Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:Sure there's truth. I love my children. It's wrong to kill babies because they won't stop crying. Zephyr is the coolest deity in Pantheon 3.0. Granted, that last one is likely a demonstratable fact, but until that happens, it's only a truth.

So yes, you're right.

*choke*

Fist and Faith wrote:Sure there's truth. I love my children. It's wrong to kill babies because they won't stop crying.

Your love for your children is demonstrable. But how do we demonstrate that it's wrong to kill babies for crying?

--A

Nah, I could be pretending to love my children. Could be all lies.

My point is that truths can't be demonstrated. A truth is only true to me. Maybe others agree on various truths. As opposed to facts, which cannot be denied, and do not change from person to person. How tall is the Empire State Building? What is 2+2?

As long as you treat them, (and react to them and make the decisions about them) as though you love them, then I don't think it makes a difference.

But I get what you're saying...I thought you were using those as examples of demonstrable truths.

(Hey look...we're talking about baby-killing. )

--A

What if a subjective truth is used or prefered and therefore accepted over demonstrated fact?

Would that be applied religion you are talking there kins?

Doesn't make it any less subjective. But that still means it's true to the people who believe it, which means they act as though it was true, which means it might as well be.

--A

Kinslaughterer wrote:What if a subjective truth is used or prefered and therefore accepted over demonstrated fact?

The argument becomes: what is demonstrated? and what is not? People can argue that the word of god is a more "demonstrated truth" than something cooked up in a lab. It all comes down to arguing what is more authoritative. If you believe in divinity, its easy to argue that it is more credible than human scientific principles.

I kind of like that. I'll play the god trump card...

The world is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

No it isn't! It's beyond your understanding!

Evolution is a demonstrated fact that you can personally watch occur. But if you choose to not accept it is it real? The Righteous and Harmonious Fists thought that bullets would not hurt them. Unfortunately for them the Boxer Rebellion did not go as planned.

The whole purpose of science, after all, is to make something reproducible. Besides, you can't ever prove something true....you can only prove it false. Don't believe it? Try it your damn self.

Fist and Faith wrote:Sure there's truth. I love my children. It's wrong to kill babies because they won't stop crying. Zephyr is the coolest deity in Pantheon 3.0. Granted, that last one is likely a demonstratable fact, but until that happens, it's only a truth.

So yes, you're right.

I think you've got it backwards, F+F (meaning that it may be only a fact).

But, after all,' I said, `this is very fanciful---perfectly absurd. Look at the mere facts. You have never seen the man before, you---'

`Oh, the mere facts,' he cried out in a kind of despair. `The mere facts! Do you really admit---are you still so sunk in superstitions, so clinging to dim and prehistoric altars, that you believe in facts? Do you not trust an immediate impression?'

`Well, an immediate impression may be,' I said, `a little less practical than facts.'

`Bosh,' he said. `On what else is the whole world run but immediate impressions? What is more practical? My friend, the philosophy of this world may be founded on facts, its business is run on spiritual impressions and atmospheres. Why do you refuse or accept a clerk? Do you measure his skull? Do you read up his physiological state in a handbook? Do you go upon facts at all? Not a scrap. You accept a clerk who may save your business---you refuse a clerk that may rob your till, entirely upon those immediate mystical impressions under the pressure of which I pronounce, with a perfect sense of certainty and sincerity, that that man walking in that street beside us is a humbug and a villain of some kind.'

`You always put things well,' I said, `but, of course, such things cannot immediately be put to the test.'

Basil sprang up straight and swayed with the swaying car.

`Let us get off and follow him,' he said. `I bet you five pounds it will turn out as I say.'

GKC, The Club of Queer Trades, ch 2 www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/quee ... index.html

This is the rub - the idea that truths may be deeper and more true than facts. In which case the valuing of facts alone amounts to a kind of worship and dogma.

Kins, last I checked, evolution is still a theory, however solidly it seems to fit the facts - but it itself is not a fact. And evolutionism is worse, as it is a myth.

Besides, you can't ever prove something true....you can only prove it false

This is remarkably easy to refute - if a man lays down his life for his friends, he has proved the truth that there is no greater love.
It's worth knowing that the word 'prove' (from Latin) also means "to test", "to try" (thus, the concept of a "trial")

prove Look up prove at Dictionary.com
c.1175, prouwe, from O.Fr. prover (11c.), from L. probare "to test, prove worthy," from probus "worthy, good, upright, virtuous," from PIE *pro-bhwo- "being in front," from *pro-, extended form of base *per-, + base *bhu- "to be" (cf. L. fui "I have been," futurus "about to be;" O.E. beon "to be;" see be).

www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pro ... hmode=none

rusmeister wrote:Kins, last I checked, evolution is still a theory, however solidly it seems to fit the facts - but it itself is not a fact.

You need to be more up to date, or more careful in your studies. It is a fact that successive generation of animals have adapted to changes in their environment. It has been seen to occur 'today'.

That's evolution, unless you want to invoke the hand of some mythical deity called "God".

Sorry rus but your definition of theory is incorrect. As is the scientific definition of true/false.

Science is a particularly cautious realm. There are no scientific laws (Newtonian Physics have been labeled as laws to honor the man who did so much for science like physics, calculus, and gravity.) Gravity for instance was at one point a law but was incomplete. To the lay person it much be "law" but physicists were working for years to understand and place the effects of gravity into the larger field of quantum mechanics. Ultimately, Einstein's theory of general relativity replaced Newton's law of Gravity. It was no fault of Newton he just didn't have the technology that Einstein possessed (look out for the super collider as it will likely provide even more evidence for some theories.)

