Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[blü 2]

What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

─ Francis Bacon, 'On Truth'​

Dear Creationists

My own view is that truth is conformity with reality. This, often called the 'correspondence' view, means that if you want to know whether a particular statement is true or not, you check how accurately its report corresponds to objective reality. Thus truth can in principle be objectively verified ─ a wholly admirable quality, surely you agree, for any claim of truth to have.

You must use this definition of truth at least part of the time, even if just to know that it's true it's daytime, you're in Kamloops, those are Bikkios on the supermarket shelf, and so on.

But then you add a wholly different concept of 'truth' ─ that the bible is inerrant and therefore all its factual statements are necessarily 'true'.

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

 

[Kemosloby]

Since the bible is written by the creator who was there to see and know how creation happened, To say it didn't happen that way, The burden of proof is on the humans. Since they were not eye witnesses they would need to have some other sort of proof. Proof which they cannot possibly get since God has miraculous powers. Even if science could prove creation happened in some mundane way, it would still be possible it happened in a miraculous way. Which leaves God 2 man 0.

 

[Tmac]

What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

─ Francis Bacon, 'On Truth'​

Dear Creationists

My own view is that truth is conformity with reality. This, often called the 'correspondence' view, means that if you want to know whether a particular statement is true or not, you check how accurately its report corresponds to objective reality. Thus truth can in principle be objectively verified ─ a wholly admirable quality, surely you agree, for any claim of truth to have.

You must use this definition of truth at least part of the time, even if just to know that it's true it's daytime, you're in Kamloops, those are Bikkios on the supermarket shelf, and so on.

But then you add a wholly different concept of 'truth' ─ that the bible is inerrant and therefore all its factual statements are necessarily 'true'.

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

Good morning! How is it that we can conform to "reality"? What you should be saying is that we conform to the reality established by my ancestors. I like your idea except it seems your thought is directed towards something; what I think is really neat is that somehow we as a people have created our own reality when we began naming it. I mean, no one told us a rock was a rock, we just decided that was what it was and it came to be that and you and I live in the results of that imagination.

 

[blü 2]

Since the bible is written by the creator who was there to see and know how creation happened, To say it didn't happen that way,

That's according to the Genesis account.

In terms of the question this thread is concerned with, what test for truth did you apply to
(a) your statement that the bible was written by the creator, and
(b) the Genesis account,
to see whether each was true or not?

 

[blü 2]

Good morning! How is it that we can conform to "reality"? What you should be saying is that we conform to the reality established by my ancestors. I like your idea except it seems your thought is directed towards something; what I think is really neat is that somehow we as a people have created our own reality when we began naming it. I mean, no one told us a rock was a rock, we just decided that was what it was and it came to be that and you and I live in the results of that imagination.

I assume that a world exists external to the self. I also assume that the senses are capable of informing us about that world. And since anyone who posts on the net implicitly agrees with those assumptions, I take it we're not in dispute about.

As for the nature of that external word (objective reality), our understanding of it changes over time, so that the flat earth, geocentry, phologiston and the lumeniferous ether, each of which in its day was our best-informed and best-reasoned opinion, hence was true, is no longer true. In other words, truth changes over time. With the sole exception of this sentence. there are no absolute truths.

So the correspondence view of truth doesn't require truth to be fixed, and thus the absence of absolute truths doesn't affect the question in the OP.

 

[Kemosloby]

That's according to the Genesis account.

In terms of the question this thread is concerned with, what test for truth did you apply to
(a) your statement that the bible was written by the creator, and
(b) the Genesis account,
to see whether each was true or not?

Same as Pilot i guess. I don't think Pilot was mocking Jesus, he seriously could not find anything wrong with him. Pilot would have set Jesus free but the Jewish leaders wouldn't have it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good morning! How is it that we can conform to "reality"? What you should be saying is that we conform to the reality established by my ancestors. I like your idea except it seems your thought is directed towards something; what I think is really neat is that somehow we as a people have created our own reality when we began naming it. I mean, no one told us a rock was a rock, we just decided that was what it was and it came to be that and you and I live in the results of that imagination.

