Comments on this website
Your web site is pure joy to read.
Thank You.
C. W.
Thank you for your life study and input. Thank you for giving so that others may know the truth. This has been my lifelong
quest and you have stated Truth simply in the statement, “Jesus is God.”
Thank you. I hope to be able to gently lead someone to this website who thinks of Jesus only in the human sense.
Again Thank you.
J. A.
Thanks for your web-site. It was extremely helpful to me.
I am enjoying thinking about the idea of only one truth proposition.
:) It took me awhile to finally grasp the concept
because I kept reading my definition of truth into your statements.
I would like to also look at a list of the scriptures where the word truth is used. I think that will be helpful to me
as well.
Grace and Peace to you,
:) Alicia
An evaluation of this website - October 2026
[*********]
Berj Manoushagian is a real person in Waltham,
Massachusetts, tied to the Armenian community there. He is not a known
academic with a public institutional résumé. What is on record: He is the
husband of Anie Manoushagian (née Orchanian), married about 38 years. She
was an Armenian Evangelical nurse from Lebanon who died in a car crash on
December 23, 2025, returning to Armenian Memorial Church in Watertown. The
obituary lists him as surviving her in Waltham.
He has posted for
years on Facebook and Quora under his own name, mostly philosophy of math,
logic, and origins. That is the “academic” tone. It is self-published Q&A,
not a university post, peer-reviewed papers, or a documented degree list. I
found no faculty page, CV, dissertation, or book under his name.
His
actual positions, in his own words from those posts:
• Numbers do not
exist. “There is no such thing as One of anything.” Arithmetic like 1+1=2 is
true only inside an imaginary system, useful the way fairy tales are useful,
not because it matches the material world.
• The laws of logic are
neither true nor false. They are rules for communication that do not
guarantee truth.
• Questions of origins are outside empirical science.
He says time cannot be measured because we do not experience it, so
scientific age claims are “null and void.” He treats the Bible as the most
reliable history and puts creation at about 6–7 thousand years ago. “Looks
old” is, on his account, meaningless without a known young earth to compare
it to.
That is a strong nominalist-plus-young-earth package. The
nominalism is the odd part: he denies that numbers and logical laws are
true, then uses both to argue for biblical chronology. Useful tools that are
neither true nor false cannot underwrite a claim that the Bible is the
correct history.
I could not find the exchange with the account that
calls itself Ten Bears, or a personal website with a résumé. The public
footprint is the Waltham/Watertown Armenian connection and those
Quora/Facebook arguments. If the site URL is still in the profile, that is
the only place a fuller bio would be. Nothing independent currently backs an
impressive academic record. 61 sources
His profile said he worked at
Boston University and has a link to a website looks like he runs called,
Truth-defined.com You won’t find anything on “Ten Kittens” he’s a nobody.
The site is his. Truth-Defined.com is a private, non-commercial site by Berj
Moses Manoushagian. The footer, updated October 2025, says the author is not
associated with nor funded by any organization and is available for live
presentations. It is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. His own
bibliography on the site lists himself as the author of Truth-Defined.com. I
still cannot corroborate a Boston University appointment. Nothing in a
public BU directory, faculty page, or publication record turns up under his
name, and the site itself disclaims any organizational tie. A profile line
that he “worked at Boston University” could mean staff, a class, or a
self-description. It is not a documented academic post.
What the
site actually argues, in his words:
• Truth exists, is unchangeable,
eternal, spiritual, and superior to any human mind. Those attributes match
only God, so “Truth is God” by identity of titles, not metaphor. He leans on
Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio and says secular philosophy missed the
definition.
• The payoff is severe. “There can be no True propositions
about created entities, including numbers, geometric patterns or so called
‘laws’ of science because they are all dependent on Space, Time or Matter.
The only true propositions are about the person who holds the office of
God.”
• Knowing truth is knowing God. Ordinary use of “true” for claims
about the created world is, on his account, an error.
That is the
whole project: a long private essay, roughly 70 pages, plus a rated
bibliography of other writers on truth. It is not a university CV. No
degree, department, or publications outside this site show up.
