1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured ABSOLUTE TRUTH

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by questfortruth, Oct 6, 2020.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,763
    Ratings:
    +433
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    INTRODUCTION:


    MY IDEA FOR MAKING NATURAL THEOLOGY:

    The Absolute Truth, e.g. 2+2=4, can not be false. So, the falsifiability criterion is unscientific.

    A nihilist can say: "the Absolute Truth is only in mathematics, not in physics nor elsewhere."

    I am replying, that the humankind accumulates the knowledge. The knowledge, if the latter is false, is not the knowledge, but the mistake.
    However, humankind accumulates knowledge. For example, the most clever of us know, that
    the Sun is a star and is very far away from Earth;
    the Earth is not a flat disk standing on turtles;
    down to the millimeter, the meter-size triangle is described by Pythagorean theorem;
    that the General Relativity validity is being tested many times with success;
    the absolute truth in history is what I was born more than 30 years ago and got: the gold medal (for school completion), cum laude (for University completion), and publications in Physical Review E.

    In opposition to Popper's falsifiability criterion, we suggest the following: "the theory is real if its validity can be confirmed." While the testing for confirmation, the theory can fail a test. I such a case it is no longer a real theory. For example, the flat earth (once was a real theory) is not real.

    By that way of Natural Theology, we can prove even God and spirits.

    QUOTES FROM DISCUSSION:

    The answer you'd get depends on people:

    Yes, if we are followers of Truth,
    No, if we are followers of Big Fat Lie.
    Indeed, there are quotes "no more broken hearts: tell me lies" and "Love me, love me; pretend, that you love me!" from:





    Verifying God? How are you capable of such verification? Are you a higher authority than God?



    Conventionalism basically means, that people have created religion and God. No! Uncreated God has given us religion. Because being fundamental means to know where you came from ("I know where I am from" Jesus Christ). I came from God, not from the Biggest Bang on Earth. Fundamentalism was never the sin of fanatism.

     
  2. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    12,208
    Ratings:
    +11,468
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Just be careful you don't post any Depeche Mode videos, or people will think you are Dennis Markuse :D:
    Dennis Markuze - RationalWiki
     
  3. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,444
    Ratings:
    +10,247
    Religion:
    Humanist
    2+2=4 is true in base 10

    But if it is in (say) base 3, it is not true

    But accepting that it is in base 10 your assertion makes no sense. You can test it by checking if 2+2=5 or 2+2=3 or 2+3=4
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,217
    Ratings:
    +7,251
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Right. 2+2=11 in base 3. 4 does not exist. So, 2+2=4 is not absolute. It's a relative truth, not an absolute truth. It's true only relative to the system where it is true, but not valid in other systems.
     
  5. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,674
    Ratings:
    +5,175
    Religion:
    Pi π
    What does 2+2=4 have to do with Intelligent Design and Intelligent Designer being “unfalsifiable”?

    Simple arithmetic and ID are two completely unrelated subjects, so making a comparison between the two is a very weak argument.

    I don’t think any scientist have any problems with basic mathematics, because they used maths as tools to work out problems. Just as accountants or financial experts would used business maths to do their works. Or different types of engineers would rely on specific types of maths related to their fields...and so on.

    It is some groups of religious people, particularly Christian creationists, who tried to inject their brands of creationism into the science classrooms (eg biology, physics, chemistry), when creationisms in what ever shapes or forms - eg YEC (Young Earth Creationism), OEC (Old Earth Creationism), ID (Intelligent Design), etc - are religious subjects, not science.

    In order to teach religious beliefs, then you would take up subjects, like theology, comparative religions, biblical studies, etc. Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism are not science, because God, Creator, Intelligent Designer or whatever you want to call these divine beings, are not subjected to scientific evidence.

