The Da Vinci Code

[RealityCheck]

Crumbs, let me summarily answer your question. Your mind is finit. God's is not. What is confusing to you makes perfectly good sense to Him.

Don't think that because man is confused that God's Word is incorrect.

When I see something like this, my mind automatically translates this as: "So you've brought up a lot of stuff that I can't answer or refute, so I'll just dismiss it all by resorting to 'God must be perfect' and hope this discussion goes away."

 

[RealityCheck]

If you don't know that 2+2= 4, there is no way for you to honestly refute my claim that 2+2=6.

You can't know that it's wrong unless you've got the answer by which to righteously judge it.

Much of science, actually, proceeds not from the position that it can show what the right answer is, but from the position that it can show that one or more answers are not correct.

This is the basis for all genuine scientific inquiry and experimentation.

 

[Zaac]

When I see something like this, my mind automatically translates this as: "So you've brought up a lot of stuff that I can't answer or refute, so I'll just dismiss it all by resorting to 'God must be perfect' and hope this discussion goes away."

And when I see this kind of response, my response is the same as it's always been

I'm not tasked to convince anyone that God's Word is His Word. NonChristians are sitting around looking for people to argue with them and get into some sort of intellectual battle whereby they are either convinced of something beyond a reasonable doubt or they feel like they have shamed the christian and the Christian belief.

Why would I attempt to be Jesus Christ and bring someone into an understanding of the Word that is Him? That's what HE does.

If a nonChristian sees confusion in God's Word, it's because He doesn't have a relationship with the Author. The Christian is to lean on God's understanding not his own.

 

[Zaac]

Much of science, actually, proceeds not from the position that it can show what the right answer is, but from the position that it can show that one or more answers are not correct.

This is the basis for all genuine scientific inquiry and experimentation.

I didn't say anything about scientific means or scientific proof. That's man's truth.

Science means "to know."

God is the All-Knowing.

 

[Belk]

If you don't know that 2+2= 4, there is no way for you to honestly refute my claim that 2+2=6.

You can't know that it's wrong unless you've got the answer by which to righteously judge it.

Yes, I can. If I create a mathematical proof that 2+2 =/= 6 then I do not need to know the correct answer, I just need to show your answer is incorrect.

Likewise I do not need to have absolute knowledge to prove that you do not have absolute knowledge. I simply need to show one piece of your knowledge is incorrect. Thus proving you do not have absolute knowledge.

Can I prove that God does not have absolute knowledge? Of course I can not. However, you can not prove that the bible is the word of God either. That is something that must be taken on faith.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, I can. If I create a mathematical proof that 2+2 =/= 6 then I do not need to know the correct answer, I just need to show your answer is incorrect.

That doesn't prove that my answer is incorrect. All that shows is that you got another answer that's just as capable of being incorrect as you say mine is. Like I said, unless you've got the truth, you can't tell me that my answer is incorrect.

Likewise I do not need to have absolute knowledge to prove that you do not have absolute knowledge. I simply need to show one piece of your knowledge is incorrect. Thus proving you do not have absolute knowledge.

yet you STILL cannot do that without admitting that you've got absolute truth. To show one piece of what I said to be untrue, you would have to submit something of your own( in this case you said a proof) that is absolutely true. You'd still be claiming to have the truth.

Can I prove that God does not have absolute knowledge? Of course I can not. However, you can not prove that the bible is the word of God either. That is something that must be taken on faith.

God hasn't asked us to prove any such thing. It seems to be nonChristians who want us to prove it. I say why? It ain't gonna save ya if we do.

 

[RealityCheck]

Zaac - basically, you're saying that you cannot say a statement is wrong unless you have the right statement that contradicts it. That is logically incorrect, and I already gave an example with Galileo of how you can prove one answer wrong, but still get your own answer wrong.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac - basically, you're saying that you cannot say a statement is wrong unless you have the right statement that contradicts it.

Nope I'm saying that unless you know whatthe truth is, you have no basis to say that my truth is not truth.

That is logically incorrect, and I already gave an example with Galileo of how you can prove one answer wrong, but still get your own answer wrong.

And for you to reach that conclusion would amount to you saying that you logically know what is correct.

Like I said. That doesn't prove your answer correct. It just says that you proved you could get a different end result.

 

[Belk]

That doesn't prove that my answer is incorrect.

Yes, that is exactly what it does. If you say that 2+2=6 and I provide a proof that 2+2 does not equal six I have shown your answer to be incorrect.

All that shows is that you got another answer that's just as capable of being incorrect as you say mine is. Like I said, unless you've got the truth, you can't tell me that my answer is incorrect.

No, I do not have an answer. I have simply proven the answer you provided incorrect.

yet you STILL cannot do that without admitting that you've got absolute truth. To show one piece of what I said to be untrue, you would have to submit something of your own( in this case you said a proof) that is absolutely true. You'd still be claiming to have the truth.

