Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[Subduction Zone]

Sure there is,

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.

You need to read that in context. It is more a promise of going to heaven. You can't take verses out of context and use them literally.

 

[Kemosloby]

You need to read that in context. It is more a promise of going to heaven. You can't take verses out of context and use them literally.

Nope, it says he will repay each according to what he has done . That does not sound like saved by faith to me.

I have show you to be wrong time and time again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, it says he will repay each according to what he has done . That does not sound like saved by faith to me.

I have show you to be wrong time and time again.

I explained your error to you, but you don't want to learn. You have only a grade school level of understanding of the Bible.

And you should not lie. You have not shown me to be wrong once.

 

[Grandliseur]

Does way snowflake require a maker? How about each grain of sand. A lack of understanding does not help when debating.

Without the fine-tuned rules of this universe, there would be no snowflakes with individual patterns. Thus the lack of understanding of God's glory constrained in his creation whether in the heavens or on earth in the many varied fractal forms - only hurts the one lacking. It comes down again to perspective and the paradigm that is attained through that perspective. You are not me, and I am not you. That is what it is about, you might like tea, and I coffee. It has nothing to do with lacking understanding, but with tastes and perspectives, upbringing and experiences. But, you like to say that to all, as if it gives you an advantage, and perhaps it does in your own mind!

 

[whirlingmerc]

What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

─ Francis Bacon, 'On Truth'​

Dear Creationists

My own view is that truth is conformity with reality. This, often called the 'correspondence' view, means that if you want to know whether a particular statement is true or not, you check how accurately its report corresponds to objective reality. Thus truth can in principle be objectively verified ─ a wholly admirable quality, surely you agree, for any claim of truth to have.

You must use this definition of truth at least part of the time, even if just to know that it's true it's daytime, you're in Kamloops, those are Bikkios on the supermarket shelf, and so on.

But then you add a wholly different concept of 'truth' ─ that the bible is inerrant and therefore all its factual statements are necessarily 'true'.

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

There should be consistency.

For example evidence should be consistent with and supporting claims
Nahum - The other city who's walls fell

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without the fine-tuned rules of this universe, there would be no snowflakes with individual patterns. Thus the lack of understanding of God's glory constrained in his creation whether in the heavens or on earth in the many varied fractal forms - only hurts the one lacking. It comes down again to perspective and the paradigm that is attained through that perspective. You are not me, and I am not you. That is what it is about, you might like tea, and I coffee. It has nothing to do with lacking understanding, but with tastes and perspectives, upbringing and experiences. But, you like to say that to all, as if it gives you an advantage, and perhaps it does in your own mind!

Sorry but the "fine tuning" argument is merely an argument from ignorance that has already been refuted. It amounts to "we don't know why these numbers have these values, therefore God".

But if you are going to use the "fine tuning argument" then at the very least you have to admit that Genesis is bogus, or else you do not understand the argument that you are using. In other words you are supporting abiogenesis through evolution and of course the fact that the Noah's Ark story is just a myth. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There should be consistency.

For example evidence should be consistent with and supporting claims
Nahum - The other city who's walls fell

View attachment 19884

How is that consistent? And Jericho is not the best example to rely on:

Ancient Digger Archaeology: Walls of Jericho: The Archaeology that Demolishes the Bible?

Some of the Bible is fairly accurate, but that does not mean all of it is.

 

[Grandliseur]

Sorry but the "fine tuning" argument is merely an argument from ignorance that has already been refuted. It amounts to "we don't know why these numbers have these values, therefore God".

But if you are going to use the "fine tuning argument" then at the very least you have to admit that Genesis is bogus, or else you do not understand the argument that you are using. In other words you are supporting abiogenesis through evolution and of course the fact that the Noah's Ark story is just a myth. Are you sure that you want to do that?

@Blu2 asked a question of Creationists, which I am one of. I answered it. You have your beliefs, I have mine. That is what this is about. You have your perspective and paradigm as do I, though they differ.

You may use the "you're ignorant" or "argument from ignorance" all you want. That is your perspective. Mine is no better vis-à-vis your group. But, all it gets me is a bunch of violation notices.

In this case I am not even trying to argue with atheists or evolutionist, I simply answered as requested, a polite request, answered, I hope, politely. I included as few arguments as possible for and against. If Mr. Blue wants more of me, I am sure he knows how to ask me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Blu2 asked a question of Creationists, which I am one of. I answered it. You have your beliefs, I have mine. That is what this is about. You have your perspective and paradigm as do I, though they differ.

You may use the "you're ignorant" or "argument from ignorance" all you want. That is your perspective. Mine is no better vis-à-vis your group. But, all it gets me is a bunch of violation notices.

In this case I am not even trying to argue with atheists or evolutionist, I simply answered as requested, a polite request, answered, I hope, politely. I included as few arguments as possible for and against. If Mr. Blue wants more of me, I am sure he knows how to ask me.