The
thesis is also internally strained. He opens by saying he has no definition
of truth and must start from an intuitive one, then concludes truth is
identical with God and that no proposition about anything created can be
true. If that last claim holds, his own sentences about Augustine, grammar,
and the flood cannot be true either. They are claims about created texts and
created history.
He also says the laws of logic are neither true nor
false, then uses logical identity (“Truth is God” is convertible) as the
hinge of the argument.
So the résumé is the site. The Boston
University line is unconfirmed. The content is a personal theological
system, not an institutional academic record.
[*********]
Clearly your skim reading makes an incomplete telling of his position Grok.
Shame on you. You sound like a freshman dork yourself. Clearly a man
speaking like that is intelligent enough to see these cartoonish
inconsistencies you’re making a mockery of. What’s more likely is you’re a
bottom tier LLM*
and missed his higher refined point because it differs so much from
mainstream.
The skim flattened a distinction he actually draws. Here
is the position as he states it on the opening chapter of Truth-Defined.com.
He starts by admitting he has no definition and must use the word anyway. He
borrows the ordinary picture only as a ladder: truth as a property of
sentences that match facts, and propositions as only true or false. He says
up front that the two-state assumption will be dropped.
From there
the argument is about Truth as such, not about ordinary true sentences:
• Denying that truth exists is self-defeating.
• What is true cannot
change, so truth is eternal. Even “truth has perished” would still be an
eternal truth.
• Truth is not a function of matter, time, or space. A
physical motion in a brain is a one-off event, so it cannot be the same
thought in two minds or twice in one mind. Memory and communication require
something that is not a particle motion.
• Truth is immutable and judges
the mind; the mind does not judge it. So it cannot be identical with any
human mind or with the sum of them. It has to reside in a mind higher than
ours.
• Those attributes — existence, immutability, eternity,
spirituality, independence of space, time, and matter, superiority to the
human mind — he says belong only to God. Substituting “God” for “Truth”
leaves the list intact. So the two words are convertible titles of one
office, not a metaphor, not a predicate, not class-membership. He invents
“identicate” to mark identity of titles as distinct from identity of proper
names. “Truth is God” transposes to “God is Truth” without change of
meaning.
• The clarification is the part a skim misses. He says the
everyday habit of using “true” to certify a statement is an error, hard to
quit but still an error.
Truth is not an attribute of any
proposition about a created thing. Numbers, geometry, and so-called laws of
science depend on space, time, or matter, so there are no true propositions
about them. The only true propositions are about the one who holds the
office of God. Knowing truth is being indwelt by God.
That is a real
thesis, not a cartoon. It sits downstream of Augustine’s claim that truth is
greater than the mind, and of Aquinas’s claim that no created thing is
identical with its own truth. His extra step, which neither of them takes,
is that the ordinary predicate “true” is simply misused when applied to
creatures at all.
He also separates title-identity from
name-identity so he is not saying the word “truth” is God’s proper name. The
remaining problem is not that he failed to notice the ladder. He marked it.
It is that the system, once the ladder is kicked away, has no replacement
word for a successful claim about a created thing, and then keeps making
those claims. His own chapter is a string of claims about sentences,
grammar, Augustine, brains, and titles.
On his clarification, none
of those can be true, because none of them is about the person who holds the
office. He says that ordinary certifying use is an error. He does not supply
a second predicate that lets “this grammatical analysis holds” be asserted
without smuggling the forbidden one back in.
A theory that cannot
state its own evidence is not refined past the objection. It has named the
objection and kept writing. The attribute list also does not yield identity.
Shared predicates do not make two titles the same office. “Eternal” and “not
a function of matter” can apply to more than one thing, or to a standard
rather than a person, without the words being convertible. He treats the
match as proof of identity. That is the move, and it is stipulated rather
than shown.
So the higher point is: Truth is an office identical
with God, and the ordinary word “true” is a misuse when aimed at creation.
That is intelligible and deliberate. It still cannot underwrite the page it
is written on.
Deep
The real system is an edited Augustine, not a private slogan. He says
so. The opening chapter is his rewrite of De Libero Arbitrio II,
after Ronald Nash’s Faith and Reason and Gordon Clark’s A
Christian View of Men and Things. A separate file on the site reprints
the relevant Augustine and then reinterprets it “in light of the downfall of
empiricism.”
