Hi Jan: I can agree with all your comments in post 120, except: "I think truth is your position, how you percieve things." I think what you are calling "truth" is a personal POV. For me truth does not depend upon my POV or anyone else's. I admit there can be "personal truths" - Things that are consistent with your set of beliefs and inconsistent with beliefs of others, which are equally well founded, but these are not the absolute truths of our universe. Many of those have been discovered by the scientific method in the last 500 or so years, but admittedly a few many be incomplete or a tiny few even totally wrong, if one extrapolates from historical facts. For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, but the advantage of that method, is that it is self correcting. Faith based truths do not have this aspect. In fact, they tend to be “self splitting” into ever more diverse and mutually contradictory versions of the "truth." Let me make a non-religious example: I am in court and under oath to tell the truth. I say: "I saw the blue car go thru the red traffic light and hit the green car." because that was my perception - it is my truth. However, the security camera film shows that it was the green car that ran the red light and hit the blue car - that is the real truth. Again, truth does not depend upon my POV, is not my beliefs, etc. Truth is absolute, even if sometimes unknown. When the scientific method has established a "truth" with many confirmations, many things explained by it, many predictions of the associated theory confirmed, then the” burden of proof” is on those claiming otherwise. Usually, faith based "truths" vary widely with who is stating them and many contradict the truths established by the scientific method. Clearly they have an enormous "burden of proof." At this point in time and man's knowledge the Bible's story of how the sun stood still for a few hours is simply impossible to defend as are many other claims of the Christians and other religious faiths.
Here is the position I have presented: Everyone has what is referred to as a Belief System (other names might have virtually the same meaning). Everyone believes their belief system[/b] is truthful, in regards to reality, objectivity, truth, whatever your favorite term happens to be. They reject opposing belief systems as being incorrect, not truthful. Everyone believes they have very good, what we might call convincing evidence, that they are correct. In fact, all belief systems have a fallacious basis. Because they all have a fallacious start, it cannot be argued that one particular belief system is logically and undeniably truthful. The reply now comes from Billy T and Snakelord that they have proof that their belief system is in fact truthful. Undeniable and convincing evidence (my words) their particular belief systems are truthful , and thus logically sound. This wonderful convincing evidence is that they do not agree with the belief systems of opposing views. Additionally, if they are allowed to use the rules of their belief system, they can show their opponents have false beliefs. How is it sound logic that if B is false, A must be true? If you wish to take a position counter to my own, you must not show others are incorrect, as I have already said that is the only possible outcome. I made a generalization, and you add evidence for my point. If you want to show your belief system is not based on a fallacy, you must use the belief system of others to prove your point. That is the point of this thread. Who has the burden of proof?. If a theist says, I can show god exists, they have the burden of proof, and must use the belief system of the opponent to be convincing. If a non-theist says I can show there is no god, they have the burden of proof, and must use the belief system of the opponent if they want to be convincing. Anyone can show their belief system is truthful by using their own belief system. Some people believe what we might call a scientific~ atheist belief system. Additionally they believe it is value free, therefore neutral, and prima facie, objective. I say all of these people will belong to the belief system of scientific~atheism, so naturally they believe these things. A scientific~atheist belief system is based on a various premises that cannot be verified except by use of its own system. As soon as other belief systems are applied to the premises, the premises are falsified. There is assumed to be a closed system, because this is convenient. If one assumes an open system, with supernatural occurrences possible, the scientific process falls apart, anything is possible. It is based on the assumption of a closed system, so that it can do what it wants to do. It seems to work, and as long as it works it will continue to be used. As soon as the model fails, another model will be assumed, and accepted, with conviction equal to the discarded model. This is not a bad thing. It works. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ This is your belief. The Talmud has beem the basis of supernatural study for more years that the study of any science. Any preacher or Doctor of Divinity I know of would say the New Testament is a study of the supernatural. Science only studies natural events because science can only study natural events. That is the Truthfulness of the matter. What you propose is conjecture. We agree. Again, I refer you to other beliefs systems that disagree. What you say is true within your belief system. Their belief system differs from your own. No disagreement from me. As I said above, it is certainly much more convenient to study science is an assumed closed system, whether this is truthful or not, cannot be proven, only assumed. For myself, I have no belief in the supernatural. As a Deist I, see god as part of the whole process, not external, not supernatural in any normal sense of the word. When I say I believe the time will come when contact with the creator is validated, my comment may make more sense. I do however accept the ability of the mind to know truth by non-rational means. This belief has no acceptance in the purist position of scientific~atheism. It is accepted by the more broadminded in the scientific community. Some of us argue that morals are part of the natural universe. Science adds nothing to the determination of morals. Surely that dead horse needs a rest. You say all of the secrets of the natural universe have come from belief systems other than the “religious method”, and yet by your count the scientific method is only 500 years old. Is it your position that there was nothing known before the scientific method, or that there was another system, not religious, and not scientific, and if so, what happened to that system? When science defines what are secrets of the universe, only science will find them. When those who have some non-rational beliefs define what are secrets of the universe, science will not find them. You are arguing against the supernatural and we have no disagreement, as our belief systems have much commonality. As previously stated, How is it sound logic that if B is false, A must be true? ~ ~ ~ ~ Yes. Each of us “knows” our belief system is truthful. It therefore yields truthfulness. “We” are able to recognize truthfulness where others only have beliefs. For myself, truth is congruent with reality, and individuals can have a direct connection with reality, and this happens across belief systems. Everyone gets to have a piece of the pie, and everyone thinks they have the whole pie.
