How do you decide if something is factual?

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You have a scientific mind, which I regard as a good thing.

I agree. :)

Even carbon dating methods have been proven to give highly inconsistent results on occasion, such as dating living things to be thousands of years old, which throws the whole system into doubt.

First, carbon dating is not accurate for specimens older than a few tens of thousands of years. For things that are millions of years old, other techniques are used. There are a number of different techniques that can be used in different age ranges, and since the ranges overlap, they can be used to cross check each other.

Secondly, in cases where carbon dating has given inconsistent results, it has been used incorrectly. You gave the example of living creatures dating to thousands of years old, but carbon dating could NEVER work on a living organism, since it is taking in new carbon 14 from the environment.

Do you know how the technique works? Let me tell you.

Living organisms take in carbon from the environment. There are two types of carbon taken in, carbon 12 which is fairly stable, and carbon 14 which decays after a time (the half life is about 5,000 years). While the organism is alive, the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is the same as it is in the environment, since the body doesn't care which version it gets. They both work the same as far as what the body uses them for.

But once the creature dies, it is no longer taking in carbon from the environment. It isn't breathing, nor is it eating.

The carbon 14 in the body begins to decay, but the carbon 12 remains in pretty much the same amount.

So when we find a dead creature, like a dead mammoth frozen in the tundra, we can compare the amount of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14. Since we know how much 14 there was in relation to 12 when the creature died, and since we also know the present ratio, and since we also know how quickly carbon 14 decays, we can figure out how long the mammoth has been dead.

So obviously, carbon dating can not possibly give accurate results on a LIVING organism!

And interpreting the geological column is by no means as simple as running repeated tests to see how fast water heats up either. Trust me, life would be simpler for us all if it were, but with my limited knowledge of the creationism/evolution debate (which I haven't even looked at again since my college years), it seems to me that we would forever be stuck in a situation where subjectivity is inevitable. None of us were actually there 6,000 years ago, let alone 6,000,000.

No, we weren't there, but we have evidence that was there.

And if you admit that your knowledge about the debate is limited, how can you have reached a conclusion you are willing to hold to without even looking at the opposing evidence?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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), or with reality (such as the creation account that has plants appearing before the sun). Once such a contradiction is found, I can dismiss whatever idea of God has been prevented.

Hi kylie,

I'm curious. Who said that God 'couldn't' forgive humans without a blood sacrifice? Judges in our courts could let every criminal go free, but that wouldn't be just and righteous, would it?,

The Scriptures paint a picture that this realm of creation will end with God separating the wicked from the good. He has established that only blood can wash away the stain of sin. He has determined that only through the shedding of blood can there be any remission of sin. It's what God has decided is the just penalty for sin and I imagine it has something to do with His claim that the life is in the blood. Life for life. God has also determined that the blood of His Son, one who is innocent of sin, can be shed as a substitute for the blood of the wicked, but with conditions. He is God and He has determined that such a plan allows for Him to accomplish the end game of this realm of creation and be just for all.

So, just like the judges in our courts, they 'can' release every criminal, but they won't. They won't because it wouldn't be just. Similarly, God 'can' release each one of us from our penalty of sin, but it wouldn't be just.

BTW, I can take a plant out of my yard and carry it down into the storage room in my basement and it'll do pretty fine for at least a couple of days so long as the roots are well bound in the soil.

The Scriptures tell us that people perish for their lack of understanding.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But there seems to be a difference there...

When you choose a person as your source of scientific information, then you choose someone in the relevant field. You wouldn't choose an astrophysicist if you wanted information about DNA replication. You'd go to a biochemist. And that would be a rational choice, because the biochemist can get useful and meaningful results on the subject, whereas an astrophysicist would be left scratching his head.

But when it comes to religion, there are groups of people who claim that they are the ones who have produced the meaningful results, and that the other groups have not. How is one to make a decision among them?

It seems to me that your method of deciding on a source to determine what is factual about religion is merely picking whoever agrees with what you have already decided to be true, and that's not a very good way of discovering fact.
Are you wanting me to answer your question; or should I take it that since you make a statement after the question, you already know what my answer will be? By "telling" me what my own personal thoughts are on the matter, aren't you perhaps being a little bit presumptive? What was your method for determining my state of mind and methodology as they pertain to religion? :scratch:

2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I haven't heard it referred to in those terms....

