(December 7, 2018 at 11:39 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 11:07 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I agree that intermingling things can be problematic, but you can't rationally prevent it universally.  Even if it's simply someone telling a lie or trying to manipulate data.  That's why in my little box where I post what I believe I said "truth", because that's what I shoot for. It doesn't mean I don't get things wrong, or that I've never lied before, but at the end of the day, that's what I care about.  I like balance, and when I'm truthful with myself and try to be truthful with others, I can feel validated even when times arise that I am wrong.  But there are people who deliberately manipulate facts/information that are still going to be out there, and sometimes we are uncontrollably subject to them because we simply "don't know", and don't have the means to independently measure their claims.

And as you said, making threads with titles like this can be problematic, but it happens all across the board.  It's not a "theistic" problem.  It's a world problem. Sometimes it may be something like greed.  "I want funding so I come up with a solution to keep the money coming in, so I fabricate that I know will pass scrutiny based on my education."  It's a lie, but a temporal solution.  By time someone can disprove it, you're already funded and can come up with a new argument.   It's not a rule though.  So rather than sort it all out in my head, which is probably impossible, I just do my best. Sometimes that means "logic" and sometimes that means going with my "gut."  One thing I've learned is that more times than not your gut is spot on  When I use both "logic" and "gut" without discrimination or bias, I think I am living optimally.

Instead of "truth", I would have used "reality".
For, again, there are many "truths" out there, but only one reality.

In general, truth is assumed to be an accurate description of reality. And this accuracy is a function of the individual that is describing reality... there are as accurate as technologically possible descriptions, there are rough approximations, there are educated guesses, wild guesses, and blatant lies. (arbitrary categories that I just made up, feel free to add yours)
I think we can live optimally if we manage to accept as many of the first kind as possible, while avoiding all the others as much as possible.
I know it's not feasible to live only through the most accurate descriptions of reality, for time is ever-moving forward and ever changing circumstances require us to keep up and use approximations wherever possible. And there are many cases where guesses is all we can hope to have - the fictionality of the divine, for example.
Let's assume that the existence of the god of the philosophers is in the realm of "educated guesses", while the average religious deity is, at best, a "wild guess", at worst, a "lie".
Many have tried and succeeded to pass this wild guess (or lie) as beyond our knowledge, as a more accurate description of reality than what can ever be hoped to achieve with technology/science. I think this is a disingenuous practice, but one that can easily sway someone who, like you, relies on gut in a few key situations... and you are an educated person. Imagine how vulnerable is someone not aware of how they can be exploited.
This means that we must not only aim to keep ourselves from accepting dubious truths, but it is also our duty(?) to warn and try to prevent others from accepting them.
How? Mostly through awareness, I suppose... and that's where these forums come to be useful.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 11:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: Instead of "truth", I would have used "reality".
For, again, there are many "truths" out there, but only one reality.

In general, truth is assumed to be an accurate description of reality. And this accuracy is a function of the individual that is describing reality... there are as accurate as technologically possible descriptions, there are rough approximations, there are educated guesses, wild guesses, and blatant lies. (arbitrary categories that I just made up, feel free to add yours)
I think we can live optimally if we manage to accept as many of the first kind as possible, while avoiding all the others as much as possible.
I know it's not feasible to live only through the most accurate descriptions of reality, for time is ever-moving forward and ever changing circumstances require us to keep up and use approximations wherever possible. And there are many cases where guesses is all we can hope to have - the fictionality of the divine, for example.
Let's assume that the existence of the god of the philosophers is in the realm of "educated guesses", while the average religious deity is, at best, a "wild guess", at worst, a "lie".
Many have tried and succeeded to pass this wild guess (or lie) as beyond our knowledge, as a more accurate description of reality than what can ever be hoped to achieve with technology/science. I think this is a disingenuous practice, but one that can easily sway someone who, like you, relies on gut in a few key situations... and you are an educated person. Imagine how vulnerable is someone not aware of how they can be exploited.
This means that we must not only aim to keep ourselves from accepting dubious truths, but it is also our duty(?) to warn and try to prevent others from accepting them.
How? Mostly through awareness, I suppose... and that's where these forums come to be useful.

