What is Truth? (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

I am not disagreeing with you. In fact, I think I started a conversation on this board where I argued for Einstein's view that the Earth can be viewed as the center of the universe.

But it does seem curious coming from you given what I have read from you on the politics board. Do you think this idea that truth is perspective-dependent is troubling for "factual" arguments in politics, for instance?

everything can be viewed as the center of the universe - so then it's effective/efficient to be utilitarian about your vantage point (i am trying to travel from the earth to mars so i'll use earth as my vantage point and not worry so much about uranus)

so without doing too much self-analysis, i think maybe empathy is my starting point, so then i would look for/support way to limit pain/damage to the most people or contrapositively - look for ways to have the most people get maximum benefit
limiting wealth/resource hording would be step 1
i think that's relatively consistent with most of my postings (but will entertain challenges to that idea)

 

[kcirdor]

Or it’s possible that our notions of beginning and end limit our perception.

...I dont' want to be involved in this discussion... but this one is a good one to bring up for the religious angle without getting to philosophical... We can't fathom an end to our own existence, yet we can't truly imagine life before our own existence.

 

[JimEverett]

everything can be viewed as the center of the universe - so then it's effective/efficient to be utilitarian about your vantage point (i am trying to travel from the earth to mars so i'll use earth as my vantage point and not worry so much about uranus)

so without doing too much self-analysis, i think maybe empathy is my starting point, so then i would look for/support way to limit pain/damage to the most people or contrapositively - look for ways to have the most people get maximum benefit
limiting wealth/resource hording would be step 1
i think that's relatively consistent with most of my postings (but will entertain challenges to that idea)

I am getting at the notion that one side (in the political world) is more "truthful" than the other. Or that some political party is more akin into believing "facts" than another.
It seems that from the perspective of believing that there "truth" is based on some perspective that such criticism does not logically follow.

 

[JimEverett]

Are we talking about capital-T Truth, or facts?

What is the difference?
What is something that can be true or false that you consider "capital-T Truth" v. a fact?

Seems like the proposition "God exists" wold have the same potential truth consequences as "That dog weighs 56 pounds."

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

not worry so much about uranus

Not sure whether to feel hurt or relieved

 

[rajncajn]

I am getting at the notion that one side (in the political world) is more "truthful" than the other. Or that some political party is more akin into believing "facts" than another.
It seems that from the perspective of believing that there "truth" is based on some perspective that such criticism does not logically follow.

Nevermind the current POTUS's penchant for stringing fibs together like a quilt, each political party will pretty much do and say anything that they think will get them votes. Neither side really cares much about the "truth" and would rather keep their constituents completely in the dark about what really goes on in our government and what their agendas are.

 

[rajncajn]

...I dont' want to be involved in this discussion... but this one is a good one to bring up for the religious angle without getting too philosophical... We can't fathom an end to our own existence, yet we can't truly imagine life before our own existence.

Yep...

And here's yet another for the "I'm not touching that" pile:

What's the truth about when life begins?

 

[tenordas]

perhaps it's accurate to speculate that our truths are as good as our measurements
every advance in astronomy has provided factual challenges to our understanding of the universe - which 'we' eventually catch up with
i think it's safer to say that we observe this truth about the universe but recognize that once we get better telescopes and mathematical models, that truth will evolve

Ah, but truth will NOT have changed; only our understanding of it. The truth that the universe either had a beginning or didn't will not be any different. Again, what I believe about it doesn't change the facts. What happened, happened. Just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean a thing about how it went down.

 

[St. PJ]

3.8 billions of years ago, single celled bacteria began adapting and mutating and through LITERALLY BILLIONS years of trial and error here we are

a guy said a word and the the universe happened, later he shaped some mud and breathed life into it, later he became a burning bush and he gave this one guy all the laws that we;re supposed to need

your saying the first one (with metric tons of evidence supporting it) is harder to believe than the second that has all of zero supporting evidence?

There is a vast difference between adaptation, or micro evolution, and interspecies, or macro evolution. The monkey chart we grew up with currently isn't in vogue; science now mostly believes that both humans and apes evolved from the hominid. Do tell, what did the hominid evolve from? Better yet, what amphibian or reptile is our ancestor? How did a single cell organism of life come into being from not life? What did it eat? All science shows us that every living thing eats something else that is living. Explain to me how this single cell organism reproduced? How did it become bisexual? That's a great leap. An asexual organism had to mutate until it produced a bisexual offspring... and that offspring had to breed with another randomly mutated bisexual offspring. How many thousands upon thousands of random mutations had to occur for the umbilical cord to come about? And to go from that to perfectly complementing male and female reproductive systems... seems very fantastic.

How did sight come about? The thousands of mutations over millions of years that took an ants antenna to the eye of a fly... you either see or you dont.. how did that come about. Or flight? And since evolution is ongoing, where is the evidence and examples of one species currently morphing into another? And what about the fly? For every 1 human generation, there are about 1,000 generations of house flies. In the last 65 million years, with exponentially more generations to evolve, why is the housefly exactly the same?

