Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Would Objective Truth Evolve?


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

End, what do you mean by "objective" truth? Can you elaborate on it?

 

'Cause I really have a hard time with the concepts these days. Both parts: "objective" and "truth"

 

I'm not convinced that either are possible in any absolute sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    6

  • Legion

    6

  • RationalOkie

    6

  • florduh

    3

In defense of the Bible, and the devil being in control of the earth, it makes sense that evolution would be predominant. Any thoughts?

 

Doesn't this mean God is weak and not all powerful? If Satan is able to convince me and many other people that God is not real, God sure isn't doing his job or he does not care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what would be predominant is the denial of "scientific revelation" and the desire to cling to "magical" explanations of how empirical reality works and the true nature of the cosmos and genetics

 

I am an analytical chemist by trade Franko...

 

If "Lucifer" is in control of the earth (whatever that means), then his plan would be to corrupt the "message of God" in such a way as to confuse humans with such things as "doctrine", "Nicean Councils" (where magical theories about the nature of God would be dreamed up) and psycho-theologies that basically tell people that ethics and morals cannot be established through rational human thinking but by a dependancy on "mysterious writings" penned by ancient peoples who lived in a world of total superstition thousands of years ago.

 

Objective truth and subjective truth is what I am describing. How can you limit "Lucifer's" work(s)?

 

Simply put, such an "anti-God" being would attempt to take away this aspect of people thinking for themselves and dissolve "faith" into a system of blindly believing concepts that are a result of "indoctrination" and other spurious forms of "brainwashing". (dependancy on Scripture for everything)

 

And limiting discovery by any means is not indoctrination and brainwashing. The institutions for higher learning have none of the qualities? Have you ever stood in the midst of several phD's?

 

Christians in the end, believe what they do at an "intuitive level". I actually don't have a problem with that. People don't become devout Christians because they "read the Bible" or became convinced that "evolution" is wrong because they visited a "creationist museum" in Ohio. Besides, as one who was a Christian for many years, I never found a conflict between the salvation of Jesus and "natural selection". When religion becomes paranoid of scientific examination and proofs, is when your "Lucifer" guy (how many Gods do you people have, anyway?) have you little lemmings under his thumb.

 

....as you scenerio can work the other way around as well IMO.

 

Thanks for the post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objective truths, as I subjectively see it, are the facts about the relations between phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka
Objective truths, as I subjectively see it, are the facts about the relations between phenomena.

I would elaborate: Objective truths which can be known by human beings are those facts (about the relations between phenomena) which can be independently verified by any number of impartial observers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the Koran says it exists with Allah and the Book of Mormon says it exists with Jehovah and this post says it exists with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is there a point buried in here somewhere?

 

You made my day RO, the point is Truth is not "buried". Good job!

 

It seems to me that you are defining "objective truth" as "the truth which God says is true." That's circular reasoning:

 

1) There is a God, because

2) Objective truth says there is a God, and

3) Objective truth is that which is defined by God, who we know exists because

4) See # 1.

 

Sometimes I have to circle the wagons with the wife is on the warpath, but I am not aware of intentional circular logic......I hold Heaven and God to be a place, and an entity, at the same time, like in am "in New Jersey"/"in God"/"in Heaven".

 

Nope. So instead of making me guess your position, please tell me: how old do you think the Earth is, and how do you believe the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

 

I have no idea how old the Earth is, and I am skeptical that our estimations are accurate. Why the dinosar question. Why wouldn't that be included in Gen 1:24?

 

 

You really need to clarify your OP question, because I'm still not sure what you meant. Do you suggest that the devil started the myth of evolution, or that the devil actually started the process of evolution? Or something else entirely?

 

I don't know that you would characterize it as myth, but the fact that it is not definable to a level of satisfaction keeps us in constant want....or it does me. Again, if there is a truth that is fixed, and I lean towards love being that, that would be my idea of objective truth. I don't know how we could come close in our environment to objective truth, but I am willing to hear any thoughts.

 

And yeah, if there comes a point when we can whip up a hippo from the available elements without borrowing, then I will certainly consider "God" in a different light. It would certainly be more comfortable sometimes to throw in the "towel of belief". Please don't take that in a mean spirited way.

 

I am trying to illustrate that there is:

 

1) An environment, The Garden or Heaven, in which objective truth is the norm and is professed in the Bible.

