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

One would hope you understand how Piltdown man was recognized as a fraud. The very idea behind science would be to always question and evaluate what is considered fact...this is why it progresses and improves.

There is a very good reason for the steps to scientific law....Ideas become hypothesis after minimal data is gathered. Hypothesis becomes theory after large scale data is evaluated and studied by multiple individuals or groups and remains such until there are no longer accepted reasons to question it. It takes quite a bit of evaluation and verification to become scientific law....and generally a long period of time.

As for beginnings, the Abiogenesis hypothesis is currently heading toward theory....though as with all hypothesis it takes time and verification. The creation myth has not become hypothesis after thousands of years, because it cannot be studied.

 

A long period of time? LOL nearly anything might become truth if we wait long enough! How long shall we wait, 100 years? A 1000 years? Come on! Piltdown was exposed the same way a liar gets caught! I don’t care if a liar fess's up, a crime like piltdown or the many other frauds etc of science its still a lie or a untruth. So in the 40 years, a lifetime really, that piltdown reigned as darling of evolutionary science, entire careers were built on his existence. Built and I would bet destroyed, not just the job but the people that believed in that lie. What about the deep personal issues? . Lives were ruined! I am saying simply do not place your faith, and it is a faith because its known that science is wrong, has to be able to be wrong, to beleive in a system like that its faith. So, dont place all your faith eggs, in one basket. A basket that science has a duty to destroy! This is NOT a discussion of emotion, eh? This is not if you or I love science (I do) or hate it (I don’t), rather it’s a discussion about truth.

Wrong oh, lol. Creation (I suppose you are talking about YE creation and not progressive creation) Science can not study many things. However the KCA gives enough circumstantial evidence in a logical form using different methods that can be studied. NO what happened is as I said. Empirical science has become the God, no one else need apply. The exclusionary nature of empirical science did not allow metaphysics to bloom. So as I said it is still stuck in the 1900’s due to western science freezing it out. Try getting grant monies for metaphysical say mind brain duality. It will not happen. If one kills a baby in the cradle it sure wont grow up to be Einstein and that is what happened to Metaphysics as a science.



reva

 

WOW....Just Wow!

.....uh....nevermind.

 

I usually do 'never mind' ostrich comments like the above, which are typical. When those with a fundy western mind set, especially an indoctrinated Darwinist must face up to the FACT that his belief system is unreliable and fault ridden. Not that your comments meet all of the above criteria, I am not sure about the darwin bit.

reva

 

And stick around you might learn something...

reva

 

I already have...more than enough to dismiss your commentary and opinions as a bit corrupted by this God thingy.

Oh...and what the hell is a Darwinist?

 

EXCERPT>>>>>

HOW LONG SHOULD WE WAIT??? Wait I found an example...wait what a over used word, if we wait a thousand years maybe the old greek (I think) spontaneous generation first postulated a thousand or more years ago may be dressed up in modern sciences bells and whistles, and submitted for new theory called Abiogenesis! Spare me please!


Read the disclaimer;

;http://cosmology.net/OrganicSoup.html



reva

 

FROM GOOGLE;


2. Darwinist/tA buzzword that creationists use to refer to the theory of evolution. They use this word to equate the theory of evolution with ideologies like communism and fascism.

reva

 

As with all theories, we wait until the data is convincing.

That is simply the way science works (as I explained even though I should not need to), yet you either cannot or will not comprehend this very simple concept. The beauty is, at this time we are in the experimentation stage rather than hypothesis and it is promising....we have in fact created new life in the lab in the process, some of which is new to natural DNA definition. The hypothesis of Abiogenesis is relatively new in science, and this level of progression is considered quite fast in comparison to most.

I am sure you would hope for the same for God...but that will not be the case until he at the minimum gives us something to start with.

 

I think that the key word in this statement or question or whatever it is is ... if! And so I can agree. IF there were a god it would know truth. But that's a big if and not very likely!

 

My quantifier of reality ? That's easy a chocolate and peanutbutter sandwich... I can see it, I can touch it, I can smell it, I can taste it, I can interact with it in numerous way all unlike this god some folks keep telling me about!

 

Here is an interesting excerpt that coincides with the current way of thinking on the part of Atheists, naturalists, secularists, etc. In the article, it can be readily seen that such thinking is merely a rebellious state of mind with a prejudicial and biased point of view:

"
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Science-Disproves-Evolution
Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94. "

 

Well you are really agreeing with me. When you say we must wait what do we do in the mean time? Believe the lie?

Oh yes I understand the concept of science. I had to. Why do I say I had to? I am an ex-owner and operator of a small testing lab, Additionally I was a 'science major' undergrad, Additionally I am an dedicated asteroid hunting solar loving amateur astronomer. So I 'had to' because I freaking love science as I have said many times. Sometimes Gandhi comes to mind when discussing these issues. The time he was asked if he disliked christanity. He said something like 'I don’t dislike Christianity it’s the Christians that I dislike. That is not exactleuy what he said just words to that effect. In the same vein, it's not science that I detest, it’s the 'God hating' etc science and the scientists that promote the 'God is dead' concept that I am trying to stop detesting, just like the good book says I should. Ugh.