    In Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, they are subjected to certain criteria to several different mechanisms, to test and to determine which explanatory models (eg hypothesis, scientific theory) are science and which models are not science. To test them it must meet the following requirements:
    1. Falsifiability
    2. Scientific Method
    3. Peer Review
    In all 3 means of testing a model, they are all related to what available objective verifiable observations that in the science world, called evidence.

    Science is tested and evidence-based knowledge about the physical worlds.

    Evidence are the mean in which hypotheses and theories are scientific and which other assumptions are not scientific.

    Evidence don’t just test models as a mean of verification that models are true. It also test models that are science, by refuting or debunking the models.

    Evidence are observations which meet one of the following requirements, that the evidence are:

    • Observable or detectable
    • Quantifiable
    • Measurable
    • Testable (eg comparing one evidence against other evidence), verifiable and refutable.
    So for any model to be accepted as science, it must be verifiable, so must meet all 3 requirements that I have mention earlier - Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review. And the only way you can do that.

    You wrote:

    That’s the problem. Whether you call God - Creator or Designer - he is not subjected to observations and tests, which disqualified all religious beliefs of deities as UNFALSIFIABLE.

    No one can observe or detect god, he cannot be measured or tested, so there are no available evidence for the existence of Creator or Designer.

    That’s why ID and all other forms of creationism are considered unfalsifiable and pseudoscience.

    But the question is, what does 2+2=4 have to do with the Designer or Intelligent Design?

    No amount of maths will verify Intelligent Design as science. And 2+2=4 doesn’t in any way make Intelligent Design falsifiable, so it would seem your comparison between maths and ID would seem to be pointless.
     
    #5 gnostic, Oct 6, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,985
    Ratings:
    +23,641
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, actually, 2+2=4 is true in base 3, it's just that 4=11 in base 3. base 10 and base 3 are simply ways of expressing the same facts about numbers.

    If we *define*
    1=S0, 2=S1, 3=S2, 4=S3
    and suppose that axioms
    x+0=x
    x+Sy=S(x+y),

    then 2+2=4 since

    2+2=2+S1=S(2+1)=S(2+S1)=SS(2+0)=SS2=S3=4.

    Now, in a sense, it is a relative truth in the sense that you need some idea of a successor, but such systems are incredibly common.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,985
    Ratings:
    +23,641
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Well, 2+2=4 is a statement in some axiomatic system. It is tested via the notion of mathematical proof in that axiomatic system.

    But, more importantly, the statement 2+2=4 may or may not be relevant for any given physical situation. Whether it is or not can only be determined by observation and testing.

    So, for example, if you add two gallons of water to two gallons of ethanol, you will NOT get four gallons of liquid as a result. So, in that case, the mathematical statement that 2+2=4 is a bad model. A model that works better will deal with the azeotropic properties of water and ethanol.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    2,479
    Ratings:
    +1,462
    Love Depeche mode have listen to them on/off since I was very young :)

    Like the mixing of Black celebration in this one..

     
  9. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,991
    Ratings:
    +217
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    O planet Earth the One mass body, once a hot dense state in spatial history, became less than its origins, as mass consumed itself in the hot dense state.

    As it became less than itself, you would quote, once God was a mass say with one million numbers, just as an example. Then by the time God cooled O as mass in space it was then ONE. The million numbers do not even exist.

    Only O one as mass does, fused. The highest statement in natural science is the state fused. No matter what form of advice about difference or variation the status is fused the highest science statement in natural sciences.

    Science for invention, is not natural, it does not own in any history any natural thesis whatsoever. God O the one mass body history in space.

    God O the mass ended in space Holy cold space. End of form is presence of form, highest state. Relative highest male human conscious advice, the telling of truth without falsification of a symbolic false Satanic language. Symbolism, fakery.

    O the complete form.

    Heavens included in that review, as the highest fused presence was quantified to be O God only, One.

    And you cannot quote the heavenly gases, for that was a reactive change to the highest state in natural history O one stone mass. As human realised logic.

