Follow up question on TRUTH?

Question

Previous question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkCcvPVxMJgvv2f8VFPN06nd7BR.?qid=20070622125133AA4vOzS

For those who answered truth should be proven: How can it be proven? with what? Lies?

For those who answered "No": Does this mean we only need to believe?

Answer 1

Truth is. All other things that are not Truth are lies. Truth cannot both be True and Untrue at the same time. Truth CANNOT be relative. To say that truth is relative as has been said by an earlier response is illogical. For that statement to be true, it MUST be absolute, yet it CANNOT be if truth is relative.

Can we know absolutely everything? No..we are finite beings. Only God is infinite and omniscient. But we don't have to know everything to know that Truth must be absolute. Has anyone ever really tried to put a "relative truth" world view into practice? Imagine that you are late for work and decide to shorten your drive time and avoid traffic by careening down a crowded sidewalk. When you get pulled over and tell the police officer that your particular truth places priority on your getting to work on time...well, that's not gonna fly. Here's another example: if you seriously believe that truth is relative, then you cannot seriously argue against Hitler's extermination of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc because that was his truth -- they were lesser beings that deserved only extinction to make way for the aryan race. If you say, well, no what Hitler did was criminal and inhuman and you believe truth is relative...why do you say that? Because truth isn't relative, it's absolute and we all know that what Hitler did was wrong. Why? Because God's Truth, His law, is written on all our hearts.

Answer 2

Truth can be proven using logic. A logical argument consists of propositions joined by logical operators such as IF THEN, OR, AND, NOT, THEREFORE, IMPLIES, and so on. However the caveat is that in order for a logical argument to produce true conclusions, the original premises must all be true. For example,
Premise 1 (P1): God exists.
P2: God is pure
P3: Humans are impure

Argument for purgatory
1. If God exists, then the purpose of man is to acheive union with God.
2. But what is pure cannot be joined to what is impure.
3. Therefore man must be purified before being joined to God.
4. Therefore there must be a period of purification called "purgatory" before a man is joined to God.

This is an example of logic being applied to some starting premises. If necessary logic can be attempted to prove the starting premises, but in the case of something like "God exists" there have been arguments given but they are always contested. But if you accept God exists, there are all kinds of logical arguments that have been constructed to reveal further truths.

Answer 3

If you want to get into the essential nature of "truth," we could be here all day.

Basically, "truth" consists in the capacity of a given statement to provoke a reaction of assent, as opposed to dissent, in others. Truth is always relative and subjective. This is "true" of even the most apparently fundamental of statements.

Answer 4

The scientific method is our most reliable method for investigating the truth. However, in science, truth is also considered to be provisional. It serves as the truth only until something better comes along.

Answer 5

Axioms. The laws of non-contradiction.

Answer 6

I answered "no" before.

The answer is no again. There's no way we can know everything, but we can go with the preponderance of the evidence.

Answer 7

Are you referring to "absolutes" ? This world is devoid of absolutes and rejects any "absolutes" when confronted with theory.

Answer 8

EVIDENCE.