How to prove that what you say is true
This will be a short answer, but it's an extremely serious one.
Practically, if I needed to prove something I said was true I would find something you already regarded as necessarily true and demonstrate how what I said follows from it.
That's Logic in a nutshell.
The key to the art of rhetoric is divining what platform your audience place their premises on - then you just stand on it.
After all, I will never convince you of anything you have decided is false - even if I were to be correct. People never ‘change their minds' - they just rearrange the emphases of what was previously undecided into different configurations of likelihood weightings.
Hence, to prove anything I just need to work out what you don't doubt and make my sentence a subset of that string.
It's actually frighteningly easy. Good rhetoricians understand that people are usually essentially unsure of what they believe. All you need to do is give them a rock they recognise and they'll build an empire on it. If the rock's in your hand, well...you can make anything great again. You can become truth. You can actually make your own word all the proof anyone needs if you dig deep enough into their desires.
Once you've done that you can call anything ‘fake' and such falsity becomes a fact.
How can you prove that what you say is true?
It's damn near impossible to prove anything conclusively. We can't every prove with 100% certainty that we're alive. We might just be a very complicated computer simulation.
However, you don't really need to prove anything to convince a human animal that something is true. For example, it's not hard at all to find someone who's convinced that the existence of a god is a forgone conclusion.
The thing of it is, there are over a hundred believed in gods today (and many thousands throughout human history). For every professed god, there are individuals that are absolutely 100% sure that their god exists and all the many others are false. Even if one makes the bold assumption that one is true, then which one? Either way, that's an awful lot of people that are totally convinced of something that is absolutely false.
My point: If you want to know the likely truth of anything of importance, the best know method is to approach it with an open mind, examine all the evidence on all sides, follow links to supporting evidence, mull it over for some time, and with luck, one side will make much more sense than any other. That, you take as the most likely truth. If the evidence is not convincing for any view, then you must live with the fact that you just don't know, at least until better evidence surfaces.
It very much appears that, like a lot of things, truth is relative. Before you attempt to prove something, you should know the evidence for and against the claims. Then you have a chance at proving that what you say is true.
Or, you could just make up the wildest, most ridiculous stories that you can imagine. Then, it's pretty much a given that someone will accept it as proof. It worked for Trump; it'll work for you. Just remember: the more absurd, the more apt it is to be believed.
Most people form their opinions and beliefs based upon subjective thought, rather than objective thought. They think with their emotions or prejudices, rather than thinking objectively, or logically:
Let's examine the definition of Subjective:
- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
- pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
- placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
Let's examine the definition of being Objective or Objectivity:
#5 not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
Now let us examine the mechanics of right or wrong, truth or lie, good or evil:
Being "right" or "wrong" is a perception that can be based upon facts & evidence, or beliefs & subjective opinion.
If someone agrees with your belief or perception, they appear to be "right" to you.
If someone presents a counter belief or perception, they appear "wrong" to you.
Truth trumps being "right" or "wrong", because truth is a fact or perception based upon factual, observable, & corroborated evidence.
Most people when confronted by evidence counter to what they believe to be right or wrong or truth or lie, etc. Will ignore the evidence presented to them, and not correct their beliefs or perception based upon these new facts or evidence, because they do not like being wrong, and will cling to their false beliefs or views, to protect the ego, this is called Cognitive Dissonance:
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort(psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a belief of a person clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.
Even what one perceives as "truth" can be misleading if one perceives the evidence presented as factual, observable, & corroborated, when those people who are presenting the "evidence" in a deceptive way, such as concocting said "evidence" to make it look authentic, when it actually isn't.
Right and wrong beliefs (not morals) or perceptions are subjective.
Do not confuse right & wrong beliefs or opinions, with good & evil (morality), those are separate subjects all together.
An action or belief or religion which seems good to one person, may seem despicably evil to another person.
This is how Babylon tricks people into performing wicked acts, and tricks people into believing evil things are good, and tricks people into believing false things.
It's a form of seduction, manipulation, & enchantment by the wicked.