    Self awareness, self in a discussion before an artificially imposed statement exists first, why it was quantified to be spiritual and highest conscious ideal in a self life. Without argument.
     
  10. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,217
    Ratings:
    +7,251
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    What comes to mind here is the story of the blind man and the elephant. While the elephant is the elephant, what each called it disagreed with what the others called it. Some said a tree, others a rope, another a fan, etc. So to the one who says an elephant is a fan, to call it a rope is incorrect.

    So while 2+2=11 in base 3, "4" is a non-existent anything. While they are touching what can be called 4 in one system, is called 11 in another. Is it really 4? Is 4 it's actual reality? Is 11? Are they like the blind men and the elephant, where all of them were partly right, and none of them were true?

    So to say there is actually "four" objects, is not true. There are simply objects, and one group calls it four, and another eleven. 2+2= "4" is not absolute.
     
  11. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,985
    Ratings:
    +23,641
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, 4 is a natural number. It has a *representation* in base 3 of 11. But it still exists independent of that representation. And, no matter what representation you use, 2+2=4.

    If, for example, we use hexadecial notation, we have that 6+6=C and that expresses *exactly* the same thing as the decimal expression 6+6=12. The point is that the number represented by C in hexadecimal and the number represented by 12 in decimal are exactly the same number. Both statements are completely correct.

    Also, it is NOT true that in base 3 the number 11 is read as eleven. It is read as one-one. Again, the expression 11 in base three simply means 1*3+1=4. In decimal, we have 11=1*A+1 =B (in hexadecimal).
     
  12. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,991
    Ratings:
    +217
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    If you are the scientific Designer, then you are the owner/Creator by a living bio organic human life form, through visionary concepts, being thinking, to own conditions to describe your design thesis by self drawing the designs.

    Yet if you drew your own concept, a human you would draw the design model a human as a bio life form...without any other concept or design or measuring.

    Seeing a measure is imposed to what it does not own, the measure.

    If you tried to make a human being, a bio life form be inferred to be circle, you would be discussing the concept of the first strings of thoughts to a circular body O the God mass fused form. As the thinker.

    To compare self, human form, image is human form, the life form is exact how it exists...yet when you draw it, you cannot impose in the drawing the bio living organism itself.

    So even in design, design proves you were never discussing how a human being existed.

    You were looking back O to God the stone...seeing your science strings of thoughts go to stone first to obtain/abstract your designs to the formula to build the machine for you to control and react your own human self.

    How you came about falsifying brain/mind information by AI machine designer human encoded feed back subliminal speaking AI statements. Which confuses the thinking capability today in natural life.

    What you were all warned about, in medical Healer sciences the brain mind conscious effect of why a human began to unnaturally hear "recorded" voice.

    O the Earth stone mass never spoke to you being the origin form of the O God of one in space, the strings to your machine theories.

    So your machine cause then began to speak back to you....artificial intelligence, exactly what you know. You discuss it constantly, yet you are the Designer of it yourself, human being male.

    However the science strings of thoughts go back to O God the planet stone, and claim O God created artificial intelligence, when God ended in space a non transmitting empty body.

    Only radiation radio waves own transmitting status....by machine owned history.

    I learnt in AI statements that our science brother began to pretend that he personally entered out of space as a spirit of a human. When the Designer, human mind thinking was attacked by his machination feed back as the scientist and has told lies to his own self who only exist living as a near to water body, water bio oxygenated microbial life.

    Which is held to the ground by all of the other bodies of spirits as gases that our life does not own, it is just supported by. But science conditions, to convert and transform and destroy does use. Why your self described science definition was the Destroyer of God. And the Destroyer human self man/male idealist.

    The Creator entity historically is quoted in science to be the philosophy of the planet Earth one stone mass O who released the gases from a held and contained stone cooled body.

    Which is not any string to anything else.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,674
    Ratings:
    +5,175
    Religion:
    Pi π
    It isn’t “eleven”, windwalker. It is “one-one”.

