~ TRUTH A BILLION SHADES OF GRAY ...Or ? ~

I dismiss your post based on your appeal to special pleadings.

 

I reject this post based on semantics nonsense.

 

More of the same... semantic nonsense on your part.

 

"I know you are, but what am I"? How quant.

 

Almost as quaint as the line of script which I wrote and you copied in the other thread. Remember?

 

Nope. I remember presenting evidence of Abiogenesis and Evolution only for you to reject them, not based on any contrary evidence, but on pure ignorance on the scientific method.

I also remember rejecting other posts based on semantic nonsense.

 

Your evidence was rejected because it did not compel my mind to accept it as true. What part of that do you not understand? My beliefs do not require any evidence or logic for me to continue believing what I believe. So, on that note of your objection, you are literally peeing into a facing wind.

AS for your closing comment.... take note of this one....
se·man·tic (s-mntk) also se·man·ti·cal (-t-kl)adj.1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics."

Gee, I guess the sciences (according to you are 'nonsense').

 

I could give a rats behind if your mind accepts the evidence or not. Please don't accept it. By doing so, you are helping out the Atheist 'cause' more than you realize. You seem to think you are the only person who reads this forum. You can keep denying the evidence, and I will keep posting the evidence. Others can see that only a fool would not accept just empirical evidence.

Intellectual dishonest is on display. I will discard the above quote based on ignorance of what science is.

 

All of our thought processes and actions are reached "…through the subjective processes of the human mind."

 

Absolutely Red Cloud.. I concur with you 100%.

 

That little gene engendered the meme which overrides reason with the substitution of belief.

 

Sunday afternoon was serene
When a Witness arrived on the scene
He said he believed
Said I, you're deceived
You've been taken in by your God Gene

 

there was a young poster who swam
nightswimmer, he/she said, I am!
he/she gave good lim
when not in the swim
and flumoxed intenders to spam

 

This stuff cracks me up...that be the Truth.

 

I've been mulling over truth lately. After observing a few discussions about it, and being unsatisfied with the text book definitions, I set out to define it myself.

All of the dictionary definitions, as well as the definition of "true", use some variation of the same word to define itself. Truth defines itself as truth (sounds similar to God definitions to me). So after breaking it down it I seemed to find a simple answer for the definition of truth: a proposition or statement that is accepted true.

Interesting that you specifically state "real truth", implying that there are either misinterpretations or multiple truths in any given proposition. Which I don't think is accurate since "real truth" is a tautology. "Real" is defined as true, and "truth" is defined as true. Some sort of Euclidean axiom applies here as an analogue, I would think.

 

Every time I see one of your posts, I get my game face on

YOU mad, bro?

 

Yes, I'm mad because I'm mediocre and I talked about the best. But the best is better at life than me, so he/she shut it for me real quick.

But I can confidently say that I'm not the best 22 at anything, not even at Bubble Bobble I found out.

 

You got it IC!

reva

 

Truth is hard to describe! Are we speaking about truth as it applies to each individual? Or as it applies to the universe? I think the latter is more accurate. By that I mean if one individual God(?) could know every-(little)-thing about ‘every thing’ meaning EVERYTHING from the spin and momentum and placement of every electron every quark etc every subatomic particle to how the universe will end and could describe it with 100% accuracy, now that would be real TRUTH. Only GID can know that kind of info with 100% accuracy, so only God is truth via being able to define truth*** .

Notes;

(1.*) ~ Uncertainty principle
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/.../Uncertainty_principle.html‎Cached
“n quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states; Position
and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision.”

So a intelligent or GID, God the intelligent designer that would know both momentum and position of every particle etc

(2 **) ~ GID is my word, meaning God the Intelligent Designer. I wonder if I should copyright that? I did a google search years ago and never could find a reference to GID save from mine. Hmm?

(3 ***) ~ The following is speculation; I highly doubt a normal human being could understand real truth due to the amount of information the brain would be deluged with. Of course that would be true only if GID did not enhance our brain.



reva

 

Well *cof* ha ha...the concrete, and the persons flesh is mostly empty space, around 99% empty space*. However that has nothing to do with what will result to bones and flesh that flings itself off the top of the building.


Most of an atom -- more than 99 percent of it .http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...sQFjAJ&usg=AFQjCNFfki6c9M-KZmtou53rW7Gxa7-F3g


reva

 

There are truths that carry enough data that is universally verified to be accepted as "fact" by a rational majority...these are those used to further verify reality because they are useful tools in doing so. There are truths unverified and often irrationally based that cannot be used or verified...these truths are subjective realities created by the mind.

Everyone has the ability to use both, or either to build their own world view and make reality to their liking. To those seeking a rational and verified version those who do not are generally considered ignorant....and those who create their own truths consider the universally verified version to be incorrect when disagreeing with that which they create.

There is a reason mankind developed science.

 

The problem is as I said above, what is YOUR quantifier of reality? Most people use science and their own common sense and experiance to make sense of the world, both shown to be highly unreliable by history and the facts thereof. Your own science tells us at the most fundamental level ‘common sense’ is the first thing that goes out the window! Here is a hint of what I mean; Intuitive or common sense and quantum processes is analogic to oil and water. They don’t play well together! Now lets try another? The belief in God and science. The analogic example for those two words are chocolate and peanut butter, yum! They go together!



reva

 

I do not quite see how God and Science go together at all....in fact they seem to be more like Chocolate and vinegar.

One asks us to stop searching and simply accept, while the other expects and requires us to search and question.

The God hypothesis simply cannot be forwarded by science as it has nothing available to observe, experiment with, or evaluate beyond individual opinion and literature....neither of which can be used for verification leading to theory. Basically God is a scientific dead end before it even begins.

 

Yes, I think Piltdown man a 40 or more year truth of science is a good example. Back in the heyday I would have been highly irrational if I believed God created man in whatever fashion compared to the near fact of piltdown, which of course was a fraud. With all due respect, to my way of thinking to use a method that must be falsifiable as a 'reality quantifier' is a wonderful example of 'irrational' behavior.

Indeed, and its a good tool, well that’s like saying you mom are my favorite mom! Science has its uses which is evident. Trying to describe beginnings are not one of those uses, at least not yet.

reva

 

With all due respect you have been conditioned, um indoctrinated not to think unless it’s a specific way. That way is Darwinism or forms there-of. The method we use for discovery etc was decided at events like the Vienna circle of the early 1900s. In these evernts metaphysics were relegated to the status of witchcraft while 'positivism' ie empirical science were elevated to god like status. That was a BIG MISTAKE!!!

Not to my way of thinking. In science you have the same condition. What I mean is if science can not answer it don’t ask it. Eh? To believe in God does not limit one it encourages one to think and explore and to discover. In fact it has cause me to do more scientific study than any motivator in my rather long existence on this planet. Now religion is personal choice, the belief in God is more of a universal truth. There are too many religions so we must consider that more of a personal thing.

I disagree. Think Penrose, Behe and Craig etc. Not only are the new PhD enabled God apologists emerging (some might say entrenched), there are discoveries of cosmology, archeology and other fields that are vindicating the existence of God and biblical claims. So there is much to study and to challenge man in his studies of science. That is why I said SCIENCE AND RELIGION where I meant the existence of God go good together. The use of both promotes truth and discovery, in many fields. This is not just a personal thing, the belief in God and religious activity were a substantial component in the process of founding building civilizations.

Well time is short again, I hope to revisit this thread later today or AM morrow'~ I hope to answer all.

God bless this forum


reva