But we are observing the light from the Sun now. Aren't we? Why do you think that in order to observe the Sun, we must observe the Sun as it is right now?

Has any of this to do with the question posed by the OP? Are there current and future facts, or not? My answer is that there are, and I gave an example of a future fact. Do you have an answer to the question?

I was just thinking about how this pertains to title, "facts only existing in the past". Seeing that title gave me the thought, 'well everything we see is in not what it is NOW but what it was in the past when you think about it'

Then I thought about a better of example of what I am saying and the sun I thought was a good example.

Saying that it is a fact that the sun is burning right now is only a fact, if you mean that the sun was burning 7 minutes ago. The point is it would seem to be a fact at the time but it may very well be that the sun had already burnt out when you said that.

As I said, there is no reason to think that when I say that I see the Sun, that I am saying that I am seeing the Sun as it is at the moment. If I said it is a fact (true) that the Sun exists right now, and if the Sun did not exist at the time of my utterance, then I would be mistaken. But what is controversial about that?

let us not forget that we are, in a way, always observing the past since there must be some delay for the time it took the light to reach our eyes.

Actually consider if I said it is a fact that the Sun is burning right now. Well I really don't know the answer to that. I know that it is a fact the sun was burning 7 minutes ago though.

nothing controversial I was just pointing out that it's only a fact in the past and cannot be a fact at any other time

yes, it is a fact that 7 min ago the sun was burning, but 7 min ago it was a fact (maybe not a known fact, but a fact none the less) that the sun IS burning bright.

That we don't know till it is past does not negate the fact in the present. Does it?

well it turned out to be fact yes. You can state something as fact(for example the sun will be burning in 5 minutes) but until it passes how could it be a fact?

for the record, I'm with ya'll, I'm just trying to figure out how he meant it.

Well.... if we're playing devil's advocate :devilish:

Then I could pull the Parmenidian One and reject change, time, and just say that truth exists. It does not change (b/c there is no change), is not subject to time (b/c there is no time), it just is. Still standing by the correspondence theory, truth corresponds to reality, which, according to Parmenides, is static.

but that's just if were playing devils advocate...