@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

The point I was making is that a statement **can never be true without a proof.** Or a supporting base.

Truth relies on proof. A statement without proof can not be **said to be true **

Well, I disagree with both of these statements and I think you are falling into the same "subjectivist" trap that Fresky has when you make them.

Truth does not depend on what we "say" or what we know. That is subjective and irrelevant to "truth."

It's not what I "know" that makes a thing true or false. Nor does my inability to prove a "fact" make it untrue.

I can assume, and even claim to "know," that the universe would still exist even if the entire human race went extinct. I can't literally "prove" that. I can't be said to "know" it from personal experience.

I could be right, or I could be wrong, in my assumptions and conclusions, but either way, the universe either would, or would not, still exist in that event.

**That** would be the "fact" (or "truth"). It couldn't be both true and false--it's one or the other, even if we can't know or prove which one is "true."

The same analysis would apply to any statement I make, such as, "there are unicorns living on the surface of a planet (which we have detected) 10 light years from here." There either are, or are not, unicorns living there. Only one of those two possibilities can be true. It doesn't depend on what I know, or can prove. The one that comports with the actual facts is true. The one that doesn't is false.