Truth

[YmirGF]

Truth : the quality or state of being true.

Which, oddly enough, is not generally true about assumptive "Truth" claims and their inherent suppositions.
The moment anyone starts talking about "The Truth" you know that what comes next is a bunch of smoke blowing.

 

[Fool]

Opinion noted.

so Jesus knows for you? or your know the Father for self?

why did Jesus teach to pray "Our Father" instead of praying my Jesus? or even our Jesus?

 

[ChristineM]

Which, oddly enough, is not generally true about assumptive "Truth" claims and their inherent suppositions.
The moment anyone starts talking about "The Truth" you know that what comes next is a bunch of smoke blowing.

I do wish they'd be honest with the "Truth". There are many verses in the bible that teach that Christians should be truthful, seems that is one of the teachings they are selective about.

 

[DavidFirth]

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I.e. the quest for truth.


When referring to religious "Truth" will you please capitalise or enclose it in quotes (preferably both) so it is easily discernable from truth

Truth : the quality or state of being true.

Your i.e. is not included in the definition. To me there is only one truth and that is Jesus Christ. Any other "truth" I am not interested in.

 

[PureX]

Does anyone know where to find the truth?

Yup ... it's right here.

 

[Polymath257]

If one is still searching for the truth, why pay any more attention to truths that might disagree with your truth than is absolutely necessary, I would think that the object of the search would be to find a more inclusive truth, to incorporate it and be incorporated by it.

Well, I see the goal as eliminating falsehoods. To include falsehoods is a problem. The way to tell truth from falsehood is by testing.

I pay attention to views counter to mine because I allow that I might be wrong. Other views can suggest new methods of testing and different hypotheses that need testing.

 

[Polymath257]

You said to find truth you need science, which is incorrect. To find truth you need to know someone who knows the truth. Science has no such person.

Wrong. Asking someone else only tells you their opinion.

To find truth, you need to test reality. That is how science does things.

 

[Polymath257]

Your i.e. is not included in the definition. To me there is only one truth and that is Jesus Christ. Any other "truth" I am not interested in.

So, you are only interested in the falsehood of Christianity to the place you ignore any truths that contradict it.

 

[DavidFirth]

Wrong. Asking someone else only tells you their opinion.

To find truth, you need to test reality. That is how science does things.

Oh. So you know all of these theories to be true because you have tested them all and found them to be truth. Interesting. How did you recreate the big bang? abiogenesis? ape-to-man? Hmm. I guess you haven't gotten around to those yet so the jury must still be out.

 

[DavidFirth]

So, you are only interested in the falsehood of Christianity to the place you ignore any truths that contradict it.

You say it is a falsehood. Prove it.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh. So you know all of these theories to be true because you have tested them all and found them to be truth. Interesting. How did you recreate the big bang? abiogenesis? ape-to-man? Hmm. I guess you haven't gotten around to those yet so the jury must still be out.

It isn't required that the Big Bang be re-created in order to test it. To test it, we look at the predictions it makes and test them against observations we can make right now. There are many such possible observations and the overall BB description has held up to scrutiny.

Ape-to-man is a misnomer because humans *are* apes.

Abiogenesis is still to be tested in detail, but the outlines are clear.

So, yes, in many specifics, the jury is still out. So? We don't have to know everything in order to know something.

 

[Polymath257]

You say it is a falsehood. Prove it.

Well, state your hypothesis in detail in a way that can be tested. I don't know the specifics of your viewpoint, but those near yours have always been falsified by observations.

So, what is a *test* that we can do that will show you wrong if it doesn't come out the way you expect and that disagrees with what science says?

If your ideas are not testable, they can be ignored as irrelevant.

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, state your hypothesis in detail in a way that can be tested. I don't know the specifics of your viewpoint, but those near yours have always been falsified by observations.

So, what is a *test* that we can do that will show you wrong if it doesn't come out the way you expect and that disagrees with what science says?

If your ideas are not testable, they can be ignored as irrelevant.

You already stated your own hypothesis: the falsehood of Christianity

Now prove it is a falsehood or admit that it may be and may not be.

 

[Polymath257]

You already stated your own hypothesis: the falsehood of Christianity

Now prove it is a falsehood or admit that it may be and may not be.

Which version of Christianity?

How about the one where Jesus says he will return in that generation? That was several generations ago.

Or how about the one that claims that anyone with an open heart can ask and receive a message showing the truth of Christianity? I tried that. The test showed the claim to be wrong.

 

[DavidFirth]

It isn't required that the Big Bang be re-created in order to test it. To test it, we look at the predictions it makes and test them against observations we can make right now. There are many such possible observations and the overall BB description has held up to scrutiny.

Ape-to-man is a misnomer because humans *are* apes.

Abiogenesis is still to be tested in detail, but the outlines are clear.

So, yes, in many specifics, the jury is still out. So? We don't have to know everything in order to know something.

"humans *are* apes" Fallacy of assumed conclusion without premises

You can't test abiogenesis. It happened once supposedly by chance. If you try to test it you ruin the "chance" part of it.

Yes. The jury is still out. Big time.

 

[DavidFirth]

Which version of Christianity?

How about the one where Jesus says he will return in that generation? That was several generations ago.

You said that Christianity is a falsehood. I am asking you to prove it is or admit that you can't. In order to prove it you would need to prove Christ did not rise from the dead. Go for it.

 

[Polymath257]

"humans *are* apes" Fallacy of assumed conclusion without premises

No, just pointing out where your assumptions are faulty.

You can't test abiogenesis. It happened once supposedly by chance. If you try to test it you ruin the "chance" part of it.

Sure we can. We can propose various mechanisms and test them in the labs today. We can use informaton in today's cells to test ideas about cells in the past.

Nobody said that abiogenesis had to be by 'chance' (whatever that means in practice). The idea is that natural processes obeying the known laws of chemistry and physics can produce life from certain environments without life.

I'm not sure how testing it ruins the chance aspect in any case. We can, and do, test 'chance' occurrences all the time.

Yes. The jury is still out. Big time.

 

[Polymath257]

You said that Christianity is a falsehood. I am asking you to prove it is or admit that you can't. In order to prove it you would need to prove Christ did not rise from the dead. Go for it.

Nope, I don't have to prove that. I have to prove any consequence of Christianity is false. I gave a couple.

 

[DavidFirth]

No, just pointing out where your assumptions are faulty.

And what assumption is that, exactly?

 

[Polymath257]

You said that Christianity is a falsehood. I am asking you to prove it is or admit that you can't. In order to prove it you would need to prove Christ did not rise from the dead. Go for it.

It is much more likely that people lied or didn't understand what happened than that Jesus rose from the dead. That is quite enough to show Christianity is wrong beyond a *reasonable* doubt.