I am the Absolute Truth

[questfortruth]

I am all that is good because I like all good.
If God is Truth itself, then it is clear, why following God makes the mind saner. Thus, one can find order in the chaos of useless material in Science:

Trustworthy of alternative gravity theories.

Einstein has predicted the value of the light deflection angle when
starlight passes near the Sun. It is extremely odd to say then, that
Einstein's theory is conceptually wrong, but the completely different
theory is right.

If two theories have a different set of postulates and principles,
they can not produce the same deflection angle (and coincide with other
experimental and observational data). It simply never happens. But
there are alternative gravity theories (like the bi-metric gravities,
where spacetime is not curved; or non-local gravity of Dr. Hehl), which are
tuned to match the already measured light deflection angle.
But they have not predicted the angle in advance! They are simply
adjusted, tuned, which reminds me of "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".

This fallacy gets its name from a story
in which a Texas shooter fired many bullet holes into the side of a
barn. He then drew a target around a tight cluster of bullet holes
and called himself a "sharpshooter." He was not necessarily aiming
anywhere in particular, but several of his bullets seemed to find a
similar position in the barn wall. Drawing a target around the area
made it look like he aimed, and succeeded in hitting, that particular
area.

 

[Nakosis]

I am all that is good because I like all good.
If God is Truth itself, then it is clear, why following God makes the mind saner. Thus, one can find order in the chaos of useless material in Science:

Trustworthy of alternative gravity theories.

Einstein has predicted the value of the light deflection angle when
starlight passes near the Sun. It is extremely odd to say then, that
Einstein's theory is conceptually wrong, but the completely different
theory is right.

If two theories have a different set of postulates and principles,
they can not produce the same deflection angle (and coincide with other
experimental and observational data). It simply never happens. But
there are alternative gravity theories (like the bi-metric gravities,
where spacetime is not curved; or non-local gravity of Dr. Hehl), which are
tuned to match the already measured light deflection angle.
But they have not predicted the angle in advance! They are simply
adjusted, tuned, which reminds me of "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".

This fallacy gets its name from a story
in which a Texas shooter fired many bullet holes into the side of a
barn. He then drew a target around a tight cluster of bullet holes
and called himself a "sharpshooter." He was not necessarily aiming
anywhere in particular, but several of his bullets seemed to find a
similar position in the barn wall. Drawing a target around the area
made it look like he aimed, and succeeded in hitting, that particular
area.

So when you don't have a real answer to a question, just claim God is the answer...

Science is not making claims, I am a sharpshooter. Science is validation and repeated validation of what is claimed.

Sure scientists will make claims based on the information that is available to them. Where science comes in is in the validation of what has been claimed. Not only by your own testing/experimentation but also by the testing and experimentation of others, especially those intent on trying to disprove your claim.

In the case of the sharpshooter, it'd be very easy for an outside party to devise a test to validate the claim. The claim has to successfully pass all tests developed by anyone wishing to validate the claim/theory to remain a valid claim. Yes there are a lot of theories out there about light/gravity and even more people out there try to test/validate/disprove them.

Only after many have tested/tried to disprove a claim does it get accepted as reliable.

 

[blü 2]

If God is Truth itself" I don't understand that expression. "Truth" is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

Are you a pantheist? That might make some sense of it.

 

[questfortruth]

f God is Truth itself" I don't understand that expression. "Truth" is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

Are you a pantheist? That might make some sense of it.

In my Religion, the God is Spirit. The Spirit of all, that comes from God is the essence of God. The spirit of something is the idea behind that. The Spirit behind the cat is the Creativity: the cat was created. The 2+2=4 is the example of the Absolute Truth. But the 2+2=4 is not God. The God is Spirit of 2+2=4, which is Truth and Knowledge.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If God is Truth itself, then it is clear, why following God makes the mind saner.

I, too, believe God is Truth itself. The dilemma started when I realized religions weren't telling the truth.

 

[questfortruth]

I, too, believe God is Truth itself. The dilemma started when I realized religions weren't telling the truth.

Are you smarter than Science?! There is no scientific disproof of any religion.

 

[Kfox]

I am all that is good because I like all good.
If God is Truth itself, then it is clear, why following God makes the mind saner. Thus, one can find order in the chaos of useless material in Science:

Trustworthy of alternative gravity theories.

Einstein has predicted the value of the light deflection angle when
starlight passes near the Sun. It is extremely odd to say then, that
Einstein's theory is conceptually wrong, but the completely different
theory is right.

If two theories have a different set of postulates and principles,
they can not produce the same deflection angle (and coincide with other
experimental and observational data). It simply never happens. But
there are alternative gravity theories (like the bi-metric gravities,
where spacetime is not curved; or non-local gravity of Dr. Hehl), which are
tuned to match the already measured light deflection angle.
But they have not predicted the angle in advance! They are simply
adjusted, tuned, which reminds me of "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".

This fallacy gets its name from a story
in which a Texas shooter fired many bullet holes into the side of a
barn. He then drew a target around a tight cluster of bullet holes
and called himself a "sharpshooter." He was not necessarily aiming
anywhere in particular, but several of his bullets seemed to find a
similar position in the barn wall. Drawing a target around the area
made it look like he aimed, and succeeded in hitting, that particular
area.

Interesting video. The author of the video says God's nature is good, thus anything God says, does, or commands is good. But how is this claim any different than if I said MY nature is good, thus anything I say, do, or command is good? Unless someone knows the difference between good and bad, and can compare my nature to Gods, what makes his claim more legitimate than mine?

 

[Valjean]

Are you smarter than Science?! There is no scientific disproof of any religion.

Science is "smart?" How are you defining smart?
No disproof of religion? Define religion, and what would constitute disproof? And what's your point?
What does no disproof of "A belief or set of beliefs that create an ethic among adherents" have to do with anything?