Which Ultimate Truths Can Be Proven "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"?

[Dalek Prime]

2. There are things that exist whether I am aware of them or not.

bullshit - such is faith and not emperically provable (only thing that is is "I am" right now - you are me pramatically and emprically, outside of me - an article of faith (I'm an Athiest, so don't waste my time proving you exist please).

Then good luck building a foundation to set philosophy and science on, without that very reasonable premise, gaffaw (your new name). Unfortunately, you exist independently of my mind, or I could wash you away with a stiff drink. And I've considered it, except I dont drink independently existing alcohol. Just the fake stuff.

[Dalek Prime]

I posted this elsewhere, but will just paste it here.
_______________________

1. There is thought. ie. I have awareness. I exist.

2. There are things that exist whether I am aware of them or not. They are independent of my thought. I accept this from the first premise because these things persist beyond the scope of my awareness of them. ie. The ground I sleep on is there when I awaken from falling asleep on it. So it's a reasonable assumption that it exists independently of me, that is, my thought. My mind doesn't create it. There is no solipsism.

Having stated the independence of things beyond my thought, 3. my thought gives the independent thing its value. It has no intrinsic value (value in and of itself) because it does not have a capacity for value judgment. Only those things which have thought can project value on something else beyond its thought. Only thought itself has, or can have, an intrinsic value (again, value in and of itself).

only #1 is self evident, and it is only me talking to myself via "you".

the rest - inculding your demand you exist outside of my consciousness is hogwash.

you cannot prove you exist as an outside entity, and i've no time reading post from me about you existing outside of me.

And yet you found the time. Bravo.

[bahman]

The ultimate truth is a principle in which the truth in all its forms are derived from it. What is the truth? The way that the reality presents itself to you. Is there any ultimate truth? Yes. Why? Because the reality is structured. Whatever is structured is made of underlying entity/entities. Therefore, there is a deeper reality underlying former reality. This, the layers of reality must end at an ultimate layer which is minimal in structure, in another world has one irreducible entity (Why has to be so? Because otherwise everything vanishes). Therefore there is a principle so called the ultimate truth. What is the principle? We are minds embedded in mental.

[Judaka]

I need to believe in something so that I may keep the truth in mind and follow true steps toward true success. Without these, I could be acting in a way that is self-defeating. Without the truth to guide me I feel like I am blindly blundering through life. =( So I am looking for useful ways to view and think about the world that stand up to reason.

The truth is not a religion and so why do some people think they can follow it as though it were?

Find yourself first. Ask yourself what you want, consider how that manifests itself into action and speech, consider whether those actions and speech will actually give you what you wanted in the first place one last time.

Find your ideals second. Ask yourself how you want the world to be, consider how that would work, be the change you wish to see in the world. View those who betray your image with contempt, pity, concern or whatever suits your character. Likewise, view those who live in the way you'd like with respect and admiration.

Constantly try to find flaws with your way of thinking and challenge yourself until you have something that makes sense within itself, given the premise of your preferences, choices and character, let that answer be impregnable to reason. This means you won't have something universal but something personally tailored by you, for you. That's the best option and it's better than any possible alternatives.

After doing that for a while, you'll have a trustworthy worldview that can serve as your compass and give your life meaning.

That's all one can do in a world devoid of objective meaning, we must create our own meaning and trust in your beliefs.

In this way, you are striving towards something, you have meaning and the world a narrative, you cannot be knocked down or led astray. Truth is a tool and shouldn't be put on a pedestal, those who can't recognise its limitations aren't able to use it as a tool. It's like trying to live in a tractor rather than using it to work on your farm.

[Logik]

Observe that the OP title could have been stated as "Which Ultimate Truths Can Be Proven 'Beyond any Doubt'?"

Instead the OP chose to use the reasonable/unreasonable distinction allowing themselves just enough room to manoeuvre and dismiss any criticism/doubt of their positions as "unreasonable doubt".

It's the same old bait&switch trick used by philosophers since kingdom come: one meaningless distinction is sufficient for apologetics.

So to paraphrase the OP question: Can the distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" doubt be proven to be an Ultimate Truth beyond any doubt?

[commonsense]

If there could be an ultimate truth, it would not have to be proved. Such a truth would be readily recognizable. Proof would only be needed in cases where there is doubt. If it were possible to be ultimate, there would be no doubt.

[Dalek Prime]

If there could be an ultimate truth, it would not have to be proved. Such a truth would be readily recognizable. Proof would only be needed in cases where there is doubt. If it were possible to be ultimate, there would be no doubt.

Actually, makes me think of the term, 'hiding in plain sight'. Sometimes, the most obvious is also the most overlooked. Also, what one may find obvious, another would readily dispute. Happens all the time here on the boards, just as gaffo did mine.

[Eodnhoj7]

If there could be an ultimate truth, it would not have to be proved. Such a truth would be readily recognizable. Proof would only be needed in cases where there is doubt. If it were possible to be ultimate, there would be no doubt.