The problem is that your paradigm is not consistent. It is self contradicting, therefore false. As you just showed by relying on the fine tuning argument.

And when I explained to you that you used an argument from ignorance, that is not a claim of "your ignorant". You should have asked what that was if you did not understand. My response to you was polite. You made a logical error and I identified it for you. You not only used an argument from ignorance, your argument refutes your creationist beliefs. Relying on the fine tuning argument is relying on a universe where life is still the product of evolution and not magic. That is why you shot yourself in the foot by using it.

 

[Grandliseur]

when I explained to you that you used an argument from ignorance, that is not a claim of "your ignorant".

I understood quite well what you meant; after all you defined it in the next sentence.

It amounts to "we don't know why these numbers have these values, therefore God".

However, you do love to use that word and apply it to others. On top of that since I am in the mood for it, it is not "your ignorant. . ."; it is "you're ignorant . . ." (Kind of funny mistake at the right time: )

I think that is enough. I have my paradigm and you have yours, nothing further needs said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understood quite well what you meant; after all you defined it in the next sentence.

Then why did you make the false attack?

However, you do love to use that word and apply it to others. On top of that since I am in the mood for it, it is not "your ignorant. . ."; it is "you're ignorant . . ." (Kind of funny mistake at the right time: )

That is only because it is true. You have to admit that you are rather ignorant when it comes to the sciences. But then we are all ignorant about certain topics. No one can know everything.

And yes, I typed a bit too quickly there.

I think that is enough. I have my paradigm and you have yours, nothing further needs said.

The problem is that you have an obviously false paradigm, after all you refuted it yourself. Also my paradigm is supported by evidence, yours is supported by myth.

 

[blü 2]

I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

What test do you use to see whether it's translated correctly?

So, it is very valuable scripture, but I would not say 100% inerrant.

So you have no argument, at least in principle, with Big Bang theory, abiogenesis, evolution, no Flood and so on?

But when it comes to squaring the Bible with science, the inerrancy factor does not seem very relevant to me. The more relevant issue is "Am I correctly interpreting the word of God found in the Bible?" And, "Am I correctly interpreting science?"

So how do you ─ how can I ─ isolate the words of God from the words of the authors?

Truth is truth, whether found in the word of God or in science.

It seems fair to say that truth in science is defined as conformity, as correspondence, with reality. Is that the definition you use to determine truth in the word of God, or do you use another test?

Here are examples of things I consider to be inerrant truths, revealed by God, and which can't be contradicted by science. I hang my hat on these religious truths:

1. There is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost which comprise the Godhead.

Does it worry you that Jesus is quoted in all four gospels as denying that he's God? And never once claims to be God?

2. God created the world.

But via the Big Bang?

4. The virgin birth happened.

In Mark (the earliest gospel), at 1:10, Jesus is the son of God in the Jewish sense, by adoption (and the model of Psalm 2:7 is express in Acts 13:33). In (Matthew and) Luke, Jesus is the son of God in the Greek fashion, by divine insemination. Paul's silence on Jesus' birth tends to support Mark, since the Luke version, were it part of the original story, would seem too sensational to ignore.

8. We lived with God before this life.

Where does the bible talk about our pre-existence?

11. Adam and Eve are literal people and all people on earth today are their descendants.

'Mitochondrial Eve', "the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers" (as >Wikipedia< puts it) lived maybe 125,000 years ago. 'Y-Chromosomal Adam', "from whom all living humans are patrilineally descended", lived maybe 138,000 years ago. Though the margin of error with those dates makes it possible they were coeval, there's no necessity for that to be the case.

I make those comments in the light of the purpose of this thread: what definition of 'truth' are people using?

 

[Grandliseur]

The problem is that you have an obviously false paradigm, after all you refuted it yourself. Also my paradigm is supported by evidence, yours is supported by myth.

This is where everyone believes they are right.
As I like to say at times, to the amusement of atheists I am sure, when the sign of Christ shows itself in the heavens, you'll know you were wrong, but too late if I understand things.

Actually, to atheists it shouldn't matter since you believe in the return to non-existence for all eternity on death. Which is what the Bible teaches with a twist! So, if some cataclysm is to envelop the earth and most die, it is nothing more than many atheists think will happen sometime in the future. Thus, it should cause no big problem for atheists; except, to Christians it will be the proof of their imminent salvation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is where everyone believes they are right.

Yes, but I can show that I am right. Something that you can't seem to do.

As I like to say at times, to the amusement of atheists I am sure, when the sign of Christ shows itself in the heavens, you'll know you were wrong, but too late if I understand things.

Please, idle threats are hardly the acts of a Christian.

Actually, to atheists it shouldn't matter since you believe in the return to non-existence for all eternity on death. Which is what the Bible teaches with a twist! So, if some cataclysm is to envelop the earth and most die, it is nothing more than many atheists think will happen sometime in the future. Thus, it should cause no big problem for atheists; except, to Christians it will be the proof of their imminent salvation.