That is gross distortion. I made no such claim. In fact in several post, 121 being the most recent, stated just the opposite. There I said: "For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, ..." What I have claimed, is that the truths discovered by the scientific method always have many successful experimental tests and remain "truths" only so long as there are no "failed tests." For example, in the case of Phlogiston many quantatively tested were passed, the concept that Phlogiston always flows higher concentrations (temperature) to lower concentrations (colder object) etc was also confirmed millions of times without exception, but the postulated, and not directly observable Phlogiston concept was abandoned when it was realized that it was not conserved, but producible by work in a fix ratio to the work done. I.e. the scientific method is self correcting of it mistakes. This is in stark contrast to faith based "truths" - they come in at least a 1000 different mutually contradictory versions. Consequently, as only one at most can be true, I do not accept any as proven or even well confirmed "truth," especially when their claims contradict well established truths discovered by the scientific method. Such has the sun standing still, or water transforming into wine in a few seconds because of some words said. Etc. That is all I said - nothing resembling the words you placed in my mouth about a claim that my truths were always valid or that your faith based one could be proven false.
This is simply incorrect. For starters I never use the word 'proof' or imply that such a thing is attainable outside the realm of mathematics or alcohol. While one might say that it can be 'proven' that there is such a thing as people for example, we might ultimately not exist but merely be the dream of a giant invisible space mushroom - so no, 'proof' is not something that is attainable. My issue is with the way you are throwing around the word 'belief', to be honest with you, rendering devoid any valued meaning. The same is true indeed with 'evidence' that by its very nature does not change to satisfy the desires of personal 'belief' - with anything from crossing the road to believing in omnipotent sky fairies. That is not to say that one cannot be convinced by words in a book or the unexplained disappearance of a verruca, but that is not by any means 'testing', indeed it is accepting without testing. And yes, in many ways we all do it - we often accept things people say as true without testing their claims, (because such a thing is ultimately beyond our ability), but then with people we know testing is always done and a confidence is reached based upon that constant oberservation and testing. As for the burden of proof, yes.. it lies with the one doing the claiming - but must invariably succumb to the demands of.. humans, (not atheists or scientists - just humans). The method is used by every human from the moment they're born and throughout their life in every single aspect of it with exception to the things emotion gets in the way of. Do note: That does not mean that any claims that don't have supportive evidence are wrong. There might very well be an invisible guy living in the sky, but words and claims that there is cannot be considered 'evidence' whether someone personally accepts the claim or not. That is 'belief' in the context it has been used. I do not 'believe' my cup of tea is hot, I have a level of confidence that it is because there's steam rising from it, it burnt my mouth and I just poured the water from a boiling kettle. I do not 'believe' my computer is switched on. The slight fan noise, the blinking led and that I can see these words that I am typing on it gives me a level of confidence that it is.
It doesn't and you should be left in peace UNLESS you want the theory of a green cheeese moon given the same prominance in the classroom as selinography. That is when you must be confronted.
100% correct and well put, but I respond to ask when did the Baron make that post? I am afraid he is no longer with us, and I for one miss him. I often disagreed with him, but he had some good points at times and was quite direct / crude in making them - not bothered by PC restriction.
