Correspondence or Coherence of Truth?

When I started the original assignment to basically define the two popular different theories on truth I though the correspondence theory was the obvious "right" version. However, after the class discussion I realized that the coherence of truth theory is actually more, well true, for lack of a better word. At least in my opinion. Although it is much easier to understand the correspondence truth, your statement either matches the surrounding environment or it does not, the other one makes more sense. Even if the coherence truth is more difficult to understand. It just takes awhile, at least in my case, to fully understand what that theory states. It seems to be more from a logical standpoint, which I understand. I think there was an example used whether or not there was a tree outside of the classroom. I think that example was used for the coherent truth. Anyways, it was stated that what if the object outside was not a tree? What if it was a hallucination, a hologram, a dream? If we were to go outside and further observe this supposed "tree," we would try and confirm that it truly is a tree. And we could only draw the conclusion that it is a tree because that is the name we have for this object. And, the object outside of classroom matches up to this description. Whether the tree outside is imaginary or not is not particularly important, but from the knowledge we have, it is a tree. Even if this were to be a dream, the object in our dream would still be considered to be a tree since that is what we know it as. So, can we really go by the correspondence of truth theory? All that theory does is really say that things are true or false. But, how do we know what is true? We can't, not really, can we? It's almost as if we as humans make our own truths up, don't we? And doing that can make anything a dream, can't it? Because then there is no truth. Only a truth that we have made up. I guess this is the question I am proposing to you, my fellow classmates.