Hmmm… I don’t think we are reaching each other here. Perhaps you can explain to me why you believe I have to have “Absolute truth” in order to refute your “Absolute truth”. In the meantime I will try and come up with an example of why I believe this to be incorrect.

God hasn't asked us to prove any such thing. It seems to be nonChristians who want us to prove it. I say why? It ain't gonna save ya if we do.

No, you take it on faith. The issue (or so it seems to me) is that you then tell me what you believe and then say it is infallible because it comes from God. Where as to my mind, it simply comes from you.

 

[RealityCheck]

No, you take it on faith. The issue (or so it seems to me) is that you then tell me what you believe and then say it is infallible because it comes from God. Where as to my mind, it simply comes from you.

And thus the real problem with Zaac's contentions... can he prove that his Absolute Truth comes from God and not from him, or his personal interpretation of the Bible?

 

[michabo]

Nope I'm saying that unless you know whatthe truth is, you have no basis to say that my truth is not truth.

In case anyone was under any doubt that, when Zaac says "truth" he is actually talking about "belief", this should convince them.

I'm thinking Zaac is a troll. He offers nothing but assertions, and these assertions are demonstrably false. Just in this clear case, we can give so many counter-examples:

- we can prove the earth is not 6,000 years old without having to know exactly how old it is.

- we can prove that x=3 is not a root of x^2+1=0 without having to state what x does equal

- when presented with an organism, we can prove that it is not a plant without having to know exactly what species it is

But no, not for Zaac. For him, you need to have all the answers for every question before he'll admit his "truth" (read his unsubstantiated belief) could possibly be wrong.

Whatever.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, that is exactly what it does. If you say that 2+2=6 and I provide a proof that 2+2 does not equal six I have shown your answer to be incorrect.

Nope. You ain't showed nothing but that you showed a proof in which you got an answer that was different from mine. Unless you know that your premise and result are true, my answer can still be right and yours wrong.

No, I do not have an answer. I have simply proven the answer you provided incorrect.

I gave an answer. In order to prove my answer incorrect, you have to have the truth that's an alternate answer. And as you said you have proven, you have to have presented a conclusion. That's an answer.

Hmmm… I don’t think we are reaching each other here. Perhaps you can explain to me why you believe I have to have “Absolute truth” in order to refute your “Absolute truth”. In the meantime I will try and come up with an example of why I believe this to be incorrect.

Because unless you are claiming to have the ONE truth, you can't tell me that what I say to be truth is incorrect.

Unless you know the ONE truth, you saying that I'm wrong just because you disagree with what I say means nothing. Why? Because in that regard, unless you're saying that you have the truth, your answer stands just as much chance of being wrong as you perceive mine to be.

No, you take it on faith. The issue (or so it seems to me) is that you then tell me what you believe and then say it is infallible because it comes from God. Where as to my mind, it simply comes from you.

But I don't have a problem with that. I expect nonChristians to respond that way. But like I said, I'm not supposed to convince you of these things so why would I attempt to?

I'm simply a messenger of God's truth. I never said that you had to accept it as truth. Sadly, a lot of people will not.

 

[Zaac]

And thus the real problem with Zaac's contentions... can he prove that his Absolute Truth comes from God and not from him, or his personal interpretation of the Bible?

And here we have it again. Yet again, someone wants the Christian to prove that what we say is God's Word is.

And I say again, God hasn't asked Christians to do this. He does that.

If proved to you that God's Word is His Word, it wouldn't save your soul. If you want proof, ask God to prove it to you.

 

[Zaac]

In case anyone was under any doubt that, when Zaac says "truth" he is actually talking about "belief", this should convince them.

When I type truth, it looks like truth to me. Oh well.

I'm thinking Zaac is a troll. He offers nothing but assertions, and these assertions are demonstrably false. Just in this clear case, we can give so many counter-examples:

A troll? Like the Billy Goats gruff troll? That's kinda uncalled for. But I can handle it.

- we can prove the earth is not 6,000 years old without having to know exactly how old it is.

No you can't. All you can do is show that you think it is another age. Doesn't mean the answer you got is any more right than the next answer.

- we can prove that x=3 is not a root of x^2+1=0 without having to state what x does equal

Same as above.

- when presented with an organism, we can prove that it is not a plant without having to know exactly what species it is

Not unless you have absolute truth about what constitutes a plant.

But no, not for Zaac. For him, you need to have all the answers for every question before he'll admit his "truth" (read his unsubstantiated belief) could possibly be wrong.

Whatever.

I'm just wondering why ya'll keep acting like Christians can't have absolute truth, yet you imply that you do by saying I don't.

 

[Belk]

When I type truth, it looks like truth to me. Oh well.



A troll? Like the Billy Goats gruff troll? That's kinda uncalled for. But I can handle it.



