Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[Polymath257]

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

I don't know.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

By trying to define the unknowable you are violating the precept that can be known. It takes another approach.

 

[blü 2]

No, I said it takes imagination to find it.

Then provide the example I asked you for, the product of your own imagination.

Or don't you have one?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know.

Ah truth. It exists, a word that can't describe it, where you don't know.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then provide the example I asked you for, the product of your own imagination.

Or don't you have one?

You keep missing the point.

 

[blü 2]

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

Only as the concept of unknowability. Unless of course you come up with that example I'm asking you for.

 

[blü 2]

You keep missing the point.

There is no point. That's my point. And I know that because I keep asking you to put your claim in meaningful terms and you keep skipping away.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There is no point. That's my point. And I know that because I keep asking you to put your claim in meaningful terms and you keep skipping away.

You keep asking me to describe according to a method that can't describe it. It's analogous to me trying to explain football using the rules of baseball. Ask better questions.

 

[Polymath257]

By trying to define the unknowable you are violating the precept that can be known. It takes another approach.

I.e, that of not knowing. By letting it be opinion and not knowledge, you don't have to worry about substantiating it. Of course, others can reasonably ignore the opinion at that point.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Only as the concept of unknowability. Unless of course you come up with that example I'm asking you for.

I gave you a concept of unknowability. You rambled on about something meaningless in reply.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah truth. It exists, a word that can't describe it, where you don't know.

Well, that is your claim. But since it can't be substantiated (because it cannot be known), it is just an opinion and not knowledge.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I.e, that of not knowing. By letting it be opinion and not knowledge, you don't have to worry about substantiating it. Of course, others can reasonably ignore the opinion at that point.

Why would I redefine the unknowable as opinion?

 

[Polymath257]

Why would I redefine the unknowable as opinion?

Because it isn't knowable, so it isn't truth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, that is your claim. But since it can't be substantiated (because it cannot be known), it is just an opinion and not knowledge.

There you go redefining it again. So now we know one more thing the unknowable isn't.

 

[Polymath257]

There you go redefining it again. So now we know one more thing the unknowable isn't.

Why? Not being knowable is enough.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because it isn't knowable, so it isn't truth.

One more thing it isn't then.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why? Not being knowable is enough.

Then how will you find it?

 

[Polymath257]

Then how will you find it?

I don't know. Why would I expect it to be findable?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know. Why would I expect it to be findable?

Well, I suppose if you had faith it exists then you would know that it exists where things are not known.

It takes not applying differences to things in your thought process.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I suppose if you had faith it exists then you would know that it exists where things are not known.

It takes not applying differences to things in your thought process.

Again, in which case, it isn't knowledge (being unknowable), but opinion.