I think it's how you define it.  To me if any part of the truth isn't such, then it is a lie.  If you suggest it there can be "partial truth" then maybe, but that would be contextual.  I don't think it works any different for "reality", and the two can be synonymous.  For me "truth would be "what we assert" and "reality" would be "how we live", but someone may come along and define those things differently.  The bit about being responsible to others. I agree. I think social responsibility is important.  But not everybody talks how we are talking where there's an attempt for mutual understanding.  In fact, I would assert more times than not it ends up in a tug-o-war type situation where the end goal is to try and beat the other party. The more they tug, you tug, but that tug-o-war ends up leading to ignorance because the end goal is to win, not learn. In "reality" you win tug-o-war when you give a little.  My dogs do this. They pull, then they give some slack. That's how they win because by giving slack, they can exert more force when they pull the next time. So back to discussions, that same thing is optimal in conversations. If you give a little slack here and there for the sake of understanding and learning together, it can potentially be win-win. You come to a conclusion that makes sense, even if it's not 100 percent of what you started with.  More times than not, that is where the solution lies.  "Mom, he hit me"  No, Mom he hit me" When they probably both hit each other.

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think it's how you define it.  To me if any part of the truth isn't such, then it is a lie.  If you suggest it there can be "partial truth" then maybe, but that would be contextual. 

Very well, then allow me to explain my definitions.
To me, reality is that which is, that which exists, the physical world, its interactions and emerging properties.

A statement has a truth value attributed to it. A statement is true if it is an accurate representation of reality.
The partial truth you speak of may be an inaccurate description.
An example I like is how Newtonian relativistic motion is not exactly accurate, but, when it was developed, it was as accurate as possible. Nowadays, we have refined it to include relativistic effects from Einstein. Is our current description the most accurate possible? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the best we have.

Some people are convinced that their description of some aspect of reality is accurate, when it is far from it. I wouldn't label statements from such people as lies, but rather honest mistakes. I think most believers speak of gods from this stand point.

To me, a lie is a deliberate fabrication conveying an erroneous description of reality, masked as an accurate one.

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I don't think it works any different for "reality", and the two can be synonymous.  For me "truth would be "what we assert" and "reality" would be "how we live", but someone may come along and define those things differently. 

As I said above, I don't think those are synonyms. They should be close, but these two words describe different concepts.

I'm interested to hear more of your concept of reality. Care to elaborate a bit more, please?

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: The bit about being responsible to others. I agree. I think social responsibility is important.  But not everybody talks how we are talking where there's an attempt for mutual understanding.  In fact, I would assert more times than not it ends up in a tug-o-war type situation where the end goal is to try and beat the other party. The more they tug, you tug, but that tug-o-war ends up leading to ignorance because the end goal is to win, not learn.

LOL. I'm not sure what there is to win, in here
I'm mostly trying to understand your point of view on these things, while conveying my own in the hopes that any misunderstandings that arise from us attributing different connotations to particular words can be straightened out.

Also, I welcome the change of pace on this thread.

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: In "reality" you win tug-o-war when you give a little.  My dogs do this. They pull, then they give some slack. That's how they win because by giving slack, they can exert more force when they pull the next time. So back to discussions, that same thing is optimal in conversations. If you give a little slack here and there for the sake of understanding and learning together, it can potentially be win-win. You come to a conclusion that makes sense, even if it's not 100 percent of what you started with.  More times than not, that is where the solution lies.  "Mom, he hit me"  No, Mom he hit me" When they probably both hit each other.

True, true!

(December 7, 2018 at 5:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think it's how you define it.  To me if any part of the truth isn't such, then it is a lie.  If you suggest it there can be "partial truth" then maybe, but that would be contextual. 

Very well, then allow me to explain my definitions.
To me, reality is that which is, that which exists, the physical world, its interactions and emerging properties.

A statement has a truth value attributed to it. A statement is true if it is an accurate representation of reality.
The partial truth you speak of may be an inaccurate description.
An example I like is how Newtonian relativistic motion is not exactly accurate, but, when it was developed, it was as accurate as possible. Nowadays, we have refined it to include relativistic effects from Einstein. Is our current description the most accurate possible? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the best we have.

Some people are convinced that their description of some aspect of reality is accurate, when it is far from it. I wouldn't label statements from such people as lies, but rather honest mistakes. I think most believers speak of gods from this stand point.

To me, a lie is a deliberate fabrication conveying an erroneous description of reality, masked as an accurate one.

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I don't think it works any different for "reality", and the two can be synonymous.  For me "truth would be "what we assert" and "reality" would be "how we live", but someone may come along and define those things differently. 

