Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, I imagine I will. I hope you have a joyous season.

Following your conversation it appears that you cannot test for truth. Why believe something that one has no reliable evidence to support?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Following your conversation it appears that you cannot test for truth. Why believe something that one has no reliable evidence to support?

Because faith opens a world beyond the tangible. I'll ask you this, "How do you know the unknowable?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You know, I read through the remainder of Page #1 and threw in the towel from there.

Why don't the creationists be honest for once and just admit that there is no test, no test is required, because we simply believe that which we believe?

It would spare a lot of us, yourselves included, a heckuvalotta wasted debate and headache.

I believe "there is no God". My belief is what it is.

You believe "there is a creator God". Be honest enough to adit that your creationism is a belief that for you, requires no test and no evidence. Then the atheists have nowhere to go and we all get on with our lives.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You know, I read through the remainder of Page #1 and threw in the towel from there.

Why don't the creationists be honest for once and just admit that there is no test, no test is required, because we simply believe that which we believe?

It would spare a lot of us, yourselves included, a heckuvalotta wasted debate and headache.

I believe "there is no God". My belief is what it is.

You believe "there is a creator God". Be honest enough to adit that your creationism is a belief that for you, requires no test and no evidence. Then the atheists have nowhere to go and we all get on with our lives.

I believe I've been saying all along that there is no tangible test to prove God's existence. One must look elsewhere to know God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because faith opens a world beyond the tangible. I'll ask you this, "How do you know the unknowable?

In answer to your question, you don't. Faith is not a reliable path to truth. One can believe anything that one wants with faith. It would have been wiser to merely admit that you can't test your belief. Your beliefs appear to be as true as those of Muslims, Hindus, etc..

 

[Hockeycowboy]

one quantum physicist I was listening to said that science knows somewhere between 1 to 5 % of what is to know, so, science is positive but ongoing process., it is very immature at this point.

Id say even way less.....of what there is to know, Because, tied in with 'what', is also 'how', and 'why'.

Altogether, science probably understands 0.000001% accurately.

Not only immature, but many supporters are very arrogant about it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Id say even way less.....of what there is to know, Because, tied in with 'what', is also 'how', and 'why'.

Altogether, science probably understands 0.000001% accurately.

Not only immature, but many supporters are very arrogant about it!

Please, when you learn some science then you can make a judgement. Quite a few things are understood, whether or not it is "accurate" depends upon how one defines that term.

Can you answer the OP? How do you test for "truth"?

 

[blü 2]

Because faith opens a world beyond the tangible. I'll ask you this, "How do you know the unknowable?

What's an example of 'the unknowable'?

Given it's 'unknowable', in what sense do you suggest it could be known?

 

[Polymath257]

Because faith opens a world beyond the tangible. I'll ask you this, "How do you know the unknowable?

By definition, you can't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Your beliefs appear to be as true as those of Muslims, Hindus, etc..

Probably are.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Given it's 'unknowable', in what sense do you suggest it could be known?

It takes what you call imagination.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What's an example of 'the unknowable'?

God, Tao, or call it what it is, unknowable.

 

[Polymath257]

God, Tao, or call it what it is, unknowable.

In what sense is it known?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

By definition, you can't.

The unknowable does not care about definitions.

So, now what. How to know the unknowable. This requires faith that it exists first.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In what sense is it known?

Not by the senses.

 

[blü 2]

It takes what you call imagination.

In other words it only exists in imagination. And there, I take it, it's simply the concept of unknowability, devoid of other content, yes?

If not, what's an example of its content?

 

[blü 2]

God, Tao, or call it what it is, unknowable.

Since there's no real god, to say such a god is unknowable is meaningless, has no referent.

But imaginary gods can be anything the imaginer wants them to be, and thus are knowable, partly knowable or unknowable according to the imaginer's preference from time to time, moment to moment, even all at once.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In other words it only exists in imagination. And there, I take it, it's simply the concept of unknowability, devoid of other content, yes?

No, I said it takes imagination to find it.

 

[Polymath257]

Not by the senses.

In other words, not *known*. By definition, the unknowable cannot be known.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since there's no real god, to say such a god is unknowable is meaningless, has no referent.

But imaginary gods can be anything the imaginer wants them to be, and thus are knowable, partly knowable or unknowable according to the imaginer's preference from time to time, moment to moment, even all at once.

Well, you are a stubborn one. Let's try this, does the unknowable exist?