 

On what do you base this assertion?

 

Honestly, faith RO. IF you want "real" things that drive my belief, I think you can access my prior threads....I think we have talked about that before.

 

 

If you accept the story, then this is a plausible suggestion. But why accept the story? It's an irrational story, based on magical thinking and psychotic episodes. What makes you believe that it's true?

 

 

It's real to me RO, if you really wish for me to elaborate, I can make a list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defense of the Bible, and the devil being in control of the earth, it makes sense that evolution would be predominant. Any thoughts?

I do not find reference in the Bible to the devil being able to create anything except morally, such as he is 'the father of lies.' Some Christians believe the devil tempts us by subterfuge and this is how he is able to influence godless scientists, including those ever-so-wicked Geologists, to interpret fossils and our existence beyond the Christian notion of a 6,000 years old Earth, not to mention the devil's ability to inspire one's literary creativity towards run-on sentences.

 

The thought of evolution is not wicked in nature. We all want to know how we got here. Evolution is the answer derived from the evidence at hand, that being fossils and the observation of nature. I believe evolution would have been known by another name, or the same, if Darwin had not made his voyage. The growth of humans and their thirst for knowledge would eventually point scientists in that direction. There are some Christians today who interpret the Bible in light of evolution believing the scripture is early man's attempt to explain evolution in creation. Evolution, though, does not take up with creation. Evolution through natural selection of species, assumes life already exists. Geology points out the ages of the rocks are so much older than originally thought. It may be eventually revealed that the earth is older or younger than previously thought, this will still be supported by evidence and logic and not the imaginary works of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End, what do you mean by "objective" truth? Can you elaborate on it?

 

'Cause I really have a hard time with the concepts these days. Both parts: "objective" and "truth"

 

I'm not convinced that either are possible in any absolute sense.

 

I am not too smart Iskerbibel, but I don't believe objective truth can be measured....and if you apply that to our environment, then there you are.

 

That's why I hold it as a concept, a place, by faith.

 

I don't know what unchanging truth looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

By that definition I don't believe even God would possess objective truth. He's certainly displayed "personal feelings", his words are definitely "subject to interpretation", and he certainly displays "prejudice" in my mind.

 

End3 - Do you believe that Satan is actually working against God or for God. I've seen arguments either way, but I'm curious as your view. Your assertion certainly seems to imply that you believe the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not find reference in the Bible to the devil being able to create anything except morally, such as he is 'the father of lies.' Some Christians believe the devil tempts us by subterfuge and this is how he is able to influence godless scientists, including those ever-so-wicked Geologists, to interpret fossils and our existence beyond the Christian notion of a 6,000 years old Earth, not to mention the devil's ability to inspire one's literary creativity towards run-on sentences.

 

I originally quit high school HZ. Aren't you impressed that I took my GED, and then finished college and I am a father and I am.....oh shit, there goes those run-ons. Damit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

By that definition I don't believe even God would possess objective truth. He's certainly displayed "personal feelings", his words are definitely "subject to interpretation", and he certainly displays "prejudice" in my mind.

 

End3 - Do you believe that Satan is actually working against God or for God. I've seen arguments either way, but I'm curious as your view. Your assertion certainly seems to imply that you believe the former.

 

I am a fundy in that respect SB...against God for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that one man's truth is another man's fable is incorrect when considering objective truth. We all have our own beliefs concerning everything under the sun. Irregardless of what we each think, there is a limit to how much one's own personal beliefs can bend the truth. The universe works according to its own schedule.

 

Objective truths are truths that are true no matter what our beliefs may be to the contrary. Objective truths are generally built upon facts. For instance an objective truth is that the Earth orbits the sun, which is contrary to religious beliefs that the Earth is the center of the universe. Another objective truth is that the Earth remains in orbit due to gravity and not because it travels on the back of a turtle or elephant. We can disbelieve an objective truth until blood runs out our eyeballs but truth backed by evidence is irrefutable. Objective truth is not an argument of how much evidence a person has to prove his point, objective truths are confirmed by anyone who also analyzes the evidence. They should come to the same conclusions. If not, their conclusions are clouded by a lack of skills and technique, not because they found overwhelming evidence within their own mind pertaining to the evidence. If the other person does not come to the same conclusions, then he should be able to produce evidence that would convince the average person. Religious inquiry rarely makes into the realm of an objective truth because it is based on improvable faith. Faith in something is not an objective truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure there is an objective definition of what "objective" means. :shrug:

 

In some philosophical, metaphysical way, objective is referring to the truths that extend beyond human understanding and knowledge. Which would be things like T=T, 1+1=1, Pi or whatever something like that. Things that exists regardless if we know about them or not.

