"Truth is a foreign concept to the human mind."

[Robert Z]

I have never though the word truth meant perception or measurement. But if you go back to your original post about truth being relative and replace the word truth with measurement, then I agree with you.

 

 

 

Not perception, but measurements.

 

 

Does a particle moving at .87 C in the inertial frame really have twice the mass as the same particle when defined to be at rest? Yes. That is what I mean by truth.

[M30USA]

hmmm not to be nit picky He starts off quoting John 14:26...now will the holy spirit teach you and I all things? Or is Jesus talking directly to apostles of Christ in this verse?

 

 

I would assume it's the same Holy Spirit which spoke to Noah, telling him to build an arc, and which spoke to Abraham, telling him to offer up his son to God.

 

 

The interesting fact is that neither of these people, Noah or Abraham, had the written Scriptures. Imagine that! I mean, they had no reference like we have today. I wonder if it was easier to be deceived during those days than it is today?

 

We gain truth from reading the scriptures given to us by the apostles of Christ.

I believe we gain truth from the Holy Spirit, afterwich it can be compared to written Scripture. Remember the Holy Spirit is God, himself. Scripture is not God. So if the Holy Spirit is God, then surely truth comes from the Holy Spirit. Even the ancient forefathers and prophets wrote down what the Holy Spirit spoke to them. Our reading of Scriptures is therefore an "indirect" method of truth. While valuable for reproof, it still stands second to the "direct" method of counsel via the Holy Spirit, who is God.

 

To me, it can be very easy to mistake the Holy Spirit for intuition. Which is why when we receive any spiritual information, we should sift it through scripture to discern what spirit is giving the information. The bible promotes this idea...to test all spiritual messages, to discern what spirit is behind the message. To search ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. What do you think?

I agree with that.

[pureinheart]

I would assume it's the same Holy Spirit which spoke to Noah, telling him to build an arc, and which spoke to Abraham, telling him to offer up his son to God.

 

 

The interesting fact is that neither of these people, Noah or Abraham, had the written Scriptures. Imagine that! I mean, they had no reference like we have today. I wonder if it was easier to be deceived during those days than it is today?

 

I think we are seeing about the same. It's interesting you bring this up, specifically Noah…the Lord took me to Genesis/Noah last night after posting. I think we are reaching that "Noah state"..truth is not that common these days. All that is missing IMO is the Nephilim, which could take place shortly before the Trib. I strongly believe there will be a gap of time after the Rapture for "re-grouping" purposes.

 

Another interesting thing is the first 2000 years prior/during Noah was considered a "grace period"...

Edited January 29, 2014 by pureinheart

[M30USA]

I think we are seeing about the same. It's interesting you bring this up, specifically Noah…the Lord took me to Genesis/Noah last night after posting. I think we are reaching that "Noah state"..truth is not that common these days. All that is missing IMO is the Nephilim, which could take place shortly before the Trib. I strongly believe there will be a gap of time after the Rapture for "re-grouping" purposes.

 

Another interesting thing is the first 2000 years prior/during Noah was considered a "grace period"...

 

You said "truth is not that common these days". I believe this is because we are in the age of the Laodicean Church--the church which is described in Revelation 3. Most theologians believe this church, along with the other 6, correlates to church periods throughout the post-Christ timeline. Laodicean church is basically a church that has merged with the world and is indistinguishable, not just in philosophy but in behavior. It's a church which believes that its "wealth" means they are well-off spiritually, yet they are wretched, naked and blind. Lastly, it's a "lukewarm" church which likes to take the middle road and never be extreme. It's during this church age when there will be massive deception since people believe they possess the truth, but the truth is not spoken on any pulpit or learned by any followers.

[Robert Z]

Even with things that are "scientific", the correct interpretation of data cannot be done without the holy spirit. This explains why two scientists looking at the SAME data can draw different conclusions--one in favor of God (like Isaac Newton) the other against God (like 90% of scientists today).