Such labels are arbitrary and have no bearing on the physical properties of the object itself. We can piece things together from medical terms if we know enough Latin, but ultimately even then those terms aren't indicative beyond the labels they bear and associations we make between label and object, the signified and signifier.
But, those labels don't alter objective reality. It doesn't matter what we call geometry or a triangle because we can objectively define the area of a triangle as half of its base x height. We could call a rock a "smlurg," but it would have the same properties regardless and would still be distinct from a diamond, onyx, or quartz. Due to the rotation of the Earth, the sun will "rise" in the East, or Osten, right of North, or Higashi. It doesn't matter what you call, it all describes the same thing and we can take it a step further and use physics to determine a more precise location.

 

[Tmac]

I assume that a world exists external to the self. I also assume that the senses are capable of informing us about that world. And since anyone who posts on the net implicitly agrees with those assumptions, I take it we're not in dispute about.

As for the nature of that external word (objective reality), our understanding of it changes over time, so that the flat earth, geocentry, phologiston and the lumeniferous ether, each of which in its day was our best-informed and best-reasoned opinion, hence was true, is no longer true. In other words, truth changes over time. With the sole exception of this sentence. there are no absolute truths.

So the correspondence view of truth doesn't require truth to be fixed, and thus the absence of absolute truths doesn't affect the question in the OP.

You assume, yes, that's where we are at.
Now, I wasn't there when this argument began but what I do know is it was going on long before I became aware of it. So the question becomes why can't you guys both be right? To me, I see no difference between some one that says they are there own authority and what they say is the authority and those that project that authority outwardly and then tells you what that authority's rules are.

 

[Tmac]

Such labels are arbitrary and have no bearing on the physical properties of the object itself. We can piece things together from medical terms if we know enough Latin, but ultimately even then those terms aren't indicative beyond the labels they bear and associations we make between label and object, the signified and signifier.
But, those labels don't alter objective reality. It doesn't matter what we call geometry or a triangle because we can objectively define the area of a triangle as half of its base x height. We could call a rock a "smlurg," but it would have the same properties regardless and would still be distinct from a diamond, onyx, or quartz. Due to the rotation of the Earth, the sun will "rise" in the East, or Osten, right of North, or Higashi. It doesn't matter what you call, it all describes the same thing and we can take it a step further and use physics to determine a more precise location.

Good morning, I'm not questioning the reality I was born into, what I am saying is that its not important what we believe but that what we believe is good for us and I can't see what good can come from this argument. Yes, I'm living in my interpretation of the world taught to me by my predecessors but I also realize that this argument is fruitless, its a fight for authority.

 

[socharlie]

What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

─ Francis Bacon, 'On Truth'​

Dear Creationists

My own view is that truth is conformity with reality. This, often called the 'correspondence' view, means that if you want to know whether a particular statement is true or not, you check how accurately its report corresponds to objective reality. Thus truth can in principle be objectively verified ─ a wholly admirable quality, surely you agree, for any claim of truth to have.

You must use this definition of truth at least part of the time, even if just to know that it's true it's daytime, you're in Kamloops, those are Bikkios on the supermarket shelf, and so on.

But then you add a wholly different concept of 'truth' ─ that the bible is inerrant and therefore all its factual statements are necessarily 'true'.

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

which reality?

 

[Father Heathen]

Since the bible is written by the creator who was there to see and know how creation happened, To say it didn't happen that way, The burden of proof is on the humans. Since they were not eye witnesses they would need to have some other sort of proof. Proof which they cannot possibly get since God has miraculous powers. Even if science could prove creation happened in some mundane way, it would still be possible it happened in a miraculous way. Which leaves God 2 man 0.

By that logic, comic books prove that superheroes exist.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Since the bible is written by the creator who was there to see and know how creation happened, To say it didn't happen that way, The burden of proof is on the humans. Since they were not eye witnesses they would need to have some other sort of proof. Proof which they cannot possibly get since God has miraculous powers. Even if science could prove creation happened in some mundane way, it would still be possible it happened in a miraculous way. Which leaves God 2 man 0.

And there you have it. There is no "test". It is assumed true and factual without evidence and in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The "eye witness" argument is fallacious as events of history leave trace evidence which can be observed, tested and reasonable conclusions extrapolated from them (this is how some crimes are solved).