 

Then we have objective in the more colloquial way, where it means that a person is not influenced by feelings or opinions when considering facts, in other words, not influenced while being rational.

 

And then we have the idea of objective as the agreement between a dyad group or higher, meaning a group agree that there is a "truth" everyone in the group can follow.

 

(Then we have objective as in the example: "My objective was to reach the harbor before the storm came over us." And "objective" also is a grammar point, objective case. Oh, I forgot, the objective lens in a telescope...)

 

So does an objective definition of the word objective exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the Koran says it exists with Allah and the Book of Mormon says it exists with Jehovah and this post says it exists with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is there a point buried in here somewhere?

 

You made my day RO, the point is Truth is not "buried". Good job!

 

It seems to me that you are defining "objective truth" as "the truth which God says is true." That's circular reasoning:

 

1) There is a God, because

2) Objective truth says there is a God, and

3) Objective truth is that which is defined by God, who we know exists because

4) See # 1.

 

Sometimes I have to circle the wagons with the wife is on the warpath, but I am not aware of intentional circular logic......I hold Heaven and God to be a place, and an entity, at the same time, like in am "in New Jersey"/"in God"/"in Heaven".

 

Nope. So instead of making me guess your position, please tell me: how old do you think the Earth is, and how do you believe the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

 

I have no idea how old the Earth is, and I am skeptical that our estimations are accurate. Why the dinosar question. Why wouldn't that be included in Gen 1:24?

 

 

You really need to clarify your OP question, because I'm still not sure what you meant. Do you suggest that the devil started the myth of evolution, or that the devil actually started the process of evolution? Or something else entirely?

 

I don't know that you would characterize it as myth, but the fact that it is not definable to a level of satisfaction keeps us in constant want....or it does me. Again, if there is a truth that is fixed, and I lean towards love being that, that would be my idea of objective truth. I don't know how we could come close in our environment to objective truth, but I am willing to hear any thoughts.

 

And yeah, if there comes a point when we can whip up a hippo from the available elements without borrowing, then I will certainly consider "God" in a different light. It would certainly be more comfortable sometimes to throw in the "towel of belief". Please don't take that in a mean spirited way.

 

I am trying to illustrate that there is:

 

1) An environment, The Garden or Heaven, in which objective truth is the norm and is professed in the Bible.

 

On what do you base this assertion?

 

Honestly, faith RO. IF you want "real" things that drive my belief, I think you can access my prior threads....I think we have talked about that before.

 

 

If you accept the story, then this is a plausible suggestion. But why accept the story? It's an irrational story, based on magical thinking and psychotic episodes. What makes you believe that it's true?

 

 

It's real to me RO, if you really wish for me to elaborate, I can make a list.

 

Hey End...That was all Davka you quoted, not me. I'm not that smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans as I understand it, which is admittedly subjective, objective truths adhere in the world “outside” of our selves. They are facts about the world which remain unaltered by our perception of them.

 

Mathematical truths, again as I see it, are facts about formal systems of inference. And formal systems are entirely the creation of minds.

 

And of course you’re right “objective” has many meanings. (e.g.) “What is our objective (goal)?” “Calm down. Calm down. Let’s try to be objective (dispassionate) about this.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the Koran says it exists with Allah and the Book of Mormon says it exists with Jehovah and this post says it exists with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is there a point buried in here somewhere?

 

You made my day RO, the point is Truth is not "buried". Good job!

 

It seems to me that you are defining "objective truth" as "the truth which God says is true." That's circular reasoning:

 

1) There is a God, because

2) Objective truth says there is a God, and

3) Objective truth is that which is defined by God, who we know exists because

4) See # 1.

 

Sometimes I have to circle the wagons with the wife is on the warpath, but I am not aware of intentional circular logic......I hold Heaven and God to be a place, and an entity, at the same time, like in am "in New Jersey"/"in God"/"in Heaven".

