Science, religion and the truth

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are supposed to realize who they are....humans.

A lot of humans prove that they no longer know who they are....by what they say.

One God said O we all live in one place. On a body of stone travelling through space and science named it a stone ARK.

The One God O concept said, that stone is stone, began and ended stone.

Instant stone said the scientist, cannot be anything else...otherwise stone One body would no longer exist.

And it was what he taught was relativity...to think exactly as natural.

And said, and the gases were all owned/formed inside of the body of stone.

Stone he said, the body of the Creator upon which we stand. Bio Nature.

Space he said was the Mother of stone, for it was a womb...cold, empty, nothing and oblivion, that allowed the spirit of stone to put its gases back into the body of space.

Conception says the scientist of One God heavenly spirit.

How it was taught. The gases of God the stone Creator changed to become its Nobility. And he said...that the inheritor of the life of stone was the water on the face of the great deep of God. For males said gases burning in space put water into space as an interactive gas burning out come.

Science, relative to teaching.

One God the only place upon which our life exists. Why it was stated just ONE...only about ONE and no other story.

We always were taught that stone O as a God body came from the eternal being....fell and burnt and then cooled. Leaving the evidence that it came from a spirit body.

Religious science.

Therefore as said, the morning star "water" was the spirit of life inheritance with God the Earth....based on what held stone fused, the ATOM.

water droplet, made in the Image of its Father form.....God the stone.

Human image formed in a science pyramid reaction was put into the clouds for try ing to change natural God owned evolved history.

Religious human science known story.

 

[Altfish]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

I think that science rarely (if ever) claims to be 'True'; it claims to be "the best current explanation"

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Why do you think that differences of opinion mean there isn't just one truth?

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Why do you think that differences in opinion mean that there isn't just one true God?

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

It seems that you have a different definition of the term 'truth' than I do. What definition do you use? I'm just trying to be sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me give an example that actually happened in my life.

Suppose two people look at a carpet. One sees it to be light blue and the other sees it to be grey.

Does that mean there is no truth to the properties of the carpet when interacting with light?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

It is irrelevant what humans think or do. The actual truth equates to reality. Humans might be deceived into thinking whatever they believe is the truth and behaving in accordance with this but reality just continues rolling along regardless. I'm not sure science claims to know 'truth', just our best explanations for such, and which corresponds to reality as closely as possible - which is why older theories usually are updated or overthrown by better ones. Religions, I suspect, are not playing the same game as science, so why compare them? They seem to be catering for a different need even if such often comes into conflict with science. Their problem for trying to take on such a task.

 

[HonestJoe]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth.

”Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It seems that you have a different definition of the term 'truth' than I do. What definition do you use? I'm just trying to be sure we are talking about the same thing.

What if truth is not the same thing, because truth is not a thing nor the same in all cases.
Have you considered that?

If you start by using a prior, namely that truth is the same thing, then you can't check if truth is not the same thing for all things.

So what if there is no one definition for truth and thus at least 2 different definitions of truth, because there is no one correct and proper definition of truth, then what? Have you checked for that, or must I accept that there is only one proper and correct definition of the truth, because you subjectively start there?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

What if truth is not the same thing, because truth is not a thing nor the same in all cases.
Have you considered that?

If you start by using a prior, namely that truth is the same thing, then you can't check if truth is not the same thing for all things.

So what if there is no one definition for truth and thus at least 2 different definitions of truth, because there is no one correct and proper definition of truth, then what? Have you checked for that, or must I accept that there is only one proper and correct definition of the truth, because you subjectively start there?

Regards
Mikkel

I accept that people can be talking about different things and using the same word. Clarification is required in that case as to meaning. Otherwise communication doesn't happen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept that people can be talking about different things and using the same word. Clarification is required in that case as to meaning. Otherwise communication doesn't happen.

Okay, so the question is this:
If there are several kinds of truth, then one definition will not work? Correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is irrelevant what humans think or do. ...

So you think that it is irrelevant what humans think or do, but you have just done so. You think it is irrelevant that humans think and you have done something, namely said so and that is irrelevant.
You have just in effect said something absurd. Try again.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

”Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.”

Correct, you answered subjectively to my different subjectivity, so you have confirmed my claim.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, so the question is this:
If there are several kinds of truth, then one definition will not work? Correct?

If that is the case, then it is important to distinguish between the variants. So you will need several definitions.

 

[Polymath257]

So you think that it is irrelevant what humans think or do, but you have just done so. You think it is irrelevant that humans think and you have done something, namely said so and that is irrelevant.
You have just in effect said something absurd. Try again.

Regards
Mikkel

Right. What he believes is irrelevant. But he is pointing out something that should be considered since it is relevant to the discussion.

The truth is the truth whether or not someone believes it. So belief is irrelevant.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you think that it is irrelevant what humans think or do, but you have just done so. You think it is irrelevant that humans think and you have done something, namely said so and that is irrelevant.
You have just in effect said something absurd. Try again.

Regards
Mikkel

Truth equals reality. Try that one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If that is the case, then it is important to distinguish between the variants. So you will need several definitions.

Correct, now start here:
James, William | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
...For James, the “reality” with which truths must agree has three dimensions: (1) matters of fact, (2) relations of ideas (such as the eternal truths of mathematics), and (3) the entire set of other truths to which we are committed. ...

So here is the first problem: I am now subjective, because I point out that I am and that is the reason I wrote this.
So is that a fact?
Do we have to include subjective facts as true? Now explain how some will answer yes and others no. What makes that no true? How is that a fact?

So either you subjectively reject subjectivity as relevant for some cases of truth, but then you have just relied on the very thing you reject; namely subjectivity.
So you decide subjectively now: Can some cases of truth be subjective? Yes or no?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right. What he believes is irrelevant. But he is pointing out something that should be considered since it is relevant to the discussion.

The truth is the truth whether or not someone believes it. So belief is irrelevant.

So you say! That bold part is only true, because you believe so.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth equals reality. Try that one.

So you subjectively say. So the reality of truth equals reality in that you wrote it. And you then asked me to try it out. That requires that it is subjectively true, that I can subjectively test it. So I tested it subjectively and found out that it is true that I can test it and that subjectivity is true both of you and I. So reality is in part subjective, otherwise we couldn't be doing this. Try again.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

^ I really hate it when people confuse hubris and verbosity with insight.

 

[Native]

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

It all depends on your interpretation/definition of "God".

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth.

If you for instants define a religious "God" as "Light" in the scientific way, you´ll have no troubles of defining the truth in both religion and science.