I mean, no one told us a rock was a rock, we just decided that was what it was and it came to be that and you and I live in the results of that imagination.

You're talking semantics and conflating "semantics" with "truth". A rock is what it is, regardless of what label you place on it.

 

[Kemosloby]

And there you have it. There is no "test". It is assumed true and factual without evidence and in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The "eye witness" argument is fallacious as events of history leave trace evidence which can be observed, tested and reasonable conclusions extrapolated from them (this is how some crimes are solved).



You're talking semantics and conflating "semantics" with "truth". A rock is what it is, regardless of what label you place on it.

No, I am a thinking being. I am the test.

 

[David T]

What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

─ Francis Bacon, 'On Truth'​

Dear Creationists

My own view is that truth is conformity with reality. This, often called the 'correspondence' view, means that if you want to know whether a particular statement is true or not, you check how accurately its report corresponds to objective reality. Thus truth can in principle be objectively verified ─ a wholly admirable quality, surely you agree, for any claim of truth to have.

You must use this definition of truth at least part of the time, even if just to know that it's true it's daytime, you're in Kamloops, those are Bikkios on the supermarket shelf, and so on.

But then you add a wholly different concept of 'truth' ─ that the bible is inerrant and therefore all its factual statements are necessarily 'true'.

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

Well creationists are rapists like francis bacon was all about rape. So it seems like it's a rapist asking someone else to justify their rape. What is one type of rape better than the other kind of rape?? There is no sex in your violence., I just post and laugh the intellect is literally dead. Btw big finger from the dead.

 

[Tmac]

And there you have it. There is no "test". It is assumed true and factual without evidence and in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The "eye witness" argument is fallacious as events of history leave trace evidence which can be observed, tested and reasonable conclusions extrapolated from them (this is how some crimes are solved).



You're talking semantics and conflating "semantics" with "truth". A rock is what it is, regardless of what label you place on it.

No, that's what you are doing, I'm saying no mater how much one supports a thought, it had a beginning, created by our ancestors and from that beginning we have put together a stream of consciousness that is predicated by the victor.

I think you might be having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[Polymath257]

Since the bible is written by the creator who was there to see and know how creation happened, To say it didn't happen that way, The burden of proof is on the humans. Since they were not eye witnesses they would need to have some other sort of proof. Proof which they cannot possibly get since God has miraculous powers. Even if science could prove creation happened in some mundane way, it would still be possible it happened in a miraculous way. Which leaves God 2 man 0.

If only we could be sure those *humans* that wrote the texts were reliably conveying the views of a God nobody can show exists.

Then you might have a point. God 0, Mankind 100.

 

[Kemosloby]

If only we could be sure those *humans* that wrote the texts were reliably conveying the views of a God nobody can show exists.

Then you might have a point. God 0, Mankind 100.

Since the people who wrote the texts don't understand the texts leaves one explanation God 100 and Mankind 0.

 

[Polymath257]

Since the people who wrote the texts don't understand the texts leaves one explanation God 100 and Mankind 0.

They understood it. They were just wrong. God is no explanation at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the bible is written by the creator who was there to see and know how creation happened, To say it didn't happen that way, The burden of proof is on the humans. Since they were not eye witnesses they would need to have some other sort of proof. Proof which they cannot possibly get since God has miraculous powers. Even if science could prove creation happened in some mundane way, it would still be possible it happened in a miraculous way. Which leaves God 2 man 0.

Not even the Bible claims that it was written by God. And you are trying to shift the burden of proof, the sure action of a person that knows that he is wrong. Worse yet you now have claimed that a God exists. You not only got what the Bible says wrong, you put the burden of proof upon yourself to prove that God exists.

 

[Kemosloby]

Not even the Bible claims that it was written by God. And you are trying to shift the burden of proof, the sure action of a person that knows that he is wrong. Worse yet you now have claimed that a God exists. You not only got what the Bible says wrong, you put the burden of proof upon yourself to prove that God exists.

I'll spell it out for you since you're mind does not seem to stray too far from a legalistic understanding. The "Word of God" that people wrote in a book is what I mean by written by God.