The importance of testing and problem of eyewitness testimony.

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, I consider sound reason to be evidence of truth. You have no reasons for the above question, other than your own personal desire for my theological commitments to be false.

I've comprehended many reasons that people have for not believing in God. I've also comprehended many reasons for why people do believe in God. I find the reasons to believe to be more convincing evidence of truth. I also have my own reasons for believing that are very personal.

What this means is that you'd have to be God in order to convince me God does not exist. Are you God? If not then your efforts are futile.

Understand, this is nothing against your abilities to debate

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Chriliman]

You didn't answer the question.

Understand that my theological commitments are open to be refined by the truth. Do you have the truth that is going to refine my commitments and make them more inline with truth? If not then this will be my last post to you.

 

[JackRT]

As I read the OP I was reminded of an event from over 50 years ago. I was temporarily unemployed before the start of the university term so I took a job as a harvest worker. The farmer's wife showed me my bedroom and commented "this room is haunted". I asked how so and she told me that sometimes a glowing cross was seen. After going to bed that evening, I read for a while and then turned out the lights. I lay awake for a bit and then I saw the glowing cross! Spooked me some but I was curious. It took me several days to figure out that it was an entirely natural phenomenon. It was an old house that had a decorative stained glass panel above the window. At night when a car driving in a particular direction rounded a nearby banked curve, the headlights briefly crossed the window causing a projection of what appeared to be a glowing white cross on the opposite wall. I explained it to the farmer and his wife and then used their car to verify it that night. I think that they were somewhat disappointed that it wasn't a haunting. One can easily understand how stories get started.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Understand that my theological commitments are open to be refined by the truth. Do you have the truth that is going to refine my commitments and make them more inline with truth? If not then this will be my last post to you.

Don't you define "the truth" as "God," specifically the god you believe in? In which case wouldn't it be somewhat disingenuous to say that you are open to reconsidering your theological commitments in light of "the truth"?

 

[Freodin]

Yes



No

So you are not truth? What then are you? Falsehood?

 

[Chriliman]

Don't you define "the truth" as "God," specifically the god you believe in? In which case wouldn't it be somewhat disingenuous to say that you are open to reconsidering your theological commitments in light of "the truth"?

If you are God, then yes, what you say is true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you are God, then yes, what you say is true.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Chriliman]

So you are not truth? What then are you? Falsehood?

I never claimed to be the truth. I claim that God is the truth.

You or I thinking that I'm God would be false, yes.

 

[Chriliman]

That doesn't make sense.

Or does it not make sense to YOU?

It may make sense to millions of others, just not YOU.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Or does it not make sense to YOU?

It may make sense to millions of others, just not YOU.

It makes no sense. Many of your posts (perhaps most) are barely intelligible, yet you think you are imparting penetrating insights.

 

[Chriliman]

It makes no sense. Many of your posts (perhaps most) are barely intelligible, yet you think you are imparting penetrating insights.

Your opinion is noted. Thanks for your time

 

[Freodin]

I never claimed to be the truth. I claim that God is the truth.

You or I thinking that I'm God would be false, yes.

You seem to be a little confused what "truth" means.

You exist, so you claimed. This is either true or false. It is either truth or falsehood.

And now you claim that God is the truth. So, is your existence God, or is it not God?

 

[Chriliman]

You seem to be a little confused what "truth" means.

You exist, so you claimed. This is either true or false. It is either truth or falsehood.

And now you claim that God is the truth. So, is your existence God, or is it not God?

God is the reason for my existence and I believe that to be true. God is the truth that can explain everything I percieve.

 

[Freodin]

God is the reason for my existence and I believe that to be true. God is the truth that can explain everything I percieve.

That sounds nice... but it doesn't mean anything.

2+2=4. Why? Reason: God! The sky looks blue. Why? Explanation: God! Did you eat all the cookies in the jar, or was it your little sister? Answer: God!

There is some meaning to the term "truth"... and it isn't God.

 

[Chriliman]

That sounds nice... but it doesn't mean anything.

2+2=4. Why? Reason: God! The sky looks blue. Why? Explanation: God! Did you eat all the cookies in the jar, or was it your little sister? Answer: God!

There is some meaning to the term "truth"... and it isn't God.

I view God as the deepest truth that is ever discoverable in this life.

I don't use God to explain what you've explained above because as you've demonstrated, it doesn't make sense.

This isn't a difficult thing to understand, hope someday it makes sense to you. Thanks for your time

 

[bhsmte]

I never claimed to be the truth. I claim that God is the truth.

