How do you decide if something is factual?

[LionL]

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...

I agree that the existence of the universe was brought about by God. But that is not provable and so is not concrete evidence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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...

The most obvious error here is the God of the gaps fallacy. There's also that we have a pretty good idea about how what we see around us got here and reached its present state--the formation of stars, planets, the evolution of life, geological processes (etc) are all pretty well understood natural phenomena. There are some gaps in our understanding still, but the appropriate response isn't to fill those gaps with "God", but to fill in those gaps with knowledge.

The God of the gaps isn't just a problem scientifically, it's bad theology. It makes God small and meaningless--as gaps vanish, then God vanishes as well. Christian theology is that God isn't something we dump into our gaps of knowledge; God is the Author and Maker of everything. He is not present only where there are gaps, He is present through everything--to learn about and to understand the natural processes of the universe is to learn about the Genius of the Creator. It isn't, therefore, science that is removing God; it is the rejection of science in favor of false religion; by false religion here I mean that kind of religion that depends on ignorance and the rejection of the observable universe.

If Christianity is true, then it is true in a world where evolution happens.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LionL]

You need to take another look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his use of "frames of reference."

I understand that quite well. Only from Earth does it appear that the Sun orbits our planet. From everywhere else in the universe the opposite is true. Ergo the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

[juvenissun]

Between the Creationists and the Evolutionist (I hate to use that particular word, but...), there is a clear difference between what they consider to be factual. 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.

In this thread, I'd like to discuss how we reach our conclusions as to what is factual or not. Not to debate on whether creationism or evolution is factual, but how we arrive at our conclusions as to what is factual.

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.

How about you? How well have your methods worked in the past?

You have to define factual first. Is something factual a fact?

 

[Radagast]

I understand that quite well. Only from Earth does it appear that the Sun orbits our planet. From everywhere else in the universe the opposite is true. Ergo the Earth orbits the Sun.

There are actually quite a few frames of reference from which it appears that the Sun orbits the Earth.

And, relativity tells us that no frame of reference is privileged as the "true" one.

 

[Dave-W]

I understand that quite well. Only from Earth does it appear that the Sun orbits our planet.

But using Einstein's theory, the math actually works for the cosmos circling the earth. But it is extremely complex and unwieldy so we go with the easier frame of reference that has the earth turning on its axis and circling the sun.

 

[com7fy8]

how we reach our conclusions

I might settle for not drawing any conclusions.

There is a lot of competition for research funds; this can tempt scientists to over-rate and doctor-up things they claim to be discovering. And institutions pressure professors to publish or perish. And who you are connected with for employment and funding can have certain expected results more or less obviously connected with their continuing to employ and fund you.

And it seems ones do present ideas as conclusions. They do not distinguish between an hypothesis and an experiment-verified theory or law. There can be motives for this, for example how ones do not want to believe they will answer to God, and so they can tend to push evolution which is related to physically existent things and often the believer in evolution is assuming there is no spiritual existence and beings spiritual who can effect how physical things work.

And ones can want evolution to be true, because they don't want to answer to God.

Also, we can see how politicians can not be careful to make sure we get the truth which does not favor them. Likewise, it is possible that other humans also can tend to not consider what goes against what they already hold to. I think I have seen how both evolutionists and creationists can use more than what they have for actual evidence . . . trying to over-prove things, instead of using what they really have. I suspect there is even deliberate fraud, on both sides, among other things in order to get praise and reputation and . . . money.

So, Kylie . . . as well as I can, I pray for however God enlightens me and verifies things or not. And I understand it is wise not to get tangled in all the different claiming and arguing > but make sure our attention is first to pleasing our Father and growing in Jesus with each other, and always submitting to how God rules us with His own peace in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

And, like I say, do not get tangled in less, do not get dragged around by every claim for our attention, but first make sure our attention is to God, and be prayerful to make sure we are not getting tangled >

"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." (2 Timothy 2:4)

 

[Dave-W]

And, relativity tells us that no frame of reference is privileged as the "true" one.

Quite right. We go with the mathematically "easier" one.

 

[Radagast]

You have to define factual first.

That is a very good point.

There's a big difference between a coherence theory of truth, a consensus theory of truth, or a correspondence theory of truth.

Which one did the OP have in mind?

 

[Radagast]

But using Einstein's theory, the math actually works for the cosmos circling the earth. But it is extremely complex and unwieldy so we go with the easier frame of reference that has the earth turning on its axis and circling the sun.

That kind of depends on what we're trying to do. If we're dealing with motion within Earth's atmosphere, we use one of the Earth-based frames of reference.

 

[GosDontez]

"About 90-95% of everything we accept as fact is based on what someone else spoke or wrote. The other 5-10%, we were there."

This may not be the best way to look at it, but it's something I came up with based on this very post of yours because I faced the same problem.