Point space exists as the foundation for all proof and beyond it as all proof is a framework of connected axioms with the axioms being deduced to further axioms until we are left with the axiom of a simple little dot.

[Eodnhoj7]

If there could be an ultimate truth, it would not have to be proved. Such a truth would be readily recognizable. Proof would only be needed in cases where there is doubt. If it were possible to be ultimate, there would be no doubt.

Actually, makes me think of the term, 'hiding in plain sight'. Sometimes, the most obvious is also the most overlooked. Also, what one may find obvious, another would readily dispute. Happens all the time here on the boards, just as gaffo did mine.

Like the post above says, and what I have argued in a variety of variations: the simple dot.

[Dalek Prime]

If there could be an ultimate truth, it would not have to be proved. Such a truth would be readily recognizable. Proof would only be needed in cases where there is doubt. If it were possible to be ultimate, there would be no doubt.

Actually, makes me think of the term, 'hiding in plain sight'. Sometimes, the most obvious is also the most overlooked. Also, what one may find obvious, another would readily dispute. Happens all the time here on the boards, just as gaffo did mine.

Like the post above says, and what I have argued in a variety of variations: the simple dot.

Or the comma.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually, makes me think of the term, 'hiding in plain sight'. Sometimes, the most obvious is also the most overlooked. Also, what one may find obvious, another would readily dispute. Happens all the time here on the boards, just as gaffo did mine.

Like the post above says, and what I have argued in a variety of variations: the simple dot.

Or the comma.

You mean the drunk dot.

[Dalek Prime]

Like the post above says, and what I have argued in a variety of variations: the simple dot.

Or the comma.

You mean the drunk dot.

Yes, that's the one.

[gaffo]

What is proof and what is truth have already been discussed above. So now, it only remains to ask what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

For something to be beyond any doubt, it must be an absolute certainty. To be beyond reasonable doubt, something only needs to be probable.

certainty is the only high bar WRT to Truth.

you can shove your reasonable doubt, this require Faith - and so throws out empirism and not valid.

Agreed, actually.

thanks for reply, glad we (I?) concur.

[gaffo]

Then good luck building a foundation to set philosophy and science on, without that very reasonable premise,

all knowledge of science and philosophy is via ME - there is no other objective truth outside of "I exist" - right now.

that includes all of not only science and philosophy, but all of history, and literature and all things else!

Napoleon may have existed and lived 200 yrs ago - but he may have been created by ME also.

empricism (also created by me?) only can show the latter. not the former. the former require faith I lack that.

I only have "Faith" that i exist, and am all. i create that i know of history/science/philoshy/etc..................

if you (me talking to me?) cannot see this you lack understanding of Solipsism and that it is the only Truth in this realm.

gaffaw (your new name).

har har.

why not use the other one gaffe?

I've used my moniker since usenet days - 22 yrs now - and seen both monikers for my "name" from those that like to play games when they they dissagree with my posts.

Unfortunately, you exist independently of my mind,

prove it.

or I could wash you away

why do you assume you have such power over yourself?

i've noted that argument - it assumes you as God has more power over yourself then you may actually have.

its an argument that assume too much about the nature of you (me) than is warrented.

[Dalek Prime]

Then good luck building a foundation to set philosophy and science on, without that very reasonable premise,

all knowledge of science and philosophy is via ME - there is no other objective truth outside of "I exist" - right now.

that includes all of not only science and philosophy, but all of history, and literature and all things else!

Napoleon may have existed and lived 200 yrs ago - but he may have been created by ME also.

empricism (also created by me?) only can show the latter. not the former. the former require faith I lack that.

I only have "Faith" that i exist, and am all. i create that i know of history/science/philoshy/etc..................

if you (me talking to me?) cannot see this you lack understanding of Solipsism and that it is the only Truth in this realm.

gaffaw (your new name).

har har.

why not use the other one gaffe?

I've used my moniker since usenet days - 22 yrs now - and seen both monikers for my "name" from those that like to play games when they they dissagree with my posts.

Unfortunately, you exist independently of my mind,

prove it.

or I could wash you away

why do you assume you have such power over yourself?

i've noted that argument - it assumes you as God has more power over yourself then you may actually have.

its an argument that assume too much about the nature of you (me) than is warrented.

Then again I will suggest you have nothing on which to build a philosophy, if you doubt everything save my first premise. Hey, I was willing to lay out my basic premises, simply and in plain English. Why dont you? Because you cant. If you accept nothing external to yourself as real, you are left with pretty much nothing. Instead, all I hear you say is that my premises are bullshit. Yet they are perfectly reasonable to anyone who has read the beginners book by Russell. Well, except my third premise, if someone wants to inanely argue that a rock sees self-worth in itself, as I state that the concept of value, or valuation, belongs to awareness, and concept itself as well, conceptualization being a mental process.