 

 

 

Wow, somehow I missed this part. The entire basis for the scientific process is objectivity. But we don't rely on faith or good faith. The process takes into account human error and bias and eventually corrects for that. And the proof of that statement is found in the successes of science that can easily be seen all around us. The advances that we've seen since even the 1950s probably surpass all that came before in the history of the human race.

 

The counter argument to yours is that rational thought and science are what lifted us out of the dark ages and into the world of relative magic that we enjoy today. Science freed us from mysticism. It what helped to feed the world and cure disease. It is why we Bill Gates now predicts that by 2035 there will be no more poor countries. Technology is helping to raise all 3rd world economies up to a lower-middle class standard of living.

 

As for Newton, his personal views have no bearing on his successes any more than did Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bell, Dirac, or Schrodinger... The key to Newton's work is logic. And it is taught to every first year science or engineering student. In fact students are often required to independently reproduce work by the greats who first discovered them. For example, we were required in our junior year to independently derive Einstein's famous energy equation, E = MC^2. Newton's proofs are likewise often found as homework assignments. No prayer is needed. The key to reproducing Newton's work is to do your homework assignments.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Robert Z

[Eggplant]

Not perception, but measurements.

 

 

Does a particle moving at .87 C in the inertial frame really have twice the mass as the same particle when defined to be at rest? Yes. That is what I mean by truth.

What is bothering me about the way you are putting this, and maybe I'm getting it wrong, is that it seems as though you are trying to make a giant philosophical deal about it. You are saying that the 2 different mass measurements are two different truths. Now, not thinking twice, and reading the words "two different truths," a contradiction would seem to be implied, and a break-down of all logic. And I'm sure that's not what you mean. Because the 2 masses in 2 different reference frames aren't answering any PHILOSOPHICAL questions, for me at least. A thing can measure different masses because mass is not an absolute, but a relative thing, with respect to something else. Like energy. So, OK, if you define the word "truth" to mean measurement, then you can apply the contradictory logic to anything that has a property that depends on the reference in which you measure it. For example, you could also say "truth is all relative" because a certain mountain has one altitude measured from mean sea level and another measured from the ground. Height depends on where you're measuring. So does mass. So call "measurement" a "truth," but I don't think you're talking about the same kind of "truth" that is being discussed in this thread, because I don't think truth generally means measurement.

[Robert Z]

What is bothering me about the way you are putting this, and maybe I'm getting it wrong, is that it seems as though you are trying to make a giant philosophical deal about it. You are saying that the 2 different mass measurements are two different truths. Now, not thinking twice, and reading the words "two different truths," a contradiction would seem to be implied, and a break-down of all logic. And I'm sure that's not what you mean. Because the 2 masses in 2 different reference frames aren't answering any PHILOSOPHICAL questions, for me at least. A thing can measure different masses because mass is not an absolute, but a relative thing, with respect to something else. Like energy. So, OK, if you define the word "truth" to mean measurement, then you can apply the contradictory logic to anything that has a property that depends on the reference in which you measure it. For example, you could also say "truth is all relative" because a certain mountain has one altitude measured from mean sea level and another measured from the ground. Height depends on where you're measuring. So does mass. So call "measurement" a "truth," but I don't think you're talking about the same kind of "truth" that is being discussed in this thread, because I don't think truth generally means measurement.

 

 

 

In my first post I indicated that this is a technical issue. But it does speak to the notion of absolute truth in a fundamental way.

 

 

What you refer to is what we used to call the god frame [back in college] and is something that doesn't exist for any observer. To me this is key. In your example about the mountain and elevation, there is an absolute point of reference, and that is the distance from the top of the mountain to the center of the earth. All observers [in terms of elevation] will measure the same value for this.

[M30USA]

Wow, somehow I missed this part. The entire basis for the scientific process is objectivity. But we don't rely on faith or good faith. The process takes into account human error and bias and eventually corrects for that. And the proof of that statement is found in the successes of science that can easily be seen all around us. The advances that we've seen since even the 1950s probably surpass all that came before in the history of the human race.