Nope, that is merely a fantasy on your part and it reveal a bit of evil buried rather deeply in your psyche.

 

[Grandliseur]

Please, idle threats are hardly the acts of a Christian.

This is not a threat. This is one of the things Christ promised in chapter 24 of Matthew. Thus it is one of these things that shall happen to the world which you think is nothing but stories.

So that you may know, the sign of Christ that is promised is a sun like object with it debris field that shall come near enough to earth to nearly destroy earth by gravitational forces that shall cause terrible earthquakes. Please laugh now. If it begins in our lifetime, nobody will laugh not even Christians because such disasters shall kill many of us also, though we believe in the resurrection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not a threat. This is one of the things Christ promised in chapter 24 of Matthew. Thus it is one of these things that shall happen to the world which you think is nothing but stories.

So that you may know, the sign of Christ that is promised is a sun like object with it debris field that shall come near enough to earth to nearly destroy earth by gravitational forces that shall cause terrible earthquakes. Please laugh now. If it begins in our lifetime, nobody will laugh not even Christians because such disasters shall kill many of us also, though we believe in the resurrection.

Sure it is. It is a threat based upon a myth. It does not get much more idle than that.

And just a friendly warning, various religious nuts have been predicting the imminent return of Jesus ever since he was crucified. Only a few Christians even take those threats seriously.

 

[Grandliseur]

And just a friendly warning, various religious nuts have been predicting the imminent return of Jesus ever since he was crucified. Only a few Christians even take those threats seriously.

Aren't you the one overstepping the 'terms and rules'! This is a forum where religious issues and religious nuts, as you name us, have the right to speak of these nutty things we believe in. Each Christian through the ages has hoped that now would be the period for Christ to return. However, all who can read -- know that we have been warned that the hour and day is none of our business.

Let me tell you another such nutty thing. Before that day of the sign of Christ just mentioned, we are warned that religion shall be attacked and much destroyed by the world at large, or if I am right, the EU is going to do this inside of the EU at least to the Catholic church, but perhaps to many others also.

If you see this taking place, know that the other thing shall come not so many years later. And, once religion has been mostly done away with, the way to salvation may be closed through Christ.

I hope you have a good laugh at our nutty beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren't you the one overstepping the 'terms and rules'! This is a forum where religious issues and religious nuts, as you name us, have the right to speak of these nutty things we believe in. Each Christian through the ages has hoped that now would be the period for Christ to return. However, all who can read -- know that we have been warned that the hour and day is none of our business.

No, it was a friendly warning. I gave a qualifier. I did not say that you had gone that far yet. At least I have not seen it. If anything you appear to be incriminating yourself. Do you deny the fact that various religious nuts, and that is what there were, have made such predictions in the past? Or have you forgot Harold Camping. Once again, I did not say that you were one. Perhaps you are on the same track as some of them. Perhaps you will never go that far.

Let me tell you another such nutty thing. Before that day of the sign of Christ just mentioned, we are warned that religion shall be attacked and much destroyed by the world at large, or if I am right, the EU is going to do this inside of the EU at least to the Catholic church, but perhaps to many others also.

Yes and that claim has been spouted through the ages too. Seriously you need to get a new song book. This one is all played out.

If you see this taking place, know that the other thing shall come not so many years later. And, once religion has been mostly done away with, the way to salvation may be closed through Christ.

I hope you have a good laugh at our nutty beliefs.

What can I say, but those beliefs are not very sane. But I see that you have run away from the fact that you cannot support your superstitious beliefs about creationism. Why can't you defend your false beliefs? If you face up to the fact that Genesis is myth then perhaps you will be able to think logically about the rest of the Bible, but then that is probably your biggest fear.

 

[Grandliseur]

Or have you forgot Harold Camping.

I get a bit angry at such people and at people who take this to mean something to the general Christian. Can you read? Obviously, you can. But, tell me what this means:

Acts 1: 6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.​

Thus, anyone who claims that Christ shall return so and so year, month, day - is obviously resisting what has been handed down to us and is teaching apostate material.

That people then pay attention to material clearly apostate, whether you are Christian or not, is affecting all of Christians negatively. Pisses me off that I have to be affected by such demon inspired material that clearly has a negative effect on our name.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get a bit angry at such people and at people who take this to mean something to the general Christian. Can you read? Obviously, you can. But, tell me what this means:

Acts 1: 6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.​

Thus, anyone who claims that Christ shall return so and so year, month, day - is obviously resisting what has been handed down to us and is teaching apostate material.

That people then pay attention to material clearly apostate, whether you are Christian or not, is affecting all of Christians negatively. Pisses me off that I have to be affected by such demon inspired material that clearly has a negaTive effect on our name.

Not "demon inspired". They merely drank a bit more of the Kool-Aid than you have. That is why it was a friendly warning.