    In binary, 4 would be “100”. But “100” isn’t “one hundred’”...it is “one-zero-zero” in binary digits.

    But you are right, the number 4 can be represented in a number of different ways.

    In binary, 2+2=4 would be represented as 10+10=100.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,991
    Ratings:
    +217
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science. Taught how fission of the ground mass removed the mass back to a radiating zero....meaning gone/removed and changed by conversion.

    A male therefore thought back from that status, a heated radiating removal to when his science thesis, chemical dusts had not fissional changed.

    He however did not think back to when God/mass was forming and owned natural forming. As since when could a scientist human living on a cold stone fused planet think back to when the planet once existed as a hot burning dense mass.

    He would in fact have theorised the above ground stone fused mass stone and all Nature to his idea of Hell.

    Said as a scientist.
    Thought and owned theist, a human being male living as a scientist.

    Who keeps quoting a hot dense state as beginning and also our end. In reality.

    The man of the apostasy was stated to be when men/males in group agreement, ego mentality try to claim the non existence of the status given to planet Earth as O one body of mass and the One God science relativity thesis.

    And as science in male life invented AI speaking sharing of male information, which also began to record his whole living life experience, as proven. Then his natural death and also unnatural death. Then from his origin healthy spiritual male psyche and conscious mind and healthy life body, he then was given AI self possession of falsification of worded/heard male human information.

    What AI and the subliminal brain/mind psyche effect was studied for, as scientific proof that it is real and does coerce human belief and choices.

    Science of the occult was wrong/radiation conversion. Science of the medical healer had to contest and then detail why. Science is first wrong. Science was never first right or correct.

    Science ignoring the ancient occult medical Healer advice in modern times tried to infer that they did not know what they were discussing. Of course they never knew the occult theory/building and design fake/false owned/controlled machination by its designer brother/s.

    Only the minds who could infer and agree to the group agreement were involved. Everyone else never knew what you were talking about. Which does not make you correct or a superior thinker, seeing you researched destruction of creation.

    Science in modern times, occult theist then applied new machine studies and proved the occult/medical healer science awareness historic information was correct. As they own that information as an occult organization, the modern day scientists try to pretend it is not real.

    Yet modern science quoted it was a dangerous ideal to quote male and female references to bodies of mass of power in space. For it is a falsification and incorrect self mind/psyche teaching.

    The situation science is not real it is a chosen human bio life choice and it is artificial....as natural consciousness does not lie to itself. So as we all own natural consciousness first, the consciousness says science, the occult situation is false and artificial, it is not real.

    And that information is science itself, not real information is a want/ownership and controlled human organized choice, and conscious natural advice told you so...the higher self, natural spiritual human self advice, as a warning to self human.
     
  15. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,564
    Ratings:
    +1,358
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe a natural proof of 2+2=4 is the matter of holding up two fingers in one hand and two fingers in another hand and counting all the fingers held up and coming to the conclusion of four fingers held up. This is experiential proof. That is the way God is proven also: by experience.
     
  16. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,444
    Ratings:
    +10,247
    Religion:
    Humanist
    No, God can't be proven. I've never seen her?
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,985
    Ratings:
    +23,641
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Furthermore, it is completely correct to say that 100 (base 2) is 'four'. It is similar to saying that 12 base 10 is 'twelve'.

    it is very common in math to have more than one way of writing the same thing. In fact, that can be a significant help in understanding.

    So, the *exact same number* is represented as 13 in base 10, as 1101 in base 2, as 111 in base 3, as 15 in octal, and as D in hexadecimal.

    So, in base 10, we would write 9+4=13. In base 2 we would write 1001+100=1101, in base 3 we would write 100+11=111, on octal we would write 11+4=15, and in hex we would write 9+4=D.