 

The counter argument to yours is that rational thought and science are what lifted us out of the dark ages and into the world of relative magic that we enjoy today. Science freed us from mysticism. It what helped to feed the world and cure disease. It is why we Bill Gates now predicts that by 2035 there will be no more poor countries. Technology is helping to raise all 3rd world economies up to a lower-middle class standard of living.

 

As for Newton, his personal views have no bearing on his successes any more than did Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bell, Dirac, or Schrodinger... The key to Newton's work is logic. And it is taught to every first year science or engineering student. In fact students are often required to independently reproduce work by the greats who first discovered them. For example, we were required in our junior year to independently derive Einstein's famous energy equation, E = MC^2. Newton's proofs are likewise often found as homework assignments. No prayer is needed. The key to reproducing Newton's work is to do your homework assignments.

 

Dude, no offense but we've already addressed this. The part of my post you've quoted has been hijacked and I've addressed it already.

[Robert Z]

Eggplant, In the twin paradox, one twin returns to find his brother long dead. Surely we can agree that this is real and not just a matter of perception.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Robert Z

[M30USA]

Robert Z,

 

Science is objective, as you say, but my point was that this doesn't stop scientists from making non-scientific, philosophical conclusions based on the objective information. In other words, two people can look at the same facts (science) and draw completely opposite views. As an example: it's a fact that everybody will die. Given this fact, some people say we should live wisely and obey God; while others say to live it up and party "for tomorrow we die." Scientists do the same thing. Both creationism and evolution are philosophical views. You cannot objectively prove either one. Sure, I know they are not philosophical in the sense that only one of them actually took place, but they are philosophical in the sense that they exceed the realm of proveabili via scientific method criteria and thus FUNCTION as philosophy.

Edited January 29, 2014 by M30USA

[mukkrakker]

Both creationism and evolution are philosophical views. You cannot objectively prove either one...they exceed the realm of proveabili via scientific method criteria and thus FUNCTION as philosophy.

 

This is just NOT true.

 

Refusing to accept the wealth of experts and peer reviewed writings is not the same as "proving it" false.

 

Just because you ignore advice about crossing a busy street when you have a red light against you, but you cross and make it to the other side alive, doesn't mean the overwhelming conclusion that you would get hit was wrong. Especially in PA/NJ!

 

There is NO scientific (or indeed any!) data that supports creationism.

 

Whereas Evolution is a fact: the theory is undeniable, testable, provable, reproducable such that it is used everyday in hospitals and laboratories to improve our health - it's why you get a different flu shot every year.

 

And before you say it's ONLY a theory, so is gravity, but you'll accept it's tenants without evocation.

[M30USA]

This is just NOT true.

 

Refusing to accept the wealth of experts and peer reviewed writings is not the same as "proving it" false.

 

Just because you ignore advice about crossing a busy street when you have a red light against you, but you cross and make it to the other side alive, doesn't mean the overwhelming conclusion that you would get hit was wrong. Especially in PA/NJ!

 

There is NO scientific (or indeed any!) data that supports creationism.

 

Whereas Evolution is a fact: the theory is undeniable, testable, provable, reproducable such that it is used everyday in hospitals and laboratories to improve our health - it's why you get a different flu shot every year.

 

And before you say it's ONLY a theory, so is gravity, but you'll accept it's tenants without evocation.

 

Sigh, here we go again...

 

Mukkrakker, please identify for me all of the criteria a given subject has to meet in order for it to be studied via the scientific method. You can even google it if you want.

[mukkrakker]

please identify for me all of the criteria a given subject has to meet in order for it to be studied via the scientific method. You can even google it if you want.

 

Oh dear, I guess you didn't read my post, just skimmed it as soon as I said something you didn't believe.

 

testable, provable, reproducible [\QUOTE]

 

You can google those.

 

Then show me how creationism meets them.

