" It has evolved, in a similar way to biological evolution, and is the most fit tool to judge the world by now. Logic informs us as to what
cannot be truth and informs us as to what we are
justified in believing. Let me make this clear: it does not tell us what
is truth, but instead informs us as to what we
are not justified in believing and what facts are truth about the world.
Those rules clearly lead to the conclusion that believe in a supernatural God is unjustified. We don't have good enough reason/evidence to support the conclusion.
The rest of what I wrote was by suggestion of my girlfriend. She says not to just "knock down" beliefs, but understand why people have religious faith and try to "fill the gaps" that I may be creating. Awe, love, ethics, and the like can be improved upon, instigated, and propagated by people...religion isn't needed. Feel the wonder of your own mind!
I know I haven't directly answered your question: "What is truth?" It's a question that only a deep philosophical investigation can answer. Many philosophers have given their opinion on it. The classical view is "truth is those collection of statements that express facts about the world" and facts are "statements which correspond to reality."