Do inconsistancies point to flaws and errors? My junior year history teacher gave my class a test. The next day he said there was evidence a student had stolen all of the answers before the test and had cheated. In order to punish this one student, he was going to give the entire class an "F" for the test. Of course, we all started complaining, and tried to reason with our teacher. After we were done complaining him said he made the entire story up. He said he did it to demonstrate "McCarthyism." But before he told us he was lying I knew the story could not be true because there was an inconsistency to it. He had sent a girl who had been absent the day before out into the hall to take the test. Why would he give her the test if she was just going to be given an "F" for it? Other students in the class found inconsistencies with his story, as well. This was two years ago so my memory is a bit fuzzy. But I do remember that others found errors in his story, and the story ended up being false. A science book that is not consistant with itself is not worth reading. If chapter three states that lions have 56 bones, but on chapter six says they have 76 bones, which can you trust? The sources becomes invalid. Religion is another area where inconstancies point to the invalidness of concepts. Would a perfect God support something one minute, and latter make it a sin? I think not. Never have I experienced a truth that was inconsistant. Can a truth contain an inconsitancy?
Yes. I can't think of any real life examples, so I'll make one up. A man (call him John) is laid off from his job as a bank teller. His wife decides this is the final straw, and takes off with her boyfriend, running over his dog in the process. Deciding he has nothing to lose, he robs the bank without a mask on. The security camera captures his image and he is arrested. Now, there are two bank employees who testify at his trial. Both of them know what he looks like, since they used to work with him, so both testify that he was the one who robbed the bank. However, one employee says he was wearing a red coat and carrying a sawed off shotgun, the other swears he was wearing a blue coat and carrying a TEC-DC9. Now, we know that he was the robber, since he was caught on tape. However, the total truth: John robbed the bank contains an inconsistancy: Two people saw him do this, but they disagree on what clothing he wore and what firearm he used. So a truth can contain an inconsistancy. However, an inconsistancy is a falsehood. (John wasn't wearing both blue and red).
Xev, so many Johns are robbing banks. witnesses falter. Johns go scot free. btw why do make this john's wife run away...! poor run over dog too...! there are johns who can rob banks without these also..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In this scenario, YOU imposed perfection upon God. Who said God is perfect? Does time change? This idea can be applied to my attempt at reading "Mein Kompf" ... I found the translator to be biased under the guise of being otherwise, which is why I stopped reading the book. Do not read the translation by Manheim. (His first name began with an R) Good real world example: Speeding. One day you could be speeding 65 in a 55, have a cop car PASSING you, and have nothing happen. Another day, 60 in a 55 and a cop who isn't in a good mood, or needs to meet a quota.
The truth is not inconsitant, but two accounts from two sources were inconsistant with each other. If John was wearing a blue shirt, then one account is true and the other is false. My question is- can a series of statements be made that contradict themselves and still be held as truth, assuming they came from one source? Would my teacher have sent that girl into the hall to take the test if she was just going to be given an "F" for it anyway? Can core doctrines of a "truth" contradict each other?
it depends on what "truth" is. If all the humans on the planet died tomorrow, would the world continue? If so, then the world is more than the people in it, and the truth is the situation as it occured. What John actually did, as opposed to what either witness thought they saw. If the universe exsists either as the Judeo/christain humans are the only important thing, or if it only exists as a perception of a viewer, then the interpretation of the viewer is what determines the truth. in this case, each person is correct, and the truth is not a universal law, but the expirience of the individual. I personally think that people are not nearly as important as we think we are, and there is a state of being that does not need us to be here just for it to exist. Truth therefore cannot have inconsistancies, as there is only one timeline and one truth of how it rolls along. (unless there are more. that's different argument) If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? How insulting to the tree to ask such a thing.
