Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
1over137 wrote:
There are truths and falsehoods. Truth is the truth by definition. Falsehood is the opposite of truth.
Really? What is a ‘truth’?
I know of one truth. I know that there is an objective truth. The objective truth is true be definition, otherwise it would not be a truth.
How do I know that statement is true? Since no brain state can be true or false, where did this truth come from? How do you expalin your ability to reason to this 'truth'
1over137 wrote:Am sorry for my English but what does 'ask away' means?
Here's another Milo demonstration by Peter Molyneux (the guy who invented Milo). Here's an exact quote of what he says at minute 1:45
Peter Molyneux wrote: ... now I'll be honest with you and say that most of it is just a trick, but a trick that actually works ...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure atheists will fall for a trick like that too.
Like that? You know what tricks they used?
I have a Masters degree in Information Technology, have been writing software for the last 30 years, am well acquainted with AI, so yes I am somewhat familiar with the techniques (though obviously not the details), if that's what you're asking. But I quoted the guy who came up with the whole thing verbatim so you will need to ask him exactly what he means.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
1over137 wrote:
There are truths and falsehoods. Truth is the truth by definition. Falsehood is the opposite of truth.
Really? What is a ‘truth’?
I know of one truth. I know that there is an objective truth. The objective truth is true be definition, otherwise it would not be a truth.
How do I know that statement is true? Since no brain state can be true or false, where did this truth come from? How do you expalin your ability to reason to this 'truth'
You do not differentiate the objective and subjective truth? If there where no people, there would not be truth? Truth is the truth. Do you want to ask me now how do I know that that statement is true? Well, ask every person on this world if the truth is true. I can say nothing more. You are asking me where the truth came from. It's like asking me where the universe came from since truth IMO started with the existence.
1over137 wrote:? If there where no people, there would not be truth? Truth is the truth. Do you want to ask me now how do I know that that statement is true? Well, ask every person on this world if the truth is true. I can say nothing more. You are asking me where the truth came from. It's like asking me where the universe came from since truth IMO started with the existence.
You still are not grasping this. What *are* truths? What *are* beliefs? Hence, what is a true belief? The fact of the matter is, atheism has no grounds for epistemic normativity, and thus no grounds for truths and true beliefs. It is a philosophy lost in no man's land.
1over137 wrote:? If there where no people, there would not be truth? Truth is the truth. Do you want to ask me now how do I know that that statement is true? Well, ask every person on this world if the truth is true. I can say nothing more. You are asking me where the truth came from. It's like asking me where the universe came from since truth IMO started with the existence.
You still are not grasping this. What *are* truths? What *are* beliefs? Hence, what is a true belief? The fact of the matter is, atheism has no grounds for epistemic normativity, and thus no grounds for truths and true beliefs. It is a philosophy lost in no man's land.
Could you tell me please what epistemic normativity is? I haven't found anything satisfying.
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6
1over137 wrote:? If there where no people, there would not be truth? Truth is the truth. Do you want to ask me now how do I know that that statement is true? Well, ask every person on this world if the truth is true. I can say nothing more. You are asking me where the truth came from. It's like asking me where the universe came from since truth IMO started with the existence.
You still are not grasping this. What *are* truths? What *are* beliefs? Hence, what is a true belief? The fact of the matter is, atheism has no grounds for epistemic normativity, and thus no grounds for truths and true beliefs. It is a philosophy lost in no man's land.
Could you tell me please what epistemic normativity is? I haven't found anything satisfying.
What I believe Danny is saying, is that in an atheistic worldview, there is no basis for absolute truths. Your truth is not my truth. Everything is subjective. Actually, in atheism, I would argue that everything is ultimately meaningless.
An absolute, objective truth, has to have an absolute beginning. Only God could be the origin of an objective truth.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
1over137 wrote:? If there where no people, there would not be truth? Truth is the truth. Do you want to ask me now how do I know that that statement is true? Well, ask every person on this world if the truth is true. I can say nothing more. You are asking me where the truth came from. It's like asking me where the universe came from since truth IMO started with the existence.
You still are not grasping this. What *are* truths? What *are* beliefs? Hence, what is a true belief? The fact of the matter is, atheism has no grounds for epistemic normativity, and thus no grounds for truths and true beliefs. It is a philosophy lost in no man's land.
Could you tell me please what epistemic normativity is? I haven't found anything satisfying.
Truth and belief are necessary for knowledge. This alone presents a dilemma for naturalism. Naturalism says that only ’natural’ entities exist, which in turn are in the domain of, and can only be described by the scientific disciplines of physics and chemistry, to name but two. Thus all phenomena (mental phenomena included) must be reduced to the physical and explained thus. I’m sure you see the problem. But it gets worse since, while a necessary requirement for knowledge, truth and belief are not sufficient for knowledge.
And here we come to epistemic warrant, or epistemic ‘justification,‘ and the nightmare only gets worse. Here’s James Anderson on epistemic normatively:
But it has been argued that beliefs possess intrinsic features, such as subjectivity and intentionality, which cannot be reduced to the physical or eliminated. Similarly, the concept of truth—understood as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements—is not susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge). Thus there seems to be no respectable place for ‘beliefs’ and ‘truths’ in a naturalist ontology….
…I’ve noted that truth and belief are necessary for knowledge, but they are clearly not sufficient for it. It is possible to believe that p, and for p to be true, without actually knowing that p. For example, I might believe that it will be sunny on my birthday in a fortnight’s time, simply because I’m an incurable optimist; but even if that belief later turned out to be true, no one would concede that I knew it would be sunny two weeks in advance.
RickD wrote:What I believe Danny is saying, is that in an atheistic worldview, there is no basis for absolute truths. Your truth is not my truth. Everything is subjective. Actually, in atheism, I would argue that everything is ultimately meaningless.
An absolute, objective truth, has to have an absolute beginning. Only God could be the origin of an objective truth.
Agreed, Bro. But also they do not have any justification for holding beliefs given naturalism.
RickD wrote:What I believe Danny is saying, is that in an atheistic worldview, there is no basis for absolute truths. Your truth is not my truth. Everything is subjective. Actually, in atheism, I would argue that everything is ultimately meaningless.
An absolute, objective truth, has to have an absolute beginning. Only God could be the origin of an objective truth.
Agreed, Bro. But also they do not have any justification for holding beliefs given naturalism.
I agree, Danny. There really is no justification for anything non-physical, in a naturalistic worldview.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