You know the richard dawkins type I am speaking of. Its those ‘scientists’ that feel if one believes in GID he is irrational or insane. They are bigots and a would feel right at home wearing brown shirt with a swastika. So yes I fully understand basic science etc, which I rejected when attempting to define truth. Ok onward to the bulk of your unconvincing inadequate reply. Actually your defense is becoming a plea. I direct attention to your soap box science bolsters like science has done this and science has done that, all stating the obvious. Of course science is a wonderful tool when used as it should be, however your words seem more an attempt at bait and switch (not intentionally I think) than a real defense of your counter claims. With that in mind lets review the main subject which is 'TRUTH'. I am saying that truth can not, or will not in the foreseeable future be known be known by we humans. Our brain is not capable of understanding the truth of the universe. All we can hope to know is generalities, much like how those that depend on quantum mechanics to design circuits etc. Truth or reality known by an individual sentient being that is accurate to a accuracy of 100% is not achievable.



reva

 

Lol, yes I suppose. However that is your brain making sense of the universe that in real time has already passed you by. Speaking in pure terms of 100% accuracy the present is not really the present, its the past, even if its a few nanoseconds gone. That statement is true for several reasons. Anyway.....I love peanut butter sams with ice cold chock milk, yum....

reva

 

Thanks for looking that up brother IC. God bless you and yours ~


reva

 

Completely wrong. Truth is entirely constructed in the brain because it is a by product of logic. Unless you have named something Truth, your claim makes no sense. You're make very broad, and vague, claims about epistemology. You refute your own argument by claiming "Truth or reality known by an individual sentient being that is accurate to a accuracy of 100% is not achievable." Yet you make a claim that "I am saying that truth can not, or will not in the foreseeable future be known be known by we humans." By your own words you can't even make this claim because for you 100% accuracy is not achievable...unless you want to claim that you are not an "individual sentient being". Your whole claim is self refuting.

 

The reason I said an individual cant know truth is because observers would disagree. I may of confused you with the way I write, which isn’t very accurate and concise. Using an economy of words to describe a complex idea isn’t my forte! Anyway I said only ‘God’ could know truth. Of course we must ask ourselves what is truth? I defined what I thought truth was earlier. I am open to suggestions if anyone has a better definition etc. Even if we (humans) could know how to define truth I think no individual could claim to describe it to that 100% accuracy I so often quote!. That is because everyone’s truth is a little different from everyone’s else. So the only pure truth would be to know everything about the physical and non physical universe. Only God or what we define as God would be possible to do that. Maybe one day a quantum computer if they can be developed may be able to define everything, but I would guess we will self destruct before then.

reva

 

That makes sense. But your use of the word "truth" is imprecise. Truth is simply a logical necessity that follows from accepting a proposition or statement as true. Truth is a noun. It is an analog of an object, and that object is a true proposition or statement. What you're really asking is "what is true". True is an adjective that describes a noun. False is also an adjective that describes a noun. "Truth" has a specific quality, "true" is a conditional. Therefore, "everyone's truth" is exactly the same because "truth" is content neutral, it is simply the result of a logical process. "What is true" for everyone is what we would describe as a little different from everyone else.

 

Just thought it might fit in nicely with what you were saying. Later Brother.

 

While I can not agree with all your criticisms* concerning language I will agree you are correct about one thing. I wrote this thread with the question of what is 'philosophical truth' in mind. It is and will remain ‘THE’ big question,you know it's like ‘why are we here’ type thing. I should have defined the word or what I was looking for more precisely.

* I will explain why and what I think you are incorrect about asap the real world beckons...hot dogs, braut style and refreshments that is...


reva

 

It's not language. It's a conceptual formulation that is entirely logic based. A true or false statement is dependent on logic.

 

These are not debates at all, but the reluctance of people to simply read the dictionary.


Truth is that ideal which corresponds one-to-one with Reality.

That is a fact.

 

"truth (trth)n. pl. truths (trz, trths) 1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

3. Sincerity; integrity.

4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."

In other words, it is subjective.
Considered = thought
Fact = something believed to be true or real.

 

How does a true or false statement depend on logic? If you are defining logic in a general sense, I do not understand because many true statements etc are highly non-intuitive and not logical. Considering the latter, and the different forms of logic please definite how you are using logic (as per your example).


reva

 

Indeed IC. Also, this is a debate concerning a philosophical concept where every aspect of the subject from the question of the function and definition of language to the definition of reality etc is relevant to the discussion. In other words in a general ‘lay-conversation’ everyone knows what truth means. However a philosophical discussion of truth is far more complex. Perhaps the member in question should refer to his dictionary definition of ‘philosophical’. Also, Dave check out this resource;

Note; I retained the discriptive paragraph;


Integral Perspectives · 6. Philosophers Reveal the Truth about Truth ...
www.integral-perspectives.com/.../6-philosophers-reveal-the-truth-about- truth-and-reality-2/
‎ Philosophers Reveal the Truth about Truth and Reality ... Is the reality of the
world different from how we perceive and experience it in our minds? ...
fundamental, more “real,” than physical reality, and that physical reality, a tree for
instance

reva