Truths are composed of three components: evidence, information, and logical structure. There couldn't be a truth that is not evident, that does not contain data, and does not based on logical reasoning. Even the sources of an illogical act, such as doing a mistake or being incorrect, contain logical reasoning which have lead that illogical act to it’s current state.
Evidence is a result of experimentation, existence, or both. There could be truths that cannot be found through experimentation, such as pure logic, which can be experimented with only through depending on representations, rather than of it alone. Still, evidence by definition is something that exists, whether on the physical level or o the abstract one, which is, too, dependent on other representations in order to exist. Evidence can be either singular or plural, while each piece of evidence share different levels to relativity to the point one is attempting to prove has true, for the same evidence could not only prove different things, but things which are also the exact opposites, ironic as it may sound. The stronger the specific connection of relativity there is between the evidence and the point attempted to prove, rather to other possibilities, the more likely it would be for that point to be true.
Everything is information. Every detail one notices or creates, regardless of the importance one relates to it, is information nonetheless. More awareness and higher sensitivity (not to be confused with sentimentality, which specifies emotions) leads to reception of more information, from sensory to intellectually. Therefore, for example, those who receive external and internal stimulation more intensively could be naturally more intelligent than those who are more insensitive and more unaware. Still, this intelligence does not prevent one from negative consequences, such as being more likely to feel exhausted, being more likely to be prone to stress and anxiety, and so forth. Nonetheless, every truth contains information, and that information could lead us to discover its logical methodology. Yet, data can be both correct and incorrect. This is why an important trait of being wise is to be able, or at least attempt, to distinguish between the two categories of information, when receiving it. Accepting every information as true can lead to, and even strengthen, one’s ignorance of existence.
Everything has a reason and it does not have to be divine, if such option exists in the first place. Even if you get to a wrong conclusion, to a fallacy, when solving a mathematical problem, there are still factors which made you (or the opposite) to commit a fallacy in the equation; factors, which are representations of logical structure. Basically, everything, from truth to lie, from material to material-based idea, is a representation of a logical evolution/process. Now, just because everything a logical origin behind it, it does not have to be perfect, i.e, to be devoid of flaws, to serve as such.
The problem that comes with it is, if everything is information and everything is an origin and a representation of a logical methodology, how can one differ between truth and deception, even if there is related evidence? As I said, the same evidence can be related to different possibilities, which could also oppose each other; even opposing theories to one is trying to prove, also contain data are, too, a representation/origin of a logical structure.
I can offer a possibility: A theory that has the most specific evidence, the most trustable information sources, and the LEAST logical fallacies/flaws - is the truest theory/assumption.
Truths are both absolute and relative; they are relative to the object/subject at hand, and within it, specifically, they are absolute. Such “paradox” is possible by the absolution and relatively being at different elevations: the relative is when relating to something as a part of a collection, and the absolute is related to something specifically, free of any collection, i.e, without regarding to any collection, nor anything else, beyond the thing/being itself.
And, everything which is not the true, i.e, which does not apply to the last highlighted sentence, is a lie, a deception.