As I said above, I don't think those are synonyms. They should be close, but these two words describe different concepts.

I'm interested to hear more of your concept of reality. Care to elaborate a bit more, please?

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: The bit about being responsible to others. I agree. I think social responsibility is important.  But not everybody talks how we are talking where there's an attempt for mutual understanding.  In fact, I would assert more times than not it ends up in a tug-o-war type situation where the end goal is to try and beat the other party. The more they tug, you tug, but that tug-o-war ends up leading to ignorance because the end goal is to win, not learn.

LOL. I'm not sure what there is to win, in here
I'm mostly trying to understand your point of view on these things, while conveying my own in the hopes that any misunderstandings that arise from us attributing different connotations to particular words can be straightened out.

Also, I welcome the change of pace on this thread.

(December 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: In "reality" you win tug-o-war when you give a little.  My dogs do this. They pull, then they give some slack. That's how they win because by giving slack, they can exert more force when they pull the next time. So back to discussions, that same thing is optimal in conversations. If you give a little slack here and there for the sake of understanding and learning together, it can potentially be win-win. You come to a conclusion that makes sense, even if it's not 100 percent of what you started with.  More times than not, that is where the solution lies.  "Mom, he hit me"  No, Mom he hit me" When they probably both hit each other.

True, true!

As we both know, definitions are important.  I have no doubt that you know that already, even in terms of study, and based on the conversation so far.

As far as reality, I believe it can be both objective and subjective.  One of the emerging (I think) trends is virtual reality.  If you experience something with a VR headset, is it reality?  Is it factual as an experience if I stated this phenomenon in terms of "truth" and "reality."

I did one of the VR experiences where you dive under water and a shark comes along and you have an interaction with the shark.  It was a real experience, but was it reality?  What is the determination of that reality?  Is it conceptual or is it dependent on realism by the objects within that construct?  I think it's all "yes" and "no", because it depends how I look at it.  It could mimic an actual experience with the same stimuli and reactions from the shark darting towards me.  My mind could conceive and even cause me to react by jumping, shaking, being nervous, or even anxious as to when and where the shark was going to show up next.  But does the conception of the stimuli, the feelings, the visualization, and everything else involved make it real?  If you took a blind poll, I can imagine many would say "yes" and likewise many would say "no" based on how they perceive the world and attribute value to things.  I don't think "truth" allows for that same option. Did I have an experience with a shark as defined by a dictionary?  (A: No, I had an experience with a computer simulation that attempted to replicate a shark.) If I claimed it was a "real" shark, people would probably tell me I was off my rocker.   Regardless, both concepts are important and I believe they can both be used to validate one another.  Additionally I'm sure I missed some variables in explaining this because there's so much that can go into discussing such a thing.

As far as the tug-o-war example, I believe optimization is important. When you have a tug-o-war match, optimally you would be having fun, even if it was competitive.  Even if you don't win, you can still smile, shake hands, and hope you come out on top the next time.  You didn't both win the match, but you both won because you had a fun experience.  It's not optimized when the purpose is to degrade or humiliate the other team.  Ridiculing or laughing at them because you won and they fell in the mud, or telling them they were wasting their time.  One party may go away happy, but both likely won't.  Then there's always things like, "I let you win." where the loser could try to degrade the winner by suggesting they were given the match, possibly because due to them being inept and the loser being kind enough to "throw em a bone" in that one.  Again, it's not optimal.

Anyway, regardless of what you find favorable, I don't think my view is necessarily better than your view.  It's how I view life. If I was raised differently with and in regard to different variables, my conclusions may very well be different and match more closely to your views.  We are all subject to something.  Some say it's "God" and others say it's "Randomness" or even something else.  But regardless, I think humanity is optimal when we attempt to become "solution-based" rather than "problem-based."  That way we're looking for answers to things rather than just looking to make more problems.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:46 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey.  I descended from the first man and woman.

 You are tecnically correct... but your reasoning for such things is totally wrong/weird.

Both present day monkeys and ourselves evolved from previous ape like ancestors. Going back far enough and you'll not be able to tell/see any differeance.

Not at work.

What were those ape like ancestors called?

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 2:46 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:  You are tecnically correct... but your reasoning for such things is totally wrong/weird.

Both present day monkeys and ourselves evolved from previous ape like ancestors. Going back far enough and you'll not be able to tell/see any differeance.

