Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Nov 15, 2017.
But that's all you ever talk about; beliefs. I have yet to see you discuss facts.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There will be "facts" you should both agree upon and "facts" that you can't agree upon. A "facts" for Jan is based on a spiritual approach which has a god perhaps by his definition.
You, me and others have our "facts" based in science. I get a message from Jan that he may not be sending and I merely indulge guessing games, that belief works as much upon folk who base their life on science in so far we "accept" science has all the answers...in his view remember which I can only be a guess...perhaps that we have faith in science ... We do but I call it "confidence" ...we know that science is very reliable...so if that's the message I get it... Neither side can ever change the 'facts" when the other side uses different "facts"...
The first fact to nail down is did the universe have a start. Could either side find agreement?
I claim no start..what do you think Jan if you read this?
Can we agree?mmm just because we agree does that agreement make something fact .. come in scientific model to present facts that are somewhat proven.
No start suggests no creation point, well certainly on say Jan's view for God..I expect God has always been there ...but the universe is created and finite.
I say it is the universe that has always existed and was not created ... Our science strongly suggests that the universe has always been here...at least we can not find a point where there was nothing out of which came our universe. But then do scriptures describe creation of the universe..are perhaps just describing the formation (creation) of our solar system?
The definition of God does not require any special approach. It only requires your ability to comprehend, and understand what it means.
Do you accept that the truth can reveal any question you have?
If you do, then do you accept that the truth must be known?
Do you think there is any portion of the truth, that can NOT be known?
To your point and that of Billvon above, I think the disagreements are at more of a basic level than that of scientific theories, and Billvon touches on this issue in his post. For example, if I were stand in front of you and hand you an apple, you could clearly see with your eyes and feel the shape and texture with your hands, hear the crunching sound as you bite into it, tasting the apple and knowing it to be Fuji or Red Delicious and then smelling it's aroma, all the while knowing for a fact that it is indeed an apple. It would seem that Jan on the other hand would claim it's a banana, would never explain why he believes it's a banana but would emphatically tell you it is and then state you can believe it to be a banana or not.
This seems to be the level of disagreement Jan pursues on these threads and one has to wonder why would anyone stoop to such silliness.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What a dumb analogy.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We’re not discussing facts. We’re discussing truth. Truth is already established
Truth is never established without facts so when you discuss truth, you're discussing facts, by definition.
Yet, you can't refute it.
You can’t establish a truth.
The truth is always established.
Putting your hand in the fire, and it burning you, was always established. We didn’t establish that. The fact of the matter, merely informs us of the established truth, indeed it does. It can lead us away from the truth it is not accurate.
You can’t even give an example to provide evidence of your ridiculous metaphor.
Yes, you establish truths with facts.
Because burning your hand in a fire is a fact, that's how that truth is established.
The facts established it.
If it is not accurate, then it isn't a fact.
I don't need to provide any examples, you provide ample.
That's pretty deep, Jan. I like it.
Jan certainly comes over that way although he would probably use such an approach to reject your claim.
The only question is do we waste time pointing to specific examples...well we all know that specific point proving examples only provide Jan further opportunity to play his game.
I give him top marks for consistency and thank him for being entirely predictable.
The fact Jan does not attempt to address my claim that the universe would seem eternal rather than a god being involved however must mean he feels such a proposition makes so much sense he is best avoiding trying to establish an unsupported alternative...knowing no flat rejection tactic can make inroads on such a sound proposition.
So clearly that is a win for me and science...Jan has sidestepped addressing the most fundamental truth that eliminates any creator...
Yet it paints such valid picture of why some folk have you on ignore.
They have tired from the approach Q suggests.
Your truth perhaps but only in your reality. How do you expect to find truth if you reject objectivity.
We can objectively conclude the universe is eternal against we can not conclude objectively a creator exists, we can not objectively conclude that any author of any scripture knew where the Sun went at night and feel assured they had the goods as you claim ...really if so uninformed why give them any authority to dictate unsupported beliefs picked from superstition. And perhaps ask them about germ theory...you could think they may have been inspired such they had no need of demons to explain illness.
We can objectively conclude that Christianity was a knock off by the Romans of the human god cults so popular in ancient times that all had their foundation in astrology...all those cults clearly show humans trying to be the centre of worship by claiming links to the Sun and relying on various things they observed in the night sky to fabricate astrology that into which they fitted their invented human gods. I don't care if you are discussing fact or truth the objective conclusion is nothing like the subjective reality you hint at.
You believe your reality is truth that is a fact but you can only become enlightened by becoming objective and trust that only science can answer your questions.
Truth is slippery
Two people stand about 3 metres apart facing each other
A third person runs between them
When each are asked about the run
the runner says I just ran north between to other two
one of the watchers says he ran from left to right
other watcher says he ran from right to left
From the description we can work out some facts
Other facts about the situation need more information
Two truths seem contradictory however both are TRUE
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nobody knows whether or not something is always established, unless they have established it so or seen it established so.
It doesn't hold for a God that is not defined to be the origin of everything.
Truth is the quality or state, of being true.
It is not contingent any persons knowledge of it. You could say the truth is transcendental.
That’s called hiding in plain sight.
The definition of God is, the origin of everything.
Your opinion doesn’t alter anything, neither does mine.
But for some reason you simply can’t accept the definition, as a definition.
Either you accept or deny.
You are in denial.
Separate names with a comma.