The righteous use the Tanakh as their guide, because it is YAHUAH's word, and His rules.
Babylon makes her own rules, and craves liberty from YAHUAH's rules, she concocts her own version of the "facts", right and wrong, and good and evil.
Morally, when something is Righteous or Good or "Right", it will not harm other people, physically, liberally, or property wise, when it's put into action.
This was the purpose of YAHUAH's rules, to prevent harm to one's self or to others.
Babylon does not like this way of thinking and uses it's version of the "facts" and morality, and "right & wrong" to justify it's wicked acts, beliefs, and religions...
Now let's examine an example of Subjective thought within the field of mathematics:
The "Lorentz-Transformation/Contraction", and also Einstein's "time-dilation" & "theory of relativity", are pseudoscientific beliefs, which were concocted to explain away the Michelson-Morley experiment that empirically proved that the earth did not move, and also proved the existence of the aether.
"Gravity" according to Newton, was "mass attracting mass", Michelson-Morley came along and proved that the earth did not move, enter Einstein describing "gravity" as "mass bending space time", "Gravity" is described, like I can describe a fairy that doesn't exist, but it still isn't defined and that is why it is still referred to as a "theory" and not a law: 23. Destined for Oblivion
"Gravity" is a Babylonian concoction/belief, designed to explain falsehoods taught about the environment that we live in. Ask yourself how is it that this vast blanket of air (the "atmosphere") is not sucked away by the "vacuum"? Is it "gravity"? "Scientists" claim that "gravity" is strong enough to hold down quadrillions of tons of water down to the earth, and also "forces" the water to conform to the shape of a "globe" by bending it around, and to top it off holds the water down and "around" resisting the forces of centripetal and centrifugal force, which would vary depending where the water is located on a "globe" that is allegedly "spinning" at 1000 MPH, yet weak enough to allow currents and waves, also gravity is selectively weak enough to allow the smallest of insects to defy it's "force" and fly away with ease. A simple helium balloon also defies this powerful "force", how is that so? If we take any other demonstrable evidence of how air works, in order to have air pressure, you need a container to contain and maintain it. Why is the "atmosphere" special?
"Gravity" is electromagnetism, and the luminaries are superconductors suspended within the electromagnetic field of the earth. The luminaries move, because of the electromagnetic flux, that is present in the earth's magnetic field. The earth does not move, the entire purpose of "Gravity" to begin with, was to propagate a false belief, that the earth is moving.
The Michelson-Morley experiments proved that the earth does not move, and it also proved the existence of the aether:
It depends on what you're trying to prove, exactly. Many things that we wish to prove cannot be proven, at least not in the traditional sense. If you wish to prove something mathematically, though, then there are many different techniques for doing this. Some ways might seem easier and others might seem more difficult, even though they are each legitimate forms of proofs.
Most proofs aim to justify a statement generally of the form, "If A is true, then B is true." So, the pattern that you might take is, know the definition of A, determine some of the things that you know from the definition of A to conclude, perhaps, C, and then from C conclude D and then you know that D implies B, for instance. In other words, you assume that A is true and continue through until you show from A, C, D, etc. until one of those is able to show that it implies that B must be true.
You don't always have to use this approach, though. Instead, in trying to prove that same statement, you could have assuming that A was false and then showed that you end up with a logical problem when you assume that A is false to prove B (i.e. you might end up showing that 1=0 or something which is known as a contradiction). Hence, you've shown that if A is true, then B is true, because if A is false, then you have a contradiction.
So, there are many ways of proving things. I'd recommend checking out the book, "How to Read and Do Proofs" by Daniel Solow if you're interested in getting into reading and writing your own proofs. It's definitely something you should take a stab at if you're interested in mathematics. Really, I'd argue that one is not a mathematician until they start writing their own proofs.
By predicting something about the future that "proves" to be true.
However, we have to be careful about using the terms "true" and "prove" because humans never have perfect knowledge of anything. We are incapably of ultimate proofs and unable to comprehend ultimate truths.