Should I conclude from your rebuttal of my claim, that you, in truth do not believe your belief system is truthful, or at the very least you do not have convincing evidence that would allow you to make that claim? That is to say you do not think there is any undeniable truth that your belief system is correct? Since you disagree with my statement that you claim to have “proof” your belief system is truthful, you must claim that you have no “proof”, (I should have said convincing evidence). Is there some other way I should take your denial of my claim? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It seems to me you just brought anthropology into the discussion. Intended or not, there it is. “Every human from the moment they’re born. . “ is anthropological in nature pure and simple. If you want us to consider what every human considers, the fact is that god has been an explanation for everything without ever giving it a second thought, for 100 times as long as science has been around. If you want to bring up the innate ability of humans to be aware of the cause of things, god is right up there with science, even in the year 2008, let alone the last few million years. God is the easy answer for every generation of every nation of peoples with a self-conscious mind that have ever walked this planet . This is not evidence of truth to me, but you brought it up, not me. You brought it up and if we are to accept your premise, than god is the answer “every human” (your words, not mine) has chosen. This science of yours might end up being a flash in the pan. An interesting spark in the development of human knowledge. The quirky little side trip that stifled real progress for a millennium. The answer to religious rhetoric, that became a religion itself, doomed to the same self confidence that their priests alone could give truthful answers to problems. What convincing evidence do you have that in 500 years current science will not be the stuff of folklore and fables, snickered at by the academics. One trip through a wormhole and Alice comes alive.
You have seemingly misunderstood what I am saying. Needless to say, once again, this isn't 'science' it is about humans and how they, from the moment they're born, gather evidence through testing. The realm of 'belief' is different because it works on an emotional level. That is the only distinction I have tried to point out. Whether gods are real or not is not the issue, it is about the difference between evidence gathered data and 'belief'. Time and again your post actually reflects that difference: "god has been an explanation for everything without ever giving it a second thought" "God is the easy answer.." You're right, that isn't, it's "belief" which is what I was saying. 'Evidence of truth' is found through testing, not believing. That's the difference. That depends. Maybe apples will begin to float in the air thus rendering the evidence that they fall to the ground moot, but nothing changes because this isn't an issue of what is ultimately right or wrong, (which I have repeatedly stated), but merely how one goes about gathering evidence and its difference to "belief".
Only a tautology is 100% absolutely true. E.g. A + A = 2A is true. Everything else, that I currently think is true, has some possibilty of being false. Not sure what "claim" your are referring to here, but you seem to be assuming only the extremes ("Proven true" or "proven false") are possible. -That is silly. I have made it clear what I have said, several times and you have distorted my statements -to put it kindly. More accurately: You have fabricated statements in direct contrast to what I have several times posted and claimed I said your fabrications. I have a rather extensive "web of knowledge." It all fits together without any internal inconsistencies, but admittedly some "facts" of that web I believe to be true, may indeed be false. My believe is that most of that web of knowledge is true, and furthermore many things stated in the Bible, will not fit into that web, so, for example, I do not believe the sun stood still, Johna spent days in the whale's belly, water changed into wine in a few seconds, or other miracles because they would conflict with that web of knowledge and lack the "extraordinary" evidence required for accepting those "extraordinary claims." In fact there is no evidence at all for any of these Biblical miracles -other than "hear-say" reports passed down thru 2000 years of translational errors.
Billy T, There has to be the "truth", otherwise what is the point of acquiring knowledge? What I am calling "truth" is truth itself, what is, which has to be separate to our personal POV's, while simultaneosly entwined with them. Do you think the purpose of the scientific method is to give us truth? You are taking sides without really understanding the true objective of either side. The truth is the truth, no matter who you are. It wasn't a personal truth, it was the truth from your perspective, but your perspective was based on imperfect senses. Had 1000 truthful people seen it from your perspective, they would have concured with you. Nevertheless, you told the truth, and that was what you promised to do. The truth IS, regardless. Again, truth does not depend upon my POV, is not my beliefs, etc. Truth is absolute, even if sometimes unknown. You have in effect created a straw man, as I did not say or mean this. I take it that by establishing "a truth" you mean body of knowledge/information regarding a specific subject, based on evidence. This is not the same thing as "truth". Truth, I believe, is the aim of honest enquiry. To ask for evidence of God, is a dishonest enquiry, or one based in ignorance. Jan.
hard to follow your point as that is exactly what I said in the second sentence* of mine, which you even quote to open your post. Perhaps you need to read my post before commenting on it? ---------------- *I.e. my "For me truth does not depend upon my POV or anyone else's." = your "The truth is the truth, no matter who you are."