Anyway a scientific theory is a theory that despite rigorous attempts to prove it false remains true. Since Darwin, science has tried repeatedly to falsify or prove elements false of his theory of natural selection. Some elements have changed with the modern synthesis of Evolution as Darwin did not fully understand genetics and inheiritance. By the time that Watson and Crick identified the DNA double helix all the pieces were in place.
Evolution is defined at the change in allele (read gene) frequency through successive generations. This is a long established scientific fact that can be observed by anyone willing to do just a little testing.

And rus still needs to supply a definition of the concept of truth before he cassualy invokes it.

rusmeister wrote:This is the rub - the idea that truths may be deeper and more true than facts.

Truths are more important to some people than facts are. That doesn't make them "more true." It just makes them more important to those people.

rusmeister wrote:

Besides, you can't ever prove something true....you can only prove it false

This is remarkably easy to refute - if a man lays down his life for his friends, he has proved the truth that there is no greater love.

He has not come close to proving that. He has only proven that he considers his friends worth sacrificing his life for.

Avatar wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Sure there's truth. I love my children. It's wrong to kill babies because they won't stop crying.

Your love for your children is demonstrable. But how do we demonstrate that it's wrong to kill babies for crying?

--A

It's a fact that you'll end up killing most babies if you kill babies that cry, and that means you won't end up with very many adults or new babies when all is said and done. But (as usual when we talk about any right/wrong thing) we really need to define "wrong" first.

I guess true pessimists (see Philip Larkin) would argue in fun or not that it's "right," for the sake of the rest of life or because humanity is just plain bad, to stop human reproduction though.

Dictionary definitions are always limited and imperfect, but saying that I'm 'wrong' is rather a stretch.

Main Entry:
the·o·ry Listen to the pronunciation of theory
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·o·ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:
1592

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

and truth:

Main Entry:
truth Listen to the pronunciation of truth
Pronunciation:
\ˈtrüth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural truths Listen to the pronunciation of truths Listen to the pronunciation of truths \ˈtrüthz, ˈtrüths\
Etymology:
Middle English trewthe, from Old English trēowth fidelity; akin to Old English trēowe faithful — more at true
Date:
before 12th century

1 archaic : fidelity , constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard4capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

F+F: Of course you are right about some people. But as to the given example not proving the words of Christ, I will say that you are entitled to your opinion.

Kins - I'm not using the scientific definition of truth per se. Science is only one of the avenues to Truth. Things like common sense and perception can be completely outside of scientific definitions, and be no less true for that.

LM: In the tug of war of Creator vs no Creator , I see Occam's razor as making a Creator more probable:

The Origin of the Universe

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 174}

and a more general comment:

Science and Christianity

Unfortunately, 19th-century scientists were just as ready to jump to the conclusion that any guess about nature was an obvious fact, as were 17th-century sectarians to jump to the conclusion that any guess about Scripture was the obvious explanation . . . . and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science and Religion.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 88}

rusmeister wrote:LM: In the tug of war of Creator vs no Creator , I see Occam's razor as making a Creator more probable:

I'm sorry, but invoking Occam's Razor to support the belief that your deity created this universe is extreme. The existence of God is anything but simple, and there are far more simple and elegant theories for the origin of our universe than saying 'God made it'.

Yeah, I have to agree with Lore on that one. It's an argument that I've seen before too, but people don't seem to see that "God" is not a simple answer. Because then we have to ask how he made it, and who made him, etc. etc.

--A

rusmeister wrote:F+F: Of course you are right about some people. But as to the given example not proving the words of Christ, I will say that you are entitled to your opinion.

Yes. Exactly. Opinion. Truth. Is there greater love than that? His sacrifice doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. You might think it's the greatest love. Heck, I might think it's the greatest love. But it's not been proven. That's the way of things with truth.

rusmeister wrote:

LM: In the tug of war of Creator vs no Creator , I see Occam's razor as making a Creator more probable:

The Origin of the Universe

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 174}

I see it the other way around. Here's my thinking...

It seems very contrary to everything I've ever experienced for anything to come from nothing; and the idea of something having always existed is difficult to wrap my mind around. However, clearly, something came from nothing or always existed. Either:
- the universe (and to call it unimaginably complex is the most profound understatement I can think of),
or
- its cause.

So which do I believe?

Well, the universe exists. It is a fact by every definition of the word. I can perceive it with all of my senses. It is not possible to avoid the universe. It can be studied. We can reproduce an uncountable number of situations as many times as we want, and get the same results every time. So, we come to understand the universe's "laws"; how things work. These are things we all agree on. We know the strength of gravity. We know about aerodynamics. We know how internal combustion engines work. (Heck, we invented the darned things.) Therefore, we don't get into an airplane, and say, "I hear these things sometimes transport people from A to B. Nobody knows why they sometimes work, or when. Let's hope today's our lucky day." The universe is here, and we learn more cold, hard facts about it all the time.

None of these things can be said about any cause of the universe.

On top of that, you would tell us that the universe's cause is a being that intimately understood every aspect of this universe, down to the last sub-atomic particle; knowing everything about every one of these aspects and particles, from the beginning of time to the end - knowing all that even before the beginning of time; and intentionally created it all. I think that, if the universe is complex to a degree that is well beyond our ability to contemplate, then a being capable of understanding the universe with absolute perfection, and creating it, is even more complex. If the universe coming from nothing or always existing seems unlikely to me, such a creator seems even more unlikely.

So I either believe in the hideously complex thing or the more complex thing. One is a fact in all ways, and I've never seen evidence for the existence of the other. Which should I believe in?

That's my starting point (and, so far, ending point) of religion.