 

Nope. So instead of making me guess your position, please tell me: how old do you think the Earth is, and how do you believe the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

 

I have no idea how old the Earth is, and I am skeptical that our estimations are accurate. Why the dinosar question. Why wouldn't that be included in Gen 1:24?

 

 

You really need to clarify your OP question, because I'm still not sure what you meant. Do you suggest that the devil started the myth of evolution, or that the devil actually started the process of evolution? Or something else entirely?

 

I don't know that you would characterize it as myth, but the fact that it is not definable to a level of satisfaction keeps us in constant want....or it does me. Again, if there is a truth that is fixed, and I lean towards love being that, that would be my idea of objective truth. I don't know how we could come close in our environment to objective truth, but I am willing to hear any thoughts.

 

And yeah, if there comes a point when we can whip up a hippo from the available elements without borrowing, then I will certainly consider "God" in a different light. It would certainly be more comfortable sometimes to throw in the "towel of belief". Please don't take that in a mean spirited way.

 

I am trying to illustrate that there is:

 

1) An environment, The Garden or Heaven, in which objective truth is the norm and is professed in the Bible.

 

On what do you base this assertion?

 

Honestly, faith RO. IF you want "real" things that drive my belief, I think you can access my prior threads....I think we have talked about that before.

 

 

If you accept the story, then this is a plausible suggestion. But why accept the story? It's an irrational story, based on magical thinking and psychotic episodes. What makes you believe that it's true?

 

 

It's real to me RO, if you really wish for me to elaborate, I can make a list.

 

Hey End...That was all Davka you quoted, not me. I'm not that smart.

 

My mistake, must be the allergy med.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans as I understand it, which is admittedly subjective, objective truths adhere in the world “outside” of our selves. They are facts about the world which remain unaltered by our perception of them.

Right. That's one of the definition.

 

So, what is the "world"? There are truths about this world, that are not completely true at all cases or at all levels. Like the conflict between quantum mechanics and relativity. Lately there are scientists suggesting that we can't look at the world and how physics works from just one perspective, but perhaps we have to accept multiple views and (somewhat contradictory) perspectives to be simultaneous true? The world somehow in itself is a paradox within a paradox. So, does "objective truth within the world" really exist? Or maybe objective truth only exists within a specific context, a framework, or only within given conditions, but are broken as soon as a condition is altered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world somehow in itself is a paradox within a paradox.

I think this is almost poetic Hans. I like it. And if we used a different word than 'paradox' I might even agree. But one of my favorite scientists (guess who) asserts that there are no paradoxes in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world somehow in itself is a paradox within a paradox.

I think this is almost poetic Hans. I like it. And if we used a different word than 'paradox' I might even agree. But one of my favorite scientists (guess who) asserts that there are no paradoxes in nature.

Depends on how we define "paradox"! :HaHa: But I stand with the "paradox" word, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world somehow in itself is a paradox within a paradox.

I think this is almost poetic Hans. I like it. And if we used a different word than 'paradox' I might even agree. But one of my favorite scientists (guess who) asserts that there are no paradoxes in nature.

Depends on how we define "paradox"! :HaHa: But I stand with the "paradox" word, sorry.

:grin: Hey that's cool Hans. To each his own. But I know you're a bright guy. I highly recommend that you look up "impredicative definitions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:grin: Hey that's cool Hans. To each his own. But I know you're a bright guy. I highly recommend that you look up "impredicative definitions".

I'm not sure if the information paradox between quantum mechanics and theory of relativity is based on infinite sets or not. :shrug:

 

Or does it mean that the paradox between QM and ToR is caused by one being defined within the other? I guess that's where the problem lies, the theories seems to contradict each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:grin: Hey that's cool Hans. To each his own. But I know you're a bright guy. I highly recommend that you look up "impredicative definitions".

I'm not sure if the information paradox between quantum mechanics and theory of relativity is based on infinite sets or not. :shrug:

To be honest Hans, I am still yet trying to understand impredicativities.

 

And I don't do physics very much these days. More and more, I turn to biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest Hans, I am still yet trying to understand impredicativities.

To be honest on my end... it's the first frigging time I heard about impredicks... I mean imaprickaditt... *arg* The impre-thingy!

 

And I don't do physics very much these days. More and more, I turn to biology.

Sure. I'm not much into physics either now. I'm doing more sociology and other studies now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka
and the Koran says it exists with Allah and the Book of Mormon says it exists with Jehovah and this post says it exists with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is there a point buried in here somewhere?