You or I thinking that I'm God would be false, yes.

What God?

 

[Dre Khipov]

I think it's important to differentiate the propositional truth from objective truth.

Virtually all forms of truth that we deal with, outside of the internally-defined things, is a form of propositional truth.

There seems to be some confusion in semantics between religious and non-religious. Both side tend not to think these concepts through.

Religion and philosophy tend to fall in the realm of propositional truth. Most of the theoretical science falls in the realm of propositional truth. Thus, we really have to consider the implications of semantic meaning before we begin throw words like these around. There's no "truth" in reality in terms of a thing we can point to. Truth describes a relationship between concept of the world as represented in our mind and the world outside of it in terms of accurate understanding.

Christianity is based on trust, so saying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is somewhat our of line in terms of the central concepts of Christian ideals.

Really think about it... the central character is human born to a virgin, who ran around performing really odd things, claimed to be God-incarnate, who was mutilated and nailed, and subsequently resurrected and is living today in some shape or form.

If we approach that premise from the POV of empirical positivism, then obviously it's nonsense. We don't see people resurrecting. We don't see some sort of controlled settings in which people heal other people. It seemed to be an event in the past that kicked off some good following that really changed human history and western civilization.

But, the weakness of the approach is if the story is indeed true, then there wouldn't be any means that empirical positivism could approach such proposition. One could always make up an excuse based on what we regularly not observe to dismiss something as mass delusion, or someone engaging in mass mass-control. There's just no way to know for certain, thus Christian proposition requires a degree of trust... faith trust. It's quite honest about that point.

In light of the above, there's always room for moving skeptical goalposts. I'm sure that the counter-argument would be that it can be something that would tip the people on the fence in that direction. A Jesus could show up to everyone, and thus there would be more probable evidence than what we have now. I do have a possible answer for it, but again, it's somewhat irrelevant in terms of one being able to accept it as a possible reality based on proposition alone, which is what faith is really about.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This entire response is not based on what I said. I asked the question of why it is important to investigate truth claims? I believe it's because we are meant to want to know the truth. The reason I believe this is because there is no other explanation as to why it's important to investigate truth claims.

There are plenty of explanations as to why someone might want to know the truth. You only think there are no other explanations because it justifies your faulty reasoning in your mind.

Ironically, you're speaking about "wanting to know the truth" when it's quite clear you want to be deceived. There are explanations for that as well and in your case...I'd say you want to be deceived to avoid aspects of reality you find unpleasant.

Another explanation for wanting to know the truth would be...

...so we can make better decisions. It's easier to make a "good" decision when it's based upon reality...not falsehoods. Coincidentally, this is one of the worst things about religion...it perpetuates falsehoods.

Regardless of that though...I've given you a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for why people want to know truth. It requires no magical man in the sky pulling your strings.

 

[Dre Khipov]

...so we can make better decisions. It's easier to make a "good" decision when it's based upon reality...not falsehoods. Coincidentally, this is one of the worst things about religion...it perpetuates falsehoods.

I think you are painting in a rather broad semantic brush here. Religion is not a thing that does anything. It's an abstract concept that refers to a wide varieties of things people do, some of which don't deal with a deity per se... for example Buddhists.

Likewise, perpetuating falsehoods is not a uniquely religious problem. It's largely problem with ignorance, which is inherently human problem of limited awareness. It's not unique to religion, neither it's more prevalent in religious setting when you compare apples to apples.

Likewise, getting out into the empirical positivist philosophy doesn't necessitate better awareness and decisions, especially when it comes to our perceptions of ideals, and how one gets to justify these ideals as valid.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you are painting in a rather broad semantic brush here. Religion is not a thing that does anything. It's an abstract concept that refers to a wide varieties of things people do, some of which don't deal with a deity per se... for example Buddhists.

Likewise, perpetuating falsehoods is not a uniquely religious problem. It's largely problem with ignorance, which is inherently human problem of limited awareness. It's not unique to religion, neither it's more prevalent in religious setting when you compare apples to apples.

Likewise, getting out into the empirical positivist philosophy doesn't necessitate better awareness and decisions, especially when it comes to our perceptions of ideals, and how one gets to justify these ideals as valid.

You think I'm being too broad...and you're saying things like "religion isn't a thing that does anything"?

It's at least a concept....usually a worldview. In either case, it's based upon falsehoods. So whether you want to paint it as a large influence...or a small one...it impedes the ability of those who adhere to it to make decisions based upon reality.