The fact is there is next to zero scientific evidence of macro evolution - of one species morphing into something it wasn't. We can observe bacteria "evolve" or adapt... but it evolves into different strands of bacteria. No evolutionist has been able to answer any of these simple questions, or provide any evidence of macro evolution. The entire evidence the world has have man evolving from a hominid fits in a tiny cardboard box, and isn't agreed upon by evolutionist. I could really take the time to type out a through response, but I'd rather start a thread on evolution versus intelligent design if we were to have that discussion. The ONLY reason I brought this subject up to begin with is because it takes a great many more leaps of faith to believe in evolution, where science can give zero answers to simple questions, where science has zero evidence nor observation of macro evolution. Faith in science that really hasn't been demonstrably proved, nor can it be... faith in a theory with very many problems and holes.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

Ah, but truth will NOT have changed; only our understanding of it. The truth that the universe either had a beginning or didn't will not be any different. Again, what I believe about it doesn't change the facts. What happened, happened. Just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean a thing about how it went down.

Quantum mechanics say the nature of an object's existence or nonexistence is in is flux until it is observed one way or another; (that whole Shrodinger's cat thing) and it sounds stupid, but the so-called "cat state" has been measured at subatomic levels.

So it's possible that no truth actually exists here.

 

[St. PJ]

The irony is, people believe in science, up until it contradicts the ancient book they believe in.

Science does not contradict "the ancient book" i believe in. I believe God is the author of both Scripture and Nature, and neither can contradict the other. Apparent contradictions are the result of either faulty translation or my faulty understanding and interpretation. If I say "it's raining cats and dogs", you understand what I mean; 2,000 years later in a different culture, that meaning might be very obscure.

But back to your point. Belief in evolution and "old world creation" are not prohibited by neither the bible nor my Catholic faith. As a Catholic, I am allowed to take either or both of those positions if I choose. I don't believe in macro evolution, but I do believe we live in a very old world.

 

[St. PJ]

This. I am, by my very nature, a scientist, researcher, questioner and curious. I want to find out why.

I also have faith. I believe in a God that, "doesn't make any junk" and "loves his neighbor". Does that make me "forked in the head"?

I share those same beliefs and sentiments.

 

[rajncajn]

Quantum mechanics say the nature of an object's existence or nonexistence is in is flux until it is observed one way or another; (that whole Shrodinger's cat thing) and it sounds stupid, but the so-called "cat state" has been measured at subatomic levels.

So it's possible that no truth actually exists here.

As far as we can tell, nothing ever truly ceases to exist.

 

[kcirdor]

What's the truth about when life begins?

Your momma and daddy did the nasty. At least that is the level i am referring too.

 

[SystemShock]

There is a vast difference between adaptation, or micro evolution, and interspecies, or macro evolution. The monkey chart we grew up with currently isn't in vogue; science now mostly believes that both humans and apes evolved from the hominid. Do tell, what did the hominid evolve from? Better yet, what amphibian or reptile is our ancestor? How did a single cell organism of life come into being from not life? What did it eat? All science shows us that every living thing eats something else that is living. Explain to me how this single cell organism reproduced? How did it become bisexual? That's a great leap. An asexual organism had to mutate until it produced a bisexual offspring... and that offspring had to breed with another randomly mutated bisexual offspring. How many thousands upon thousands of random mutations had to occur for the umbilical cord to come about? And to go from that to perfectly complementing male and female reproductive systems... seems very fantastic.

How did sight come about? The thousands of mutations over millions of years that took an ants antenna to the eye of a fly... you either see or you dont.. how did that come about. Or flight? And since evolution is ongoing, where is the evidence and examples of one species currently morphing into another? And what about the fly? For every 1 human generation, there are about 1,000 generations of house flies. In the last 65 million years, with exponentially more generations to evolve, why is the housefly exactly the same?

The fact is there is next to zero scientific evidence of macro evolution - of one species morphing into something it wasn't. We can observe bacteria "evolve" or adapt... but it evolves into different strands of bacteria. No evolutionist has been able to answer any of these simple questions, or provide any evidence of macro evolution. The entire evidence the world has have man evolving from a hominid fits in a tiny cardboard box, and isn't agreed upon by evolutionist. I could really take the time to type out a through response, but I'd rather start a thread on evolution versus intelligent design if we were to have that discussion. The ONLY reason I brought this subject up to begin with is because it takes a great many more leaps of faith to believe in evolution, where science can give zero answers to simple questions, where science has zero evidence nor observation of macro evolution. Faith in science that really hasn't been demonstrably proved, nor can it be... faith in a theory with very many problems and holes.

Now tell us about the banana...

It's like you are copying and pasting answersingenesis.org...

Look, what you say is fact, isn't. Your claim of zero scientific evidence is false. There is no "leap of faith" required to believe in demonstrable facts. Apologists, well, you want to continue the "leaps of faith to believe in science" narrative to validate your bias, but it is simply not true.

You could start a thread about evolution vs creationism-with-a-lab-coat-on... I can kill right now, if you want...

Perhaps you should question your book as fervently as you question science...

Really, go to a museum, a real one, not the one in Kentucky...