Proof

mark malone · **Posted:** Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:37 am

I know because i am "sure of what I hope for, and certain of what I DONT SEE."

that is not a "fleshly" assurance---

its the foundation of a "wife".

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:10 am

I know it's tough, but please, let's hold off on analyses until we've got our options on the table.

Hazel-rah · **Posted:** Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:45 am

Certain things have to be taken as axiomatic: That reality is intelligible and that what we perceive as reality is, in fact, real, that there is something beyond the Self, the Law of Non-Contradiction, causality,
etc.

Justin

Matthew · **Joined:** Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:02 pm **Posts:** 6466

Quote:

How do you know when something is true?

Quote:

When I say I know something, what do I mean?

That's two different questions.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:19 pm

I know. Answer either, or both.

Max Majestic · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:14 am

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

How do you know when something is true?

(Max, you're not allowed to play yet.)

Awww, man. :cry:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Since the time of Descartes, it's been the principal question of philosophy.

Pyrrho just rolled over in his grave. :wink:

edit: By the way, how deep down this rabbit hole do you wanna go? Are we actually going to discuss the different models?

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:49 am

Max Majestic wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Since the time of Descartes, it's been the principal question of philosophy.

Pyrrho just rolled over in his grave. :wink:

I didn't say it wasn't a question before that. But around the time of Descartes, metaphysics got dethroned in favor of epistomolgy. I think that was a mistake, but we're stuck with it.

Quote:

By the way, how deep down this rabbit hole do you wanna go?

What rabbit hole? :whistle:

Tired · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:53 am

I hope to see as many rabbit holes as possible with this one.

I do not have an answer yet though I'm working on a better one than I gave above. Perhaps another day to get 'final' answers before taking off, eh?

Matthew · **Joined:** Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:02 pm **Posts:** 6466

PDUBYA wrote:

We can not prove truth...

Truth can not be proven in this life; therefore, It is known by faith, because we do not have conclusive evidence to prove God, Who Is Truth and the Source of all truths known by man.

God is the beginning of all truths known by man since He Is Truth. In order to prove all truths known by man to be true, we'd have to prove the premise or source of all truths, known by man, to be true; which we can't, because the source of all manifested truth known by man is God.

Even scientists must have faith in their discovery of certain "proven" truths within nature or the universe; obviously, because they can't prove the beginning Source of all these truths.

I just caught this and I must say it sounds like a mixture of ontologism and fideism.

Max Majestic · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:40 am

Matthew wrote:

I just caught this and I must say it sounds like a mixture of ontologism and fideism.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I know it's tough, but please, let's hold off on analyses until we've got our options on the table.

David Hopkins · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:02 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

How do you know when something is true?

After pondering this over the weekend, ISTM that material truths and philosophic truths must be separated. By material, I mean those that pertain to physical reality - gravity exists, the Earth revolves around the Sun, a right triangle is 90 degrees, etc. Those are measurable, defineable.

A more difficult question is how do we know if a philosophic truth is really true? My short answer is that we are guided by Natural Law, which in turn is revealed to us divinely. Let's look at an example. Murder is evil. Do we know that this is the case without the aid of the 10 Commandments? And, if so, how do we know it?

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:17 pm

Let's avoid that rabbit trail, please, and stick with the idea that there may be two sorts of truth.

Dionysius · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:20 pm

Truth is relative...We are all right!! Give yourselves an A!!

Dionysius · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:21 pm

sorry Obi, back to the question...

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:04 am

PDUBYA, did you check your PM?

Dionysius · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:13 pm

no, will do now...

David Hopkins · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:09 am

This seems very approrpriate. Has anyone read this book? Look at the product description.

mark malone · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:18 am

2 truths

Is Pope Benedict XVI the new pope---YES-- we know cause it was announced as though.

we are not a "slave" to this kind of truth---we know for sure that he is.

did the cardinals hold "true" to the ways planned out in the voting?

We "trust" they did---but its "speculative" truth---assuming the correct process was done, and not unless we "see for ourselves" the actual process---we can only take for granted "the truth" that was claimed----

we ARE slaves to that kind of truth.

how does this "truth" set us free?

Max Majestic · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:24 am

But Mark, how do YOU determine something to be true?

Brendan · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:26 am

mark malone wrote:

2 truths

Is Pope Benedict XVI the new pope---YES-- we know cause it was announced as though.

we are not a "slave" to this kind of truth---we know for sure that he is.

Well, that "Truth by announcement" must come from trusted source, correct?

I presume you did not actually witness the event yourself.

You know it to be true because you trust CNN or your local newspaper..etc, correct?

You gain this knowledge from a trusted source, an source with Authority, and therefore accept it's Truth.

Is that your premise?

Proof

Who is online