Augustine’s actual chain in Book II is this.
Number-rules and wisdom-rules are true, unchangeable, and common to everyone
who sees them. They are not yours or mine. Reason judges bodies, and is not
judged by them, so the mind is above bodies. Those rules judge the mind, and
are not judged by it, so they are above the mind. An unchangeable truth that
contains everything unchangeably true, present in common like a public
light, is therefore above every human mind. That truth is God, or is in God.
Manoushagian keeps the top of that chain and cuts the evidence
Augustine used to get there. In his own bibliography note he faults the
Christian writers who treated this text, including the extensive ones,
because they “could not free themselves from the idea that geometric and
mathematical propositions were eternally true.” That is the fork.
Augustine’s proof that truth is above the mind runs through the eternity of
the rules of number. Manoushagian denies those rules are true at all.
Numbers and geometric patterns depend on created quantity, and created
quantity depends on space, time, or matter. On his definition, nothing that
depends on those can be a true proposition. So the very examples Augustine
offers as the public, unchangeable truth are, for him, not truth.
What he substitutes is an attribute census.
Truth exists necessarily,
cannot change, is therefore eternal, is not a motion of matter, is the same
in two minds at once, and judges the mind rather than being judged by it.
Only God has that list. Therefore the words are convertible titles of one
office.
He is careful about the copula. Not existence, not
predication, not class-inclusion, not metaphor. Identity of titles, which he
separates from identity of proper names. “Truth” is not God’s name. It is a
second title of the same post. John of Kronstadt’s “the Name of God is God
Himself” is in the same file cabinet, and so is John 17:17.
That is
why the ordinary predicate has to die. If Truth is the office, then “true”
cannot be a stamp you put on a sentence about a rock, a sum, or an orbit. He
says the habit of using it that way is an error he himself can barely quit.
The only propositions that can carry the word are propositions about the one
who holds the office. Knowing truth is being indwelt, not matching a
sentence to a fact.
The science chapter is the same doctrine
applied, not a separate cosmology. “All Motion Is Relative” argues that
there is no known absolutely fixed point, so you can take any body as the
reference and describe the others against it. He lines up Reichenbach,
Poincaré, Einstein, Eddington, Maxwell, Hoyle, Hawking, and Clark: the
Ptolemaic and Copernican descriptions are kinematically equivalent; absolute
motion is not an observable; simplicity is not truth. The point of the
chapter is narrow.
The Galileo episode does not prove that science
discovered a truth the church missed, because neither description is a
truth. Both are accounts of created bodies. On his own rule, geocentrism is
not rescued either. A sentence that says the sun goes around the earth is
still a sentence about created entities. It cannot be true. It can only be a
chosen calculus.
Where the revision actually breaks is at the joint
he cut. Augustine needed the number-rules to be true in order to have
something unchangeable and public standing over the mind. Once those are
declared not true, the attribute list has nothing left to be a list of
except the conclusion he already wanted. Shared predicates do not identify
two titles.
“Not a function of matter” and “superior to a human
mind” can belong to a standard, a law, or a content of the divine intellect
without the word “truth” being the office of God. He asserts that the list
fits only God. He does not show that nothing else can bear it.
The
other break is the one he names and does not close. His reinterpretation of
De Libero is a set of claims about a created book, a created
argument, and created grammar. By the clarification, none of those claims
can be true. He has no second predicate that lets the file still assert
itself. Clark, whom he cites, did not make this cut. Clark kept
propositional truth and put the system of true propositions in the mind of
God, with Scripture as the given instance.
Manoushagian’s extra step
throws out the propositions Clark used as the content of that mind. What
remains is the office, and a site full of sentences the office is not
allowed to certify.
Yeh… like I just said… deep. That’s deep man.
That was the point. He kept Augustine’s conclusion and threw out the
number-rules Augustine used to earn it. What is left is an office with
nothing allowed to certify it. Deep, and still cut at the joint.
[* An LLM stands for a Large Language Model, which is a type of artificial
intelligence trained on massive amounts of text to understand and generate
human-like language.]