[M30USA]

Oh dear, I guess you didn't read my post, just skimmed it as soon as I said something you didn't believe.

 

testable, provable, reproducible [\QUOTE]

 

You can google those.

 

Then show me how creationism meets them.

 

Creationism can't meet them. Neither can evolution. You clearly are not listening to my points and are unable to have a discussion. I'm discontinuing my posts with you regarding this subject.

[mukkrakker]

Creationism can't meet them. Neither can evolution. You clearly are not listening to my points and are unable to have a discussion. I'm discontinuing my posts with you regarding this subject.

 

Evolution can and does.

 

And we weren't having a discussion; I was pointing out that you were completely wrong.

[M30USA]

Requirement of scientific method:

 

Repeatability.

 

Macro-evolution cannot be repeated since it occurred one time in the past, therefore it cannot be proven or disproven via scientific method. Only micro-evolution can, since it can be repeated in a lab. And even if you say that macro-evolution can be proven in lab (one species turning into another), it's still an assumption to say this applies to single-celled organisms in prehistory turning into humans. That's assumption since it occurred in the past. Assumptions are unscientific no matter how reasonable they sound. The scientific method only applies to repeatable phenomenon. ANYTHING in the past is in the realm of theoretical science.

Edited January 29, 2014 by M30USA

[mukkrakker]

ANYTHING in the past is in the realm of theoretical science.

 

Like your last post you mean?

I don't even have to point out how wrong this is.

 

Macro-evolution cannot be repeated since it occurred one time in the past

 

Umm, can you prove that? Presumptuous I would have thought.

Ahhh, that would just be "theoretical" though right?

 

single-celled organisms in prehistory turning into humans

 

Cos that happened in just one almighty leap? See this is where evolution comes in with known transitional forms. Of course you have to "believe" that all science is not a global all consuming (and throughout all time) conspiracy, to accept that - I know, really stretches logic doesn't it.

[M30USA]

Mukkrakker, I am not telling you things you can argue. The rules of scientific method are not my own. Have you ever taken any college science classes? I learned this in 8th grade general science. I would recommend simply reading, at minimum, wikipedia's summary of the scientific method. I've gotten into this debate countless times and I'm not eager to give you a lecture. Most of your comments are irrelevant and I won't address them.

 

The scientific method ONLY applies to CURRENTLY REPEATABLE phenomenon under CURRENT ENVIRONMENTS and CURRENT APPLICATIONS. Anything in the past REQUIRES assumption.

Edited January 29, 2014 by M30USA

[mukkrakker]

And I'm saying the rules of scientific method apply throughout time.

 

Hence we know so much about, for example, dinosaurs: such as the color of their feathers - analysis of DNA and melanosomes in non-avian dinosaurs shows (along with osteology and other disciplines) the evolutionary path to birds.

 

No assumptions need to be made.

 

And, just to step back to something I quoted of yours from before - "Macro-evolution cannot be repeated since it occurred one time in the past" - you cannot argue a point based on the same thing you are arguing against. It's poor form. And wrong.

[M30USA]

And I'm saying the rules of scientific method apply throughout time.

 

Buddy, learn what the scientific method is and then get back to me. Science and the scientific method are not the same. Your lack of awareness on this subject is glaring and you refuse to educate yourself.

 

The scientific method is meant for things like medicine, studying effects of drugs, studying the paths of planets, etc. It is wholly inadequate to study things such as: 1) metaphysics, 2) spiritual subjects, 3) things which cannot be quantified, 4) things which occurred in the past and cannot be repeated under EXACT same environmental, biological, and physical conditions.

 

I'm not debating here. I'm TELLING you. Be wise and learn.

 

If you want, make a case for evolution with ancillary evidence, supporting science, courtroom style evidence, or philosophy. But BY DEFINITION AND QUALIFICATION you cannot prove or disprove evolution with the scientific method as it has been established.

 

How old are you and what is your education level?