Correspondence (with reality), coherence (holding together logically), and consensus (agreement within a community) are the main theories of truth. They are actually quite different.

Given the sheer number of people who would have to be involved in a conspiracy to cover up things like evolution if it were false, I find it unlikely.

Sorry, are we talking about evolution? I was speaking generally (and, speaking generally, on rare occasions we find that a scientific publication was fraudulent, and that the reported experimental results were faked).

I was also making the point that you actually do take things as factual based on the testimony of other people, if there are enough of them.

If all we had was eyewitness testimony, then yes, I wouldn't trust it.

But scientists don't rely on eyewitness testimony. They carefully document everything. It's not a bunch of scientists thinking back to describe what they remember of the experiment.

I think we're confusing "eyewitness testimony" with "unsupported recollection."

According to my dictionary, an eyewitness is "a person who saw something happen." That would cover scientific observation. Obviously the best eyewitnesses are scientists, police officers, maritime personnel, and other people who take notes of their observations.

I disagree.

If God is all powerful, then there can be no sentence he can truthfully say that starts with, "I am unable to..."

The Christian doctrine of omnipotence does not mean, and has never meant, that God can do absolutely anything. Contradictions are excluded, as are other things. God can neither lie, sin, change, nor deny Himself (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:18; James 1:13; James 1:17). The Christian doctrine of omnipotence says that God can do anything that He wishes to do.

Isn't that begging the question? You are starting with the assumption that any perceived contradiction can't possibly be a real contradiction.

No, I'm saying that even a real contradiction about a specific event is not a contradiction about God. A contradiction about God would involve two statements about the nature of God which were contradictory.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
But we have seen countless times that it tends to be religion which adapts itself to agree with scientific discoveries, and never science which adapts itself to fit religion.

Of course, if you can show me an example of anything where we once had a scientific explanation but now consider a religious explanation to be better, I'll happily change my opinion.

Amen, since religion is the ENEMY of God. Christianity should be based on what Scripture actually says, instead of what some teach it says. God's Truth in Scripture IS the Truth in every way IF you read Genesis for what it says. I don't believe you will change your opinion but here is PROOF of God from Genesis One. If you don't believe me, then TRY to refute it:

A few years ago, all you could hear was panspermia, life from Space riding on Comets, abiogenesis and other such foolishness. Today, Science has finally settled the arguments and has AGREED with Genesis 1:21 which tells us that ALL living creatures came from WATER. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...Jul 26, 2016

IF you have the proper interpretation of Genesis, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically. Scripture has told us the Truth for 3,000 years now and today's Science is just now discovering the SAME. It's proof of God since No ancient man could have known this so long ago. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One group believes that some sort of creationism is factual, and the other group accepts the scientific account of the formation of the earth and the development of life as factual.

I'd start by wording the quoted a little differently, in still accurate, but more simple terms (Always best to tear it down to the very basics), as in...

One group believes that creationism is factual, and the other group accepts that it all happened on it's on.

We could go on and on about the science used in your version of the question but since science is just our opinion of what the natural is telling us, and not an almighty end all as we are led to believe, it not only remains just opinion, but in the end, it still leads us to the simple basics of "it just happened"...all that is relevant here as I see it. I feel all of that is accurate and removes some confusion (And I know you were not trying to confuse anything, by any means) and confusion plays a huge role in all this, the very reason I need to do away with it and stick with the basic facts in my version in order to draw my personal conclusion.

Next common sense comes into play. I have never ever, even once, seen anything come from nothing, on it's own, yet I have seen things created. As a matter of fact, everything beyond what we call the natural, was created by man...everything.

So, to me, it's about as easy as any decision I've ever made to believe the so-called natural was "created" over what I feel is a very ridiculous, even laughable "it just happened".

That would cover the basic answer to your question, but if one wanted to go a step further, common sense also dictates, if someone created me, a living thinking being just like my creator, that someone (God) would want to let me know all about my creator and why he created me/us...hence the biblical God being the actual creator, and that bible being his explanation to us all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Except you are wrong.

Genesis 1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
According to the Bible, not ALL living creatures came from water. And Humans came from dust, not water.

And God (Elohim-The Trinity, a Plural name) said, Let the earth/ground bring forth the living creature after His (YHWH/Jesus, a Singular name) kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth/ground after His (YHWH/Jesus, a Singular name) kind, and it was so.

