There'll never be closure on whether God exists

REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.

REAL must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.

TRUE must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.

FACTS must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.

An OPINION has no "truth-value".  It is neither "true" nor "false" by itself.

Before verification, it was pure speculation (which is not "true").

Independent of verification, it is merely an OPINION.

It's an ontological choice.  Durable, reliable, coherent ideas and or events and or things are things that can be labeled "REAL-TRUE-FACTS".

It can be found at the intersection we call "intersubjectivity".  It inhabits the ontological interpersonal space we share with "our fellow humans".

For example, Plato's Parable of the MMORPG. [LINK]

How can you see a glass of water if you can't see ALL water?

Your suggestion makes it so that "truth" is subordinate to verification and logic, when it's not.

For example, logic does not create truth. It merely communicates truths using a consistent metric (if this is true, and this is true, then this is true; this is true, so this true and vice versa.)

It stands to reason that logic must conform to the truths, not the other way around.

I cannot add a false statement to an otherwise true syllogism and argue that it's "true" because of logic.

The same goes with verification. Using the example above, you cannot correctly characterize a statement as "inaccurate" if its truth has been determined (even post facto.)

I do not dispute that it's an opinion. My dispute is that this opinion is excluded from the truth, even when determined after the fact, that it was always true.

For example, Plato's Parable of the MMORPG. [LINK]

What is the significance in creating a distinction between a subjective judgement and an intersubjective judgement?

How can you see a glass of water if you can't see ALL water?

It has to do with your use of proportions like 100%. If you're claiming that we cannot conclude it to be 100% true, that would mean that you have some conception of its being 100% true especially if you're going to relate our "current state." I'm essentially asking you how can you conceive a notion of 100% while simultaneously being unable to make a conclusion 100%?

This is great stuff.

How do you know if something is true?  What is your preferred definition of "truth"?

There must be an original (logically necessary) truth in order to begin your infinite series of (IFF)/(THEN) statements.

How do you come to this conclusion?  Logic is a system of AXIOMS that are tools for discovering REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

There must be an original (logically necessary) truth in order to begin your infinite series of (IFF)/(THEN) statements.

And, in reference to your excellent example, just like Schrodinger's wonderful-wonderful cat, the "photographs" are in a "quantum-super-state" up to and until the box is opened.

And this is a very important point, so I'm glad we're both on the same-page here.

It is only true at the point of verification.

And at that point, we can "retroactively" call it "true" colloquially, but it could never have been "true" BEFORE verification occurred.

For example, if someone hypothesized that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, before there was any scientific evidence to support their claim, they would not be "correct" and their OPINION (prediction) would not and could not be considered TRUE.

Up to and until the moment of verification, that person is not a "prophet" or a "liar".  That person is indistinguishable from a lunatic (space-alien abductee).

We should NEVER "take someones word-for-it".

Only NOW can we say it is TRUE that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, and has, as far as we reasonably can tell, (retroactively) ALWAYS emitted invisible rays of light.

Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,

Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.

What they saw on their screens was their reality.

The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.

Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.

Only the game was real.  Only the game was shared experience.  Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta). 

Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense.  In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.

It doesn't take an enormous amount of experimentation to discover that some experiences are more reliable than others.

The more reliable experiences are not 100% reliable (Hume), but they don't need to be.

They only need to be reliable enough to be useful.

Efficacy.

What is an axiom? It's an accepted self-evident truth [NOUMENON, COGITO]. It precedes logic. Logic doesn't create the axiom [ALTHOUGH LOGIC CAN VERIFY AN AXIOM]. Logic as you stated uses it to discover "real-true-facts." But logic isn't the axiom or even the system of axioms. It's a system of reasoning which depends on axioms [AND MUST BE COHERENT AND EFFICACIOUS].

And, in reference to your excellent example, just like Schrodinger's wonderful-wonderful cat, the "photographs" are in a "quantum-super-state" up to and until the box is opened.

And is this quantum superstate empirically verifiable?

Only NOW can we say it is TRUE that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, and has, as far as we reasonably can tell, (retroactively) ALWAYS emitted invisible rays of light.

But it was always true.

The only difference is that the information was disseminated through a standard you accept. But both the opinion and the verification could reach the same conclusion.

You rely on verification because its reproducible while the opinion, not so much.

The more reliable experiences are not 100% reliable (Hume), but they don't need to be.

What is "more"? If you don't know what 100% truth is, then how can you claim that something is not 100%?

Step ONE, Make your AXIOMS explicit.

