Creation or the Bible?

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, so long as you don't read the wrong thing(s) into that answer.

Which is why I keep questioning you .

 

[drich0150]

Correct.


The man's innocence is itself a fact. The evidence presented to the jury are also facts, but they are incidental ones: the man's innocence is a fact despite what the other facts suggest. The problem is that we only have the incidental ones, and we try to infer the salient fact: the man's guilty or innocence.


Again, you're conflating facts, scientific facts, and scientific theories.


On the contrary, the interpretation of the facts points to his guilt. The facts themselves are true (e.g., his fingerprints are on the gun), but they don't prove his guilt, they merely infer it. And, in this case, it is this inference that is false, not the facts themselves.

However, how can the man's innocence be established if the facts imply his guilt? Or are we taking it as a given?


As definition. The facts remain the same, but our definitions have changed. The fact remains that Pluto exists, but whether we deem it a planet or a trans-Neptunian object has changed. "There exist nine planets" and "There exist eight planets" are both true statements; it's just that the former uses the old definition of 'planet', and the latter uses the new definition. You're wrapping yourself up in semantics again.


On the contrary, 'faith' in facts is nothing of the sort: basing one's beliefs on the available data is subtantiation defined. There is no 'faith', beyond your word games.


The irony is stunning.

For the most part.. Where we do agree, I'm glad we are in agreement. Because where/when we do come together it show your desire to see truth in "facts." Their is nothing wrong with this, the only place I do find any fault is your desire for to label any effort that may divide actual "truth" from fact, as a word game.. I completely understand why, and I understand your reluctance to be place in a position that has you questioning your faith beyond what you may have been taught, how to do so.. I know when you do except that their is a truth beyond fact, it places the cornerstones of your faith in a realm of uncertainty..

The Truth is:
The Truth remains steady and constant.. Facts are merely statements that can be proved or disproved, they have little bearing on actual Truth.. It doesn't mean a fact can not be true, but it does mean that not of "facts" are true.. And Again, where we do seem to come together is in the truth of some facts, but not in others.. Although you seem want to deem all untrue facts as a exercise in semantics or simple word games, we are in agreement that not all "facts" are true, even if you can not admit with the words I choose to use.

At this point I believe we are fully aware of each others views and any further debate will be little more than an exercise in vanity.. Because at this point the discussion becomes a point in personal philosophy, of which neither, you nor I will give any ground. Because neither of us are here to except instruction, nor are we here to learn anything..

Although I do feel we have come to an end to this discussion I do look forward to the next.. Lord willing.

 

[Adoniram]

Which do you think takes precedent: the universe, or the Bible?

So, if you look at the universe and come to conclusion A, and you look at the Bible and come to conclusion B, and A and B are mutually exclusive... which do you believe?

To take the quintessential example: scientists look at the universe and conclude that it is 13.5 billion years old*, while YECs look at the Bible and conclude that the universe is ~6000 years old**.

So which stance do you take? If Biblical exegesis and empirical deduction contradict each other, which do you take to be true?

*To be more precise, the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a singularity to its current size; this process is called the Big Bang.
**That is, Genesis 1 took place about 6000 years ago.

I would submit yet another conclusion: That the Bible and the Universe are in harmony and it is the scientists who are misinterpreting the evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would submit yet another conclusion: That the Bible and the Universe are in harmony and it is the scientists who are misinterpreting the evidence.

Could it not just as easily be a flaw in Christian exegesis?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For the most part.. Where we do agree, I'm glad we are in agreement. Because where/when we do come together it show your desire to see truth in "facts." Their is nothing wrong with this, the only place I do find any fault is your desire for to label any effort that may divide actual "truth" from fact, as a word game.

Because that's what this debate has boiled down to: my definition of the word 'fact' verses your definition. It's not a tactic to avoid debate, but a warning that this debate is ultimately pointless.

I completely understand why, and I understand your reluctance to be place in a position that has you questioning your faith beyond what you may have been taught, how to do so.. I know when you do except that their is a truth beyond fact, it places the cornerstones of your faith in a realm of uncertainty..

And that's something else we disagree on: 'faith'. I don't know what you mean when you keep referring to my 'faith', but, as far as I can tell, I don't have any ('faith' is, to me, irrational or unjustified belief).

The Truth is:
The Truth remains steady and constant.. Facts are merely statements that can be proved or disproved, they have little bearing on actual Truth.. It doesn't mean a fact can not be true, but it does mean that not of "facts" are true.. And Again, where we do seem to come together is in the truth of some facts, but not in others.. Although you seem want to deem all untrue facts as a exercise in semantics or simple word games, we are in agreement that not all "facts" are true, even if you can not admit with the words I choose to use.

Because you have yet to show me an untrue fact.

At this point I believe we are fully aware of each others views and any further debate will be little more than an exercise in vanity.. Because at this point the discussion becomes a point in personal philosophy, of which neither, you nor I will give any ground. Because neither of us are here to except instruction, nor are we here to learn anything..

Really? I am! That's the whole point I'm here .

Although I do feel we have come to an end to this discussion I do look forward to the next.. Lord willing.