Not at work.

What were those ape like ancestors called?

Everena's.

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 2:46 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:  You are tecnically correct... but your reasoning for such things is totally wrong/weird.

Both present day monkeys and ourselves evolved from previous ape like ancestors. Going back far enough and you'll not be able to tell/see any differeance.

Not at work.

What were those ape like ancestors called?

"ape like"

You're welcome.

(December 7, 2018 at 7:04 am)Rahn127 Wrote: CDF - You probably have some 1st cousins, but just in case you don't, let's assume you do.

Your common ancesters are your grandmother & grandfather. You both have the same grandparents.

With 2nd cousins you both will have the same great grandparents. The great grandparents are a common ancester.

If we look at US Presidents for example. Their genealogy is well documented. If you go back far enough, you find that they all are distant cousins.

Former President Obama and Former President George Bush are 10th cousins, once removed, linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662.

10th cousins mean they share a common ancester.
In this case, the have the same great great great great great great great great great grandfather.
(Samuel Hinkley)

Obama & Bush share a common ancester.

If we compared the genealogy of everyone on this forum, you'll find we are all distant cousins with some common ancester. You just have to keep tracing back.

Homo sapiens.
Homo habilis.
Homo erectus.
Homo floresiensis.
Homo neanderthalensis.
Homo heidelbergensis.
Homo rudolfensis.

These are the various species of the homo group that we all descended from.

And if you trace their lineage back you find we share a common ancester with all the great apes and our closest cousins are chimpanzees.

I'm sorry to burst this bubble, but Adam, Lilith & Eve are a work of fiction. Human beings were never created from dirt or ribs.

You have been lied to your entire life and I know that must be hard to deal with.

By the way.... No Santa Claus either.

The information in DNA proves there is a Creator.  Evolution is part of the design.  Where I disagree is that we share a common ancestor with the great apes.  I believe we all descended from Adam and Eve, one man and one woman.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 7:12 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: No disputed by serious scientists.

Such as?

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote:   I did not evolve from a monkey. 

Strawman. Nobody is making that claim.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: I descended from the first man and woman.

No such thing. Want to claim there was? Provide evidence. You can't.

No fringe reset for you.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and others.

DNA shows we descended from one man and one woman.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 8:32 am)Amarok Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 10:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, I am not.  I have been wrong before but I don't think I am in this case.  There is no common ancestry with man and monkey.

Yes you are . Yes you are . There most definitely is

No, I am not.  No, I am not.  No, there most definitely is not.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 9:13 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:54 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

I'd go with.... is reality still there in the absence of all human/conscious minds?

(December 7, 2018 at 8:54 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.

I'd say it depends on the purpose.
If your purpose is to claim something about reality, then you'll have to apply all the science you can, for that is what science is all about: figuring out what reality is like and how it works.
If your purpose is to enjoy life, then you can live in your world, with your dogs, your mom, your video games and never need to care much about the intricacies of reality. Just go with intuition, for that works well enough.

The trouble arises when people intermingle these and claim something about reality based on their intuitions. Intuitions which are well known to produce faulty results in certain extreme conditions... such as those that we see here on this thread "DNA proves the Existence of a designer" - It looks like a super complex machine, so it must be designed, so, knowing that no human conscience was around at the time DNA came into being, there must have been an external designer, so let's call that god and move on. Right? This is what CDF has been saying all along, right? All the while, others have been pointing out that the evolutionary mechanism can, without any guidance or forethought, without intentionality or design, it can produce the very complexity we observe in the DNA machinery. It's difficult to conceive of all the steps that go from abiogenesis to DNA, and there is still much work left to be done in this field to show how it can be done, so this option is felt as impossible by many, given that their intuition is not sufficient to deal with the concepts involved. If evolution is impossible, then design is the only possibility, or so CDF claims.

The one thing I disagree with is I do agree there is evolution but I just define that as adaptions.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 12:13 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey

 
That's actually a blatant falsehood.
Among virtually ALL scientists in the fields which would deal with this, agree we and monkeys had a common ancestor.
This dude is ignorant and incompetent to say anything on the subject.

It's disputed.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 7:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote: What were those ape like ancestors called?

"ape like"

You're welcome.  

Thanks..LOL

Quote:It is disputed.

It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

(December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:It is disputed.

It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

It has been disputed.  Here's one example.

There are plenty more as well.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:It is disputed.

It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.