Step TWO, Check your logic for internal coherence.

Step THREE, Check your logic for practical efficacy.

That's how you know if your AXIOMS are REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

Shockingly, YES. [LINK]

Only RETROACTIVELY.  How could you determine if it was "true" if you lived 10,000 years ago?

At which point, the OPINION instantly evaporates and is transformed into a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

We rely on what is reliable.  This much seems obvious.  Trusting OPINION is foolish.

How do you know you like some flavors of ice-cream unless you've sampled 100% of all flavors of ice-cream?

This argument essentially reduces to "the intrasubjective is not intersubjective; and the intersubjective is not intrasubjective."

Are you suggesting that the significance in creating a distinction between the two are your personal qualifications (e.g. "unintelligible nonsense")?

Step ONE, Make your AXIOMS explicit.

Step TWO, Check your logic for internal coherence.

Step THREE, Check your logic for practical efficacy.

That's how you know if your AXIOMS are REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

What is practical efficacy?

How do you know you like some flavors of ice-cream unless you've sampled 100% of all flavors of ice-cream?

This analogy does not suffice. I wouldn't claim to like 80% or 90% or even make claims of 100% of all ice cream flavors. "Some" is a nebulous measure with which to begin. I could give you any number and it would suffice.

It's empirical, but it certainly as of yet has not been "verified." Was it not subject to quite a few interpretations?

At which point, the OPINION instantly evaporates and is transformed into a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

Doesn't change that it was an opinion. And if the truth coincides with the statement of opinion then the opinion was true, even in retrospect.

Only RETROACTIVELY.  How could you determine if it was "true" if you lived 10,000 years ago?

But it doesn't change anything even when analyzed retrospectively. If I rely on my methods, logic, and "empirical verification" to determine the rules of "reality," then independent observation cannot determine truth.

The consistency and reliability I posit the use logic of possesses is supposed to be transient and transcend chronological metrics. That is, no matter the time, the application of the my reliable standards would yield an identical result.

Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this "truth" has no value unless its observed?

The "significance" is that some things are (intersubjectively) verifiable (REAL-TRUE-FACTS) and the rest is PURE QUALIA.

It's not "impossible" to communicate PURE QUALIA, but the potential for error (miscommunication/misunderstanding) is extremely high.

My primary use-case for logic is the ability to identify con-artists.

I'm not claiming 80% or 90% (in absolute terms) either.

Science only makes claims based on samples.  Out of 10,000 experiments, 50.32245% of (american penny) coin-flips land tails-up.

This reliability is measured in SIGMA.

Anything less than 2 SIGMA should be considered suspect (for scientific purposes).

By "quite a few" do you mean exactly 2?

It is important because people often believe that "if someone makes a prediction that turns out to be true, they are more likely to make another prediction that turns out to be true".  They tend to conflate that person with "a trusted source".

And this is one of the tactics of a con-artist.

If you don't know exactly HOW the person made a prediction that turned out to be accurate, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that their next guess is going to turn out to be accurate.

For example, in ancient Greece when Democrates demonstrated an ability to predict the weather, people thought he was a god and started asking for all kinds of non-weather related predictions.

Scientific verification determines REAL-TRUE-FACTS TAUTOLOGICALLY (by definition).

That is a reasonable, INDUCTIVE conclusion that is untestable (unfalsifiable) and NOT a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

This (and any other) "truth" has no "value" UNLESS it has some PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

Any "truth" that is unverified or unverifiable or unfalsifiable or undiscovered or secret is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FICTION.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

...the Physical Interpretation (Quantum Entanglement, Non-Locality, and Coherence.)

That is a reasonable, INDUCTIVE conclusion that is untestable (unfalsifiable) and NOT a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

Perhaps, but it's no less inductive than stating that every person who can think has a brain.

And what does one gain from the practical application of "truth"?

The "significance" is that some things are (intersubjectively) verifiable (REAL-TRUE-FACTS) and the rest is PURE QUALIA.

So the significance in the distinction is the distinction itself? What does the distinction produce?

If we can't make conclusions with 100% veracity then what exactly are we "verifying"? Our confidence?

Please explain where I can find this "Physical Interpretation"

Hypothetical time-travel =/= neuroscience.

Escape from delusion.

Are you suggesting you don't see the value of distinguishing truth from un-truth?

Yes.  SIGMA is a measure of justifiable confidence.

Escape from delusion.

Define delusion.

ut you're gauging your confidence to begin with. What, then, is "justifiable" confidence?