Me, personally, I realized that when it comes to the past, I simply CAN'T know (unless I could travel back in time to witness).

When it comes to the present, I CAN'T be everywhere to witness. My limitations as a human prevents this. So, I was left with something "the Oracle" said in a movie series called, The Matrix:


"It is a pickle. No doubt about it. The bad news is there's no way if you can really know whether I'm here to help you or not, so it's really up to you. You just have to make up you on damned mind to either accept what I'm going to tell you, or reject it."

Simply this, you either have to accept as fact what you're told, or reject it. Because it all comes down to belief, anyway, it you can't be there to witness [it].

There are far more beliefs in the world than there is knowledge. Which is why arrogance is only logical to a psycho. Hence, the "psycho-logical".

Gos Dontez

 

[Noxot]

for science stuff the ways of science should be used. for religious stuff you must use religious methods.

 

[miamited]

Hi kylie,

You stated in your OP regarding how you personally test for truth/fact:

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.

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

 

[The Brown Brink]

The most obvious error here is the God of the gaps fallacy. There's also that we have a pretty good idea about how what we see around us got here and reached its present state--the formation of stars, planets, the evolution of life, geological processes (etc) are all pretty well understood natural phenomena. There are some gaps in our understanding still, but the appropriate response isn't to fill those gaps with "God", but to fill in those gaps with knowledge.

The God of the gaps isn't just a problem scientifically, it's bad theology. It makes God small and meaningless--as gaps vanish, then God vanishes as well. Christian theology is that God isn't something we dump into our gaps of knowledge; God is the Author and Maker of everything. He is not present only where there are gaps, He is present through everything--to learn about and to understand the natural processes of the universe is to learn about the Genius of the Creator. It isn't, therefore, science that is removing God; it is the rejection of science in favor of false religion; by false religion here I mean that kind of religion that depends on ignorance and the rejection of the observable universe.

If Christianity is true, then it is true in a world where evolution happens.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, I agree!
I've never seen evolution as a threat to Christianity myself.
I can see one laid on top of the other.
No big deal.

And...
I don't know about the gaps you mentioned...
The way I see proof of God is by using myself as evidence.
I am made up of only a few atoms, compared to the number of atoms in the whole universe, yet my small few atoms support my whole consciousness and my immortal soul.
If my few atoms can do that, think what Consciousness the whole universe supports...
Blows the mind.

 

[tas8831]

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

#2 seems pretty suspect and illogical.

 

[tas8831]

I agree with av1611vet re bible and science.

As for creation v evolution it not so much a case of what facts as a case of what presuppositions are held and how they use these to interpret the same facts.

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.

What are the presuppositions of evolution?

When I taught a class on the nature of science, the text I used outline the presuppositions of science, and I boiled them down to:

1. The universe is real
2. Our senses allow us to reasonably investigate it

How do my presuppositions fail according to you and yours?

 

[miamited]

Hi kylie,

Don't know if you'll give my previous challenge an effort, but...

I'll see if I can explain my position on your question. For something to be factual, then it must conform to the truth. If I tell you that my dog has three legs, but my dog's really just a regular healthy dog and actually has four legs, then the fact that I told you my dog has three legs is the truth. That the dog actually has three legs is also factually true. That the dog has four legs is also factually true.

Now, if I tell you that my dog 'only' has three legs, but again my dog is a healthy dog with four legs, then the fact that I told you my dog only has three legs is again true. However, the fact that my dog really only has three legs is not a factual truth.

Now, you're living in Australia and I've never sent you a picture of my dog and you've never spoken to one of my friends or neighbors about my dog. How would you prove whether or not what I told you was factually true?

Similarly, with supposed facts about long past events that cannot really be repeated, how can we truly determine the factual truths about said event? Well, here's what we do.

We take men and women and we teach them the facts that we know to be true about the world as it is now in this present day. We call them scientists and we bestow upon them pieces of paper that show that they are very learned in their respective fields and we turn them loose on the equation. They run tests in the here and now and gather evidence in the here and now and use a form of extrapolation to tell us that because of this particular piece of evidence that such and such must be true. However, they cannot ever actually prove that such and such is true.

That methodology works fairly well for people without faith, and quite frankly, it even works for a lot of people who say they have faith. Such people are willing to accept that because something functions in some specific way now, that it must always be so. However, for people of faith in the one true and living God, we know, that God can cause things to happen for which we will never be able to factually prove through any scientific methodology.

Let's take a simple one, but one must understand that it is based on faith that God is truthful in what He has told us. The parting of the sea for the Israelites to flee from Pharaoh of Egypt. We are told in that account that there was a wall of water on both the right hand and the left hand of the Israelites as they passed through the sea on the dry bed. We know with all of our great scientific methodology that it is impossible for water to stand on its own as a wall. One of the great natural properties of water is that it seeks to level itself. It is such a powerful natural property that even today we level and plumb great and mighty skyscrapers reaching up into the heavens, based on this property of a liquid, such as water, to find level. So, the natural man just writes the account off as being untrue just because we know that such a thing is impossible.