    These are ALL saying *exactly the same thing*. Every single one of them is simply true about natural numbers. They are just different ways of saying exactly the same fact about some numbers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,674
    Ratings:
    +5,175
    Religion:
    Pi π
    To @Polymath257

    In my response/reply to @Windwalker base 3 of 4 being “eleven” being wrong, I didn’t know you have already gave a similar correction/reply to Windwalker in the earlier post 11.

    So I didn’t see or read your reply in post 11, until this morning (note highlighted in red):

    It was apparent I didn’t read other posts between windwalker and mine, when I press the REPLY button.

    Sorry. You have already given clarification, so credit really goes to you.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,985
    Ratings:
    +23,641
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No worries. It happens all the time to all of us.
     
  20. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,674
    Ratings:
    +5,175
    Religion:
    Pi π
    To @questfortruth

    You didn’t response to my reply, in post 5, so I am going to give another go in response to your OP.​

    Science and falsifiability have nothing to do with 2+2=4.

    And they also have nothing to do with your notion of “Absolute Truth”.

    ABSOLUTE TRUTH might be assumed in philosophies and in religious-based philosophies, like your Natural Theology, but not with scientific requirements of any explanatory/predictive model (eg hypothesis) need to achieve the status of scientific theory.

    Like I said in post 5 earlier, these 3 requirements are as follow:
    1. Falsifiability or Falsification
    2. Scientific Method
    3. Peer Review
    Note that Scientific Method have many steps of processes, but they can broadly be divided, re-defined in 2 broad categories or stages:
    1. Formulation of “propose” explanatory/predictive model (or simply “formulation of hypothesis”) stage
    2. Testing the model stage (this is actually comprise of testing stage and analysis of observations/evidence stage)
    People have often misunderstood what Falsifiability mean, thereby misuse it. Just as you did, in your OP (opening post).

    What Popper’s Falsifiability do, is to critique the generalized assumptions made from observation or experience, which is really a major problem for INDUCTIVE REASONING.

    With inductive reasoning, people have the tendency to make generalization in their assertion based on very limited observations.

    Scenario:

    You see some white swans, and then you might generalize assumption that “all swans are white”.​

    Saying “ALL swan is white”, that’s an inductive problem, not a falsifiable problem.

    Falsifiability is about testing the “inductive” assumptions to show such “inductive” logic can be shown to be false, by observing at least one black swan.

    Now the white and black swan example, demonstrated where making inductive argument can be wrong approach of finding real objective answers.

    Falsifiability is all about being skeptical and overcoming problems that are found in both deductive logic and inductive logic, and testing such logic with more rigorous observations, and avoiding generalized assumptions as being “absolute truth”.

    Falsifiability is another word for REFUTABILITY or TESTABILITY. And testing a statement or model required the ability to discover EVIDENCE or ability to perform EXPERIMENTS.

    And in science, a model that failed to be testable, that model is considered UNFALSIFIABLE.

    I don’t know of any scientists questioning the 2+2=4, or using falsifiability on such simple arithmetic, so this is nothing more than strawman argument.

    As to your Natural Theology, questfortruth.

    Natural Theology is all about trying to prove the existence of god, though logic and experience, without relying on revealed theology (eg scriptures) that have supernatural basis (eg miracles).

    But Natural Theology isn’t science and it isn’t better than science.

    And I know for fact that you being Eastern Orthodox Christian you would never give up your Revealed Theology for Natural Theology, because you still believe in the miracles as narrated in Genesis and in the gospels. You would never give up your scriptures (Bible) as your main sources for truth.

    So I find you promoting Natural Theology is merely a distraction - smoke-and-mirror. Your true motive of using Natural Theology in your arguments are really hide the fact that you are anti-science.

    Why else would you use simple arithmetic to try argue against using falsifiability?

    Because in the long run, the existence of god is still UNFALSIFIABLE, regardless if you are using Natural Theology or Revealed Theology. Natural Theology is still an unfalsifiable and unscientific philosophy.
     
Loading...