Edited January 29, 2014 by M30USA

[umirano]

I have always believed that humans are born sinful.

I'd be very upset (at god?) if this were true, as it seems very unfair.

 

Lately I have been thinking about the idea that truth, itself, is not even comprehendible by the natural human mind. Furthermore, the ONLY avenue by which we can discover truth is via the Holy Spirit.

Hold on, let me dissect this. When you say

 

Furthermore, the ONLY avenue by which we can discover truth is via the Holy Spirit.

that is a true statement?

 

So, as per the quote above this one, it isn't comprehendible by the natural human mind. So, no one really will understand that only the holy spirit can help us discover truth.

 

How can you understand it then? It seems self contradicting, no?

 

 

Everything that man knows and understands is for his own self interest. This, by necessity, blinds him from truth, since truth is objective and does not depend upon self interest.

Respectfully, that does not make sense. Even if we assume that A (= Everything that man knows and understands is for his own self interest.) is true, B (=This, by necessity, blinds him from truth, since truth is objective and does not depend upon self interest.) does not follow. It isn't a necessity at all. I don't see why I cannot determine a truth if I have a self interest.

 

Say, I want to determine whether it is raining. I clearly have a self interest not to get wet. I have a hard time believing I never successfully determined whether it is raining or not because I had a self interest in that regard.

 

In similar ways very many of your postings are full of logical fallacies. I think your posts are not helping the religious case at all.

[M30USA]

I'd be very upset (at god?) if this were true, as it seems very unfair.

 

Hold on, let me dissect this. When you say

 

that is a true statement?

 

So, as per the quote above this one, it isn't comprehendible by the natural human mind. So, no one really will understand that only the holy spirit can help us discover truth.

 

How can you understand it then? It seems self contradicting, no?

 

 

Respectfully, that does not make sense. Even if we assume that A (= Everything that man knows and understands is for his own self interest.) is true, B (=This, by necessity, blinds him from truth, since truth is objective and does not depend upon self interest.) does not follow. It isn't a necessity at all. I don't see why I cannot determine a truth if I have a self interest.

 

Say, I want to determine whether it is raining. I clearly have a self interest not to get wet. I have a hard time believing I never successfully determined whether it is raining or not because I had a self interest in that regard.

 

In similar ways very many of your postings are full of logical fallacies. I think your posts are not helping the religious case at all.

 

Nothing I'm saying isn't already in the Bible.

 

You need to understand that the Holy Spirit comes via revelation. That is, it originates outside our minds and teaches us what we don't know. It's not contradictory to say that we can't understand truth and yet we can know the truth via the Holy Spirit. Why? Because of the concept of revelation. We are not learning something ourselves--it's coming from an outside source.

[Robert Z]

Nothing I'm saying isn't already in the Bible.

 

You need to understand that the Holy Spirit comes via revelation. That is, it originates outside our minds and teaches us what we don't know. It's not contradictory to say that we can't understand truth and yet we can know the truth via the Holy Spirit. Why? Because of the concept of revelation. We are not learning something ourselves--it's coming from an outside source.

 

 

 

This is also a convenient way to avoid the responsibility for any logic, wisdom, or even just good sense. You can justify anything according to what the voices of the mind happen to be saying today. God gave us a brain but we are not supposed to use it?

[M30USA]

This is also a convenient way to avoid the responsibility for any logic, wisdom, or even just good sense. You can justify anything according to what the voices of the mind happen to be saying today. God gave us a brain but we are not supposed to use it?

 

Of course we are supposed to use our brains. Your comment implies that the Holy Spirit would have use jump off cliffs, stand in front of trains, and argue that 2+2=37.

[skydiveaddict]

Excuse? I don't follow.

 

Maybe you didn't see the phrase "natural mind"? As in the verse:

 

"The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the [Holy] Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the [Holy] Spirit." (1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV)

 

John 18:37:

 

"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

 

What don't you understand about that?

Edited January 30, 2014 by skydiveaddict