Jesus always makes temporary things, things which are subject to death on this Earth. God is telling the Son to bring forth living creatures from the GROUND, from the EARTH. God made ETERNAL creatures from WATER. Gen 1:21 SOME of them were made after His (Jesus kinds) since they are the "common ancestors". Adam, made from the ground, is the common ancestor of ALL Humans. That's WHY Humans MUST be born again by the Trinity IF they want Eternal life. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Amen?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,558
Colorado
✟427,906.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....My own preference is to take a belief I have and put it to the test. If I keep testing an idea and trying to prove it wrong, but every attempt to prove it wrong fails, then I consider that idea to be more and more factual.....
That method allows you only a very limited set of facts. I mean, how many claims can you test?

I have a few addition methods for determining factuality.

For one, I trust the combination of scientific institutions + time. The findings of respected universities and research institutes that have been time-tested seem to be very reliable. I typically call those findings "facts". Almost none of them do I test myself.
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,308
1,892
✟257,746.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I use a set of Boolean standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate
Why do you keep 1 & 2, why do you not compress to
Bible says X = go with X

And reduce you standard to 3?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do you keep 1 & 2, why do you not compress to
Bible says X = go with X

And reduce you standard to 3?
Because I want to show the Bible's superiority over science.

If I did it your way, someone might wonder:

"What if the Bible says one thing, and science says another?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,308
1,892
✟257,746.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You say there's no concrete evidence that there is a God...

Where did all this stuff around us come from then?
Did it just poof into existence?

Seems like there's evidence for God to me...
Well, the laptop I use for writing this, is made in Taiwan. So that comes from Taiwan.
I have a few spare lightbulbs made in the Netherlands. So these come from the Netherlands.
I have some bottles of French champagne and French and Italian wine.
Part of my furniture comes from Ikea.


Do I really need to go on until " this all this stuff around us" has been traced back to it's different origins?
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,308
1,892
✟257,746.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Because I want to show the Bible's superiority over science.

If I did it your way, someone might wonder:

"What if the Bible says one thing, and science says another?"
So your Boolean standards don't describe how you decide what is true or not, they are used to show off.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So your Boolean standards don't describe how you decide what is true or not, they are used to show off.
Let's see your standards? is it the scientific method?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do you change the subject?
If you'd like to question & ridicule my standards, okay if I question and ridicule yours?

But I can't question and ridicule them if you don't post them.

Which is par for the course.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Because I want to show the Bible's superiority over science.

If I did it your way, someone might wonder:

"What if the Bible says one thing, and science says another?"

The problem is that you can't. For every "thalidomide" that you bring up, which had unintentional bad results, we can pull up far worse atrocities from the Bible that were done on purpose.

Mistakes are made in the world of science. There is no question about it. But science has a self correcting mechanism. The Bible has no such self correcting mechanism even though it is rife with errors, self contradictions, bad science, worse morals, etc..
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hi kylie,

I'm curious. Who said that God 'couldn't' forgive humans without a blood sacrifice? Judges in our courts could let every criminal go free, but that wouldn't be just and righteous, would it?,

Ah, but this is different.

God having Jesus die is not the same as letting a criminal go free. It is God deciding that the crime must be paid for with the blood of an innocent.

It would be like me deciding that the only way I could forgive my daughter is by killing her pet goldfish.

The Scriptures paint a picture that this realm of creation will end with God separating the wicked from the good. He has established that only blood can wash away the stain of sin. He has determined that only through the shedding of blood can there be any remission of sin. It's what God has decided is the just penalty for sin and I imagine it has something to do with His claim that the life is in the blood. Life for life. God has also determined that the blood of His Son, one who is innocent of sin, can be shed as a substitute for the blood of the wicked, but with conditions. He is God and He has determined that such a plan allows for Him to accomplish the end game of this realm of creation and be just for all.

Yeah, but it doesn't need to be that way, does it?

If my daughter breaks something of mine, then I can forgive her without needing to break something of hers. God created the universe, surely he can change the rules.

So, just like the judges in our courts, they 'can' release every criminal, but they won't. They won't because it wouldn't be just. Similarly, God 'can' release each one of us from our penalty of sin, but it wouldn't be just.