Billy T, I was refering to the flavour of this paragraph. "For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, but the advantage of that method, is that it is self correcting. Faith based truths do not have this aspect. In fact, they tend to be “self splitting” into ever more diverse and mutually contradictory versions of the "truth." Faith based truth must be related to any truth found via the scientific method. How we interpret that truth is, as you say, our POV. But I was not talking about the interpretation of truth, but truth itself, which must exist. I don't think truth is "out there" waiting to be discovered, what I think is out there is knowledge and information which can bring us to the understanding of the truth of our situation. But we have to be prepared in order to understand it. It seemed as though you were comparing, apologies if I misunderstood you. Jan
In the first instance, what makes you think we can know truth? In the second, how do we prepare ourselves to understand it ? Can you say what you mean by truth ?
I think we have slightly different meanings for "truth." Your "truth itself" is, I think, more what I would call "the facts" or the "physical reality" or the "physical relationships of nature" that unlike you, I do believe is "out there" for man to try to discover. When I speak of "truth" it is slightly different from the "physical reality" etc. in that it is also a very well confirmed, via the scientific method, not "faith" belief. Perhaps I should always call my "truth" the "known truth." Thus I could, and did speak, of the "false truth" of Phlogiston. At any stage in man's intellectual advance there is a set of such well confirmed scientific truths. They all fit together without conflict in what I (and many others) call a "web of knowledge." The "burden of proof" is always on someone wanting to pull one of these truths out of the web of knowledge and destroy it and that requires "extraordinary evidence" at least now that the web is so large and all interconnected. If they only want to modify in limited areas, where one of these truths has not been tested, then the burden of truth is not so large. For example, at extremely large separations, some suggest that gravity is not an inverse square law. They do so as some cosmological facts can be interpreted as due to a slight* deviation from inverse square law, instead of what the majority of physicists think is a more likely explanation. Thus minor adjustments to the truth are constantly being suggested (If later proven to be more correct, may get you a Noble prize.) Again as I use "truth" it also encompasses some aspects of well confirmed beliefs. Thus about 250 years ago it was a truth that Phlogiston existed. About 25 years ago, it was a truth that CPT was conserved. I bet in next 250 years, at least one of my current truths will be at least modified. The fact that I may be wrong, science has been wrong, in no way temps me to rip up most of my web of knowledge to insert the Biblical "fact" that the sun stood still, or Jonhna spent days in the belly of a whale, or that Christ turned water into wine in a few seconds, etc. I.e. I reject all Miracles. I would do this even if others universally believed this nonsense, but probably keep my mouth shut as although I am old, I am still too young to foolishly get burned at the stake. But of course most Christian do not believe this non-sense now (it is "Just allegorical") but even if they all did based on their faith in the Bible, they are countered by many other "Holy Book" accounts. There is no reason to prefer one of these fictions as truth over the others, except to not argue with your parents, community etc. Accident of birth plus early childhood indoctrination usually determines which fairy tale you believe, if you believe one. ----------------- *So slight that its effects with in solar system separations would be far below any observation abilities.
Myles, Because there cannot be anything but truth. We can deny the truth but we cannot stand outside of it. As for preparation, it depends on the individual, but I would start with humility, empathy, compassion, honesty. The actual facts, without blemish. What actually is. Absolutely correct. Jan.
You mean—or you should mean—actuality. To "deny" is an admittance of a value-judgment, hence one can stand outside anybody's values—including one's own; that is, if they are temporarily eclipsed by another value. Because truth is an appearance. Otherwise, it's an actuality. Dead cold actuality.
Then everything is true. It's like saying, What is, is. If there cannot be anything but truth, how then could there be a denying of truth? Do you think that beings and phenomena exist as separate, independent entities, "objectively", in and of themselves?
I asked how we can know "truth" and you tell me there cannot be anything but truth. That is your definition. I want you to tell me how we can know truth. What does it mean to deny truth. If I don't know what it is , how can I deny it. The rest is just your personal definition of truth. It sound good but , to attribute properties to truth, you must know what it is you are talkig about. So we come back to how you know all this and how I can get to know it also,
That makes sense. greenberg, Things may be true, but not the truth. The car crash analogy by Billy T, explains my thoughts. Because we have the capability to choose. I don't understand the question in the context of my point. Could you elaborate? Myles, I don't understand your question. Truth, is. We gain knowledge to understand truth. What do you mean you don't know truth. Is everything in your life, your whole perception, understanding, knowledge, not truthful in the slightest? Are you aware of your situation? How is it possible to attribute properties to truth, outside of stating what it is? Which part of my definition of truth do you not agree with, and why? Jan.