 

You made my day RO, the point is Truth is not "buried". Good job!

I'm not RO, but that's OK, I'm almost as dumb as he is and twice as ugly. :fun:

 

You are correct that truth is not buried. It is plain to all who look. That's why an objective, empirical truth like 2+2=4 is universally accepted, while a subjective, abstract "truth" like Jesus is Lord is NOT universally accepted. The first is a plain fact, easily demonstrable as truth. The second is mere supposition, with no empirical data to back it up, and is thus "hidden."

 

 

Nope. So instead of making me guess your position, please tell me: how old do you think the Earth is, and how do you believe the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

 

I have no idea how old the Earth is, and I am skeptical that our estimations are accurate. Why the dinosar question. Why wouldn't that be included in Gen 1:24?

Well, I suppose it could be, but that would mean there's a really big important part left out: Genesis 1:24.5 "And God caused a meteor the size of the Pentagon to slam into the Earth, splattering stuff all over the place and wiping out nearly all life that was living on the land, and Lo, God started all over again with the land animals."

 

Because Dinosaurs were extinct long before humans came along, and such a catastrophic event as the one which triggered global extinction seems worthy of inclusion in a history of Creation, don't you think? But in Genesis, God formed all the animals and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)

 

You really need to clarify your OP question, because I'm still not sure what you meant. Do you suggest that the devil started the myth of evolution, or that the devil actually started the process of evolution? Or something else entirely?

 

I don't know that you would characterize it as myth, but the fact that it is not definable to a level of satisfaction keeps us in constant want....or it does me. Again, if there is a truth that is fixed, and I lean towards love being that, that would be my idea of objective truth. I don't know how we could come close in our environment to objective truth, but I am willing to hear any thoughts.

 

First of all, evolution is very clearly defined. If the definition does not satisfy you, then perhaps you have not studied it closely enough.

 

Secondly, the statement "love is objective truth" is meaningless. If you remove the word "objective" then you're speaking in philosophical terms, in which case science and evolution are irrelevant, because we're talking abstract theory rather than concrete reality. But since love is, by its very nature, a subjective experience with multiple layers of possible meaning, equating it with objective truth is a contradiction in terms.

 

 

And yeah, if there comes a point when we can whip up a hippo from the available elements without borrowing, then I will certainly consider "God" in a different light. It would certainly be more comfortable sometimes to throw in the "towel of belief". Please don't take that in a mean spirited way.

Not at all. We can currently whip up amino acids from the available elements without borrowing, and we are beginning to whip up complex chains of aminos, which is the first step to building a virus-like molecule. Since it took millions of years for life to emerge from the primordial soup the first time, why do you imagine that it would happen in a laboratory any faster?

 

1) An environment, The Garden or Heaven, in which objective truth is the norm and is professed in the Bible.

 

On what do you base this assertion?

 

Honestly, faith RO. IF you want "real" things that drive my belief, I think you can access my prior threads....I think we have talked about that before.

 

Actually we haven't, mostly because I'm not RO. I tried being RO, just to see if I would understand you better, but it didn't work. Perhaps I don't have enough faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, the statement "love is objective truth" is meaningless. If you remove the word "objective" then you're speaking in philosophical terms, in which case science and evolution are irrelevant, because we're talking abstract theory rather than concrete reality. But since love is, by its very nature, a subjective experience with multiple layers of possible meaning, equating it with objective truth is a contradiction in terms.

 

Ahh, but D, there are many that claim it is all physiological....which would indeed make it science.

 

Not at all. We can currently whip up amino acids from the available elements without borrowing, and we are beginning to whip up complex chains of aminos, which is the first step to building a virus-like molecule. Since it took millions of years for life to emerge from the primordial soup the first time, why do you imagine that it would happen in a laboratory any faster?

 

I don't want to belittle the guys efforts to present a mechanism for the natural sythesis of a few mean-ole acids, but seems like that would have been a rational speculation before it made the publishers...

 

Actually we haven't, mostly because I'm not RO. I tried being RO, just to see if I would understand you better, but it didn't work. Perhaps I don't have enough faith.

 

Didn't mean to call you RO, my mistake....and also my bad writing. By saying "we", I meant we, members here have discussed specifically why I believe, not we as in you and me.

 

If you wish to continue to beat a dead horse....ride on brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.