No you can't. All you can do is show that you think it is another age. Doesn't mean the answer you got is any more right than the next answer.





Same as above.



Not unless you have absolute truth about what constitutes a plant.



I'm just wondering why ya'll keep acting like Christians can't have absolute truth, yet you imply that you do by saying I don't.

Because we know that we do not have to have absolute truth. Only you seem to believe that. I have tried to show you why, but it would seem that I lack the ability to communicate it in a clear enough fashion. Sorry about that. Best of luck though.

 

[OdwinOddball]

There is no such thing as "Absolute" or the "One" Truth. This is a construct of philosophy that does not exist in the real world.

When speaking of math, if something is proven, it is true. 2+2=4 in the decimal number system. This is a true statement, and it has been proven mathematically.

In science however, proof is not a concept. There is what is evidenced and what is not. There are multiple lines of evidence for a 4 billion year old planet earth. There is no evidence at all for a 6000 year old earth. Thus as far as science is concerned, a 4 Billion year old earth is true, and a 6000 year old earth is false.

People on the religious side seem to love to conflate theology and philosophy with science. They are not the same subject. Though Science certainly has a philosophy that drives it, Methodological Naturalism, it is not a philosphical field. Science is an oberservational medium, where as philosophy is an abstract. A 6000 year old earth is a Teological/Philosophical idea, but it has no bearing on the reality as we observe it.

Neither Christians nor non Christains can have absolute truth. Absolute is a concept only applicable in philosophy, but not to the universe.

 

[Zaac]

Because we know that we do not have to have absolute truth. Only you seem to believe that. I have tried to show you why, but it would seem that I lack the ability to communicate it in a clear enough fashion. Sorry about that. Best of luck though.

I didn't say that you had to have it. I said you can't tell me that my truth is incorrect or the wrong one unless you have the absolute truth.

And you may have tried, but you only succeeded in demonstarting that you could get another answer, and getting another answer is not proof that mine is wrong

 

[Zaac]

There is no such thing as "Absolute" or the "One" Truth. This is a construct of philosophy that does not exist in the real world.

And we encounter the same problem with this statement as we do with the statements earlier. Unless you have got the absolute truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth, your statement is merely your opinion. For if your statement was correct, it would prove your statement incorrect.

When speaking of math, if something is proven, it is true. 2+2=4 in the decimal number system. This is a true statement, and it has been proven mathematically.

Math and science are simply approximations for consistency. When developing scientific principles and experiments are repeated over and over, scientist don't have to get the EXACT same conclusion. They look for trends of things that happen to be true the majority of the time. That's a best estimate of what may indeed be the truth. But it's still an estimate.

In science however, proof is not a concept. There is what is evidenced and what is not. There are multiple lines of evidence for a 4 billion year old planet earth. There is no evidence at all for a 6000 year old earth. Thus as far as science is concerned, a 4 Billion year old earth is true, and a 6000 year old earth is false.

And there is just as much evidence that carbon dating is a faulty science.

People on the religious side seem to love to conflate theology and philosophy with science. They are not the same subject. Though Science certainly has a philosophy that drives it, Methodological Naturalism, it is not a philosphical field. Science is an oberservational medium, where as philosophy is an abstract. A 6000 year old earth is a Teological/Philosophical idea, but it has no bearing on the reality as we observe it.

Sweet Jesus. Are you sure that you don't have Christians confused with nonChristians? Ya'll the ones who keep talking about prove this or prove that or science says this or that. I've said repeatedly that Christians aren't tasked by God to prove anything to the nonChristian.

Neither Christians nor non Christains can have absolute truth. Absolute is a concept only applicable in philosophy, but not to the universe.

And to this, I say look back at the first response. Cause unless there is absolute truth, I have no reason to believe what you just said. And if what you just said is true, then it refutes what you just said.

 

[RealityCheck]

And here we have it again. Yet again, someone wants the Christian to prove that what we say is God's Word is.

And I say again, God hasn't asked Christians to do this. He does that.

If proved to you that God's Word is His Word, it wouldn't save your soul. If you want proof, ask God to prove it to you.

You know that -

This really works!

I asked God for proof of what the truth was. And he told me. He said, "Zaac is wrong."

There. Absolute proof you are wrong, and I have it!

 

[RealityCheck]

I didn't say that you had to have it. I said you can't tell me that my truth is incorrect or the wrong one unless you have the absolute truth.

And you may have tried, but you only succeeded in demonstarting that you could get another answer, and getting another answer is not proof that mine is wrong

Wrong.

If it can be proven that the earth is not 6000 years old, then you cannot claim it is 6000 years old, with or without any other answer that does give an exact age.

This is like your previous example. If I prove that 2+2 is not equal to six, but don't prove what it is equal to, that does not validate your statement 2+2=6 just because there is an absence of any other answer.