Question: Is the account not factual because we know that the supporting facts, as given, are impossible?

Let's take a slightly more important one. The birth of our Lord. We are told that Mary was found to be pregnant and all believers will agree that Mary had a baby. It's the bedrock of the Christian faith. However, we know that 2,000 years ago and even still today, so we can prove it using evidence found today, that it is impossible for a female egg to grow into a fetus without some method of introducing male sperm to that egg. Today it can be done in a laboratory, but it must still include those two very basic parts: egg and sperm. No one has ever been able to create a living human baby out of a cup of flour. However, Mary gives her own testimony to the angel who visited her that she had never known a man and, in fact, expresses a fair amount of incredulity that such an event could be at all possible.

My point being that when God does something, to date, there has been no scientific method to prove or disprove what God claims to have done. Other than to say that it can't be done today so it can't have been done in the distant past.

The natural man says that the light of the stars travels at a given speed and that, therefore, it takes X amount of time to cover a given distance. We can prove that! Today, in the here and now, we can prove that light travels at this given speed. We discount God's ability to do things that, for believers, we do know and have seen that He has done.

So, for those who place a certain level of faith on what God has told us, we believe that God created the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. That He did actually create Adam out of the dirt of the earth and then also Eve in a similar fashion, but beginning with one of Adam's bones. We also believe that God created all the plants and animals as to their kinds. Now, we don't today really have any idea what God meant by referring to them as kinds, other than a dog is not a pig. Today, man's scientific methodology has divided up the living creatures in certain ways, but we don't really know whether that method is in agreement with God's definition of kinds.

Now, it is readily agreed that the atheist and the believer are going to understand all of this differently. The atheist is just going to dismiss it all out of hand because they don't believe that the one we read about in the Scriptures even ever existed. The believer, on the other hand, begins with the foundation that God does exist, and his understanding is going to be different based merely on the foundation of what they believe that God has said.

So, how do we prove or disprove what each one believes to be the factual truth? We can choose the scientific method and allow that man is all wise in such things and is therefore presenting to us the facts. We can choose the Scriptures as the basis for the truth of what is and that it is the Scriptures that are presenting to us the facts.

God has said that He made all the living creatures at a specific time and each as to its kind. This may or may not allow for some micro changes in living creatures as time progresses, but it most certainly precludes that there were any major changes over time or that all life somehow came from one single life form that has branched out into the millions that we see today over some very, very long period of time. But, whether any singular individual believes A or B is going to depend on the foundation from which they begin. Is man's wisdom the end all be all of knowledge, or is God's?

BTW, if you're interested, born again believers find that there are reasonable proofs for God's existence within the Scriptures. If you're interested in investigating some of those reasonable proofs, I'd be happy to help.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[tas8831]

No offense there, Kylie, but it is my experience that absolutely no topic on earth is safe from subjectivity. Some are so obstinate and contrary that they will even tell you that water isn't wet. So in the end it always comes down to what people want to believe, regardless of objective realities, at least until cold hard reality intrudes on their thought processes.

And yet, a person not wanting to believe something can still be objectively wrong.

The claim "Table salt is an ionic compound that we call sodium chloride because it is made from sodium and chlorine."

That is an objective fact, that anyone that wants and is able to learn can conclude.

Can someone disagree with that? Claim that table salt is NOT made of sodium and chlorine?
Yes, but they would be wrong. And if they claim that they are right because they call sodium flubber, then they are in effect just being contrarians.

There really are things that can be objectively "true" whether people want to accept them or not. And these are things that correspond to reality ( see Correspondence Theory)..

Likewise, there are unfortunately many who are going to experience great pain in eternity because they did not heed the warnings of God. Arguing about whether the sufferings they will experience are "factual" or not won't do them much good at that point.

You started off OK, then took a nose dive into special pleading.

Your 'truth' about how a loving deity will torment its own creations for eternity for not believing in it does not correspond to any objective reality, thus it is a mere belief, and is not factual.

Sorry.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Your 'truth' about how a loving deity will torment its own creations for eternity for not believing in it does not correspond to any objective reality, thus it is a mere belief, and is not factual.

After we die, we will all find out if there is a Heaven and a Hell. Until we get there to experience one or the other, our views on the subject are all still subjective, are they not?

 

[tas8831]

After we die, we will all find out if there is a Heaven and a Hell. Until we get there to experience one or the other, our views on the subject are all still subjective, are they not?

And thus are not "facts." Hence the special pleading - though now that I think about it, it is more likely question begging.