What are all the different methods to prove something is true?
Asked by edmartin101 April 25th, 2008
Obviously we can’t only rely on the scientific theory to explain everything we believe in or that we have experienced. So there are are various ways to explain different events in the history of the world. For instance we can’t prove scientifically the existence of Alexander The Great, we would prove it, however by historical proof. But what is it needed to prove someone historically, forensically, etc.
————————————
At present I am into the idea that people have got to agree on concepts and rules when they exchange thoughts to come to the actual reality of something existing in the world outside our mind.
So we should all work first to agree on the concepts of what is true, what is method, what is the something being sought to be proven to be true, what is it to prove something to be true, what is existence, etc.
The asker edmartin101 mentions the existence of Alexander the Great, that he cannot be scientifically proven to have existed, but can be by historical proof.
I have never come to anyone human who doubts the existence of Alexander the Great, but if there is someone who insists that Alexander never existed, then we want to prove to him that Alexander really existed, what do everyone here say, should we not first ask him to agree with us on the concept of Alexander the Great, on the concept of what is it to prove something to be existing or to have existed or to be existing in the future, and also the method which is the rules to observe in proving the existence of Alexander?
I have discussed with atheists about the existence of God, and I have noticed that they don’t want to come to agreement on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God, like for example the very concept of God Whose existence they deny, and they don’t want to come to agree on rules to observe in proving or for them in disproving the existence of God.
At this point I am apprehensive that atheists here will take offense at me, for I am going to say that atheists don’t want to agree on concepts and rules: because they know that if they agree on concepts and rules, then it becomes obvious that God exists according to the agreed on concept of God, and they cannot disagree forever on the concept of God which theists and atheists are in disagreement on in regard to His very existence in the world outside man’s mind.
So, I will now introduce a question about whether atheists will work with Christians to come to concurrence on an agreed on concept of God, and also on the rules to be observed by everyone who is into the God debate.
Pachomius