Why not? Can't God just make it just?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you wanting me to answer your question; or should I take it that since you make a statement after the question, you already know what my answer will be? By "telling" me what my own personal thoughts are on the matter, aren't you perhaps being a little bit presumptive? What was your method for determining my state of mind and methodology as they pertain to religion? :scratch:

2PhiloVoid

Woah, I never said that was what your state of mind was, I simply said that is how it seems to be from my point of view.

If I am wrong, please feel free to explain to me how you have solved the problem I described.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Correspondence (with reality), coherence (holding together logically), and consensus (agreement within a community) are the main theories of truth. They are actually quite different.

I think that any description of the universe would have to cover the first two. It would have to match what we see in reality, and it would also have to be logically consistent. In other words, it wouldn't contradict reality, and it wouldn't contradict itself.

Sorry, are we talking about evolution? I was speaking generally (and, speaking generally, on rare occasions we find that a scientific publication was fraudulent, and that the reported experimental results were faked).

I was simply using evolution as an example. Feel free to propose a different example if you'd like.

I was also making the point that you actually do take things as factual based on the testimony of other people, if there are enough of them.

Yes, but if many people all agree on the same thing, it is unlikely to be a false memory that often happens with eyewitness testimony. After all, the chances of a number of people all remembering something wrong in exactly the same way are very small, and the cahnces become smaller and smaller as the number of people gets larger.

I think we're confusing "eyewitness testimony" with "unsupported recollection."

Not really. It's actually quite easy to make some remember an event that never happened.

How Your Brain Can Create False Memories
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09658210701647258?journalCode=pmem20

According to my dictionary, an eyewitness is "a person who saw something happen." That would cover scientific observation.

Scientific observation requires a lot more than just seeing it happen. It involves recording it and making notes as the event occurs.

Obviously the best eyewitnesses are scientists, police officers, maritime personnel, and other people who take notes of their observations.

But even these can be incorrect. The best eyewitness is a camera. It records everything in real time with no loss of detail. And even then it can be difficult to interpret, due to different focal lengths, different lighting conditions, different angles...

The Christian doctrine of omnipotence does not mean, and has never meant, that God can do absolutely anything. Contradictions are excluded, as are other things. God can neither lie, sin, change, nor deny Himself (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:18; James 1:13; James 1:17).

And apparently, God can't drive out the inhabitants of the valley if they have iron chariots. Beats me why God is rendered helpless by iron... (Judges 1:19)

The Christian doctrine of omnipotence says that God can do anything that He wishes to do.

What if he wishes to drive out people in iron chariots?

A contradiction about God would involve two statements about the nature of God which were contradictory.

Ah, you mean like how God has a body in Genesis 3:8, but John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 establish that God is a spirit that has no body?

Or how God promises not to curse the earth again in Genesis 8:21, but then he threatens to do exactly that in Malachi 4:6?

Or how God is not the author of confusion according to 1 Corinthians 14:33, but he is according to Genesis 11:7-9?

Or how God doesn't repent according to Numbers 23:19, but he repented of creating Humans according to Genesis 6:6?

Or how God is warlike according to Exodus 15:3, but a God of peace according to Romans 15:33 and Hebrews 13:20?

Or how God never gets tired (Isaiah 40:28), but then he is tired with all that repenting he doesn't do in Jeremiah 15:6?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Amen, since religion is the ENEMY of God. Christianity should be based on what Scripture actually says, instead of what some teach it says. God's Truth in Scripture IS the Truth in every way IF you read Genesis for what it says. I don't believe you will change your opinion but here is PROOF of God from Genesis One. If you don't believe me, then TRY to refute it:

A few years ago, all you could hear was panspermia, life from Space riding on Comets, abiogenesis and other such foolishness. Today, Science has finally settled the arguments and has AGREED with Genesis 1:21 which tells us that ALL living creatures came from WATER. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...Jul 26, 2016

IF you have the proper interpretation of Genesis, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically. Scripture has told us the Truth for 3,000 years now and today's Science is just now discovering the SAME. It's proof of God since No ancient man could have known this so long ago. Amen?

This is the third time you've trotted out this weak argument against me, and the third time I have called you out on it. Do we really need to go through this again? Because I'm not going to waste my time. You obviously aren't here for any discussion, you are apparently just hear to make the same old refuted claims again and again and again!
 
Upvote 0