Factual = impossible to be proven false (zero assumption & zero speculation)
So then this implies two criteria:
- It must be, in principle at least, able to be proven false.
- It must withstand any and all attempts to prove it false.
Upvote
0
Factual = impossible to be proven false (zero assumption & zero speculation)
Usually, I listen to and incorporate the methods of people who have come before me who are experts in their own respective fields, and I do this all before I attempt to have self-assurance about my own "factualizing" of the world around me.
So, let's say I want to do something scientifically, then I first CHOOSE a person to listen to, like Eugenie C. Scott, for instance, if I want to learn to approach something scientifically. If, by contrast, I want to consider how the whole ball of wax fits together, i.e. consider all of the disparate pieces of evidence which humanity has about the material world and how it all becomes entangled, then I'll listen to and consider the ideas of a multitude of degreed philosophers. And if I want to know about religion, I'll listen to and consider the ideas of a bunch of ancient Jewish people, one in particular.
yep, that's about it.
You have to define factual first. Is something factual a fact?
Hi kylie,
You stated in your OP regarding how you personally test for truth/fact:
I'm going to assume, since you claim yourself to be an atheist, that you have used that method to test for God. How do you know that the facts you have apparently found to be the truth, are? More simply put, on what facts do you know that there is no God and how did you test them?
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
Well there is the presupposition of evolution.The presupposition of creationism seems to be that a collection of ancient tales is 100% true despite there being little to no corroboration of independent evidence supporting the more extraordinary tales.
The BEST way is to find the agreement of Scripture, Science and History. When you find this agreement, it is really hard for someone to refute what you have found. There are many Evolutionists here who cannot refute that Fact, but they never cease to try. God Bless you
False, since it is really easy to see the evidence God left in the FIRST chapter of the Bible. God's Truth reveals that we live in a Multiverse, that ALL living creatures were created and brought forth from Water. The problem is with one's interpretation, which can ONLY be correct IF seen through the increased knowledge of the last days. Daniel 12:3 The ancient traditional Religious view is easily refuted Scripturally. Amen?
1.) Your husband tells you something he witnessed, and on the basis of trust, you would probably believe him.
2.) You hear that there is near unanimity amongst biologists regarding evolution, and, although not a biologist yourself, you assume that there must be a basis for that unanimity.
3.) You are on a jury, and conclude that enough evidence has been presented for you to conclude the defendant really did rob the bank.
4.) You witness something with your own two eyes, and are disinclined to believe it was an illusion.
That list could probably added to. In other words, there is no one way of deciding whether or not something is factual.
Well there is the presupposition of evolution.
Because evolutionists are not prepared to look at the creationists arguments or to look at their own arguments honestly they will always have a bias against the bible.
If one believes there is no God, no supernatural then god did not speak to prophets nor did he do any miracles. it is self supporting belief.
Creationist have to constantly examine their beliefs against the claims of evolutionists.
Factual: An accurate representation of reality. Real, as opposed to imaginary.
If so, in the question of OP, there are only two choices: factual or not factual.
There should be no such thing as "becoming more and more factual".
If so, at the first (lowest) level, if you can not see or can not touch the object or feature, then it is not factual.
People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.
Newton's ideas about gravity showed that this was not true, and provided a more accurate description of what really happened. But it was still not completely accurate.
Einstein and his theory of relativity gave us the more accurate view we have today.
Does this make it clear what I mean?
Factual: An accurate representation of reality. Real, as opposed to imaginary.
And there has been rigorous testing many times, by many different people.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
True. But that doesn't mean that all methods are equal. Some methods are clearly more effective than others.
People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.
Newton's ideas about gravity showed that this was not true, and provided a more accurate description of what really happened. But it was still not completely accurate.
I have never seen an idea of God that did not have contradictions, either within itself (such as a God who is all powerful, but couldn't forgive Humans without a blood sacrifice)
such as the creation account that has plants appearing before the sun
Not quite. If a fact is something that cannot be proven false, then (1) contradicts that. Even though a fact can withstand any attempts to prove it false, anything that cannot be proven false doesn't automatically make it a fact.So then this implies two criteria:
Would you agree with this?
- It must be, in principle at least, able to be proven false.
- It must withstand any and all attempts to prove it false.
No argument there!Like I said, I like to pout things to the test.
Drop a pen and a feather off a bridge at the same time, and I predict the pen will hit the water first every time.People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.
Like I said, I like to pout things to the test.
For example, if I want to see if a flame under a pot of water will make the water heat up, I can test that. I can place limits on the variables and I can measure the results. I can get other people to copy my tests, and I can get them to make up their own tests. And if all the tests made in different ways by different people at different times indicate that fire heats up water in a pot in a predictable way - it heats up at such and such a rate when the fire is this particular size - then I can conclude that my results are fairly accurate, and that the results I am seeing are a result of being a part of reality, and not some biased viewpoint that is unique to me.
So you hold to a correspondence theory of truth? Good.
Or, to be more accurate, people that you trust say that rigorous testing has been performed, and you believe them (except for those tests that you actually ran yourself).
That's a problem. Can we not trust the eyewitness testimony of scientists about the results of their experiments?
Some methods are clearly more effective than others in certain domains. As I said earlier, in mathematics we use proof, not "testing."
Actually, it was Galileo who showed that this was not true. Let's be factual about history.
There is actually no logical contradiction there.
The majority of Christians would not interpret the Creation account that way. In any case, any possible contradiction there is not a contradiction about the nature of God.
Not quite. If a fact is something that cannot be proven false, then (1) contradicts that.
Even though a fact can withstand any attempts to prove it false, anything that cannot be proven false doesn't automatically make it a fact.
I think I need to reword my definition. For something to be factual, it needs to satisfy all of the below criteria:
(i) impossible to be false
(ii) not based on assumption
(iii) not based on speculation
Drop a pen and a feather off a bridge at the same time, and I predict the pen will hit the water first every time.