(October 29, 2008 at 10:52 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If its not scientifically verifiable how can it be truth? Evidence please.

Truth (except in mathematical terms) is relative ... there's our truth, their truth and the facts and I genuinely suspect our truth is an awful lot closer to reasonable interpretation of the facts than theirs

I would argue that truth implies absolutes and therefore has relatively little to do with science.

Kyu

---

(October 29, 2008 at 10:30 am)ManofGOD Wrote: The old testament predates the time of Jesus and contains prophecies of his coming. The prophets also speak of the re-establishment of Israel, which has occured recently. Does this not constitute testimony? It is not scientifically verifiable, but it is truth!

Yeah ... the bible predicts things that come true in the bible and are verified by events in the bible!

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

Kyu

(November 3, 2008 at 6:22 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(October 29, 2008 at 10:52 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If its not scientifically verifiable how can it be truth? Evidence please.

Truth (except in mathematical terms) is relative ... there's our truth, their truth and the facts and I genuinely suspect our truth is an awful lot closer to reasonable interpretation of the facts than theirs

I would argue that truth implies absolutes and therefore has relatively little to do with science.

Kyu

---

Truth doesn't imply absolutes when you're talking about scientific truth which is what I'm talking about. Or if you prefer, scientific facts.

(October 29, 2008 at 10:30 am)ManofGOD Wrote: The old testament predates the time of Jesus and contains prophecies of his coming. The prophets also speak of the re-establishment of Israel, which has occured recently. Does this not constitute testimony? It is not scientifically verifiable, but it is truth!

Quote:Yeah ... the bible predicts things that come true in the bible and are verified by events in the bible!

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

Kyu

I agree.

(November 3, 2008 at 7:51 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Truth doesn't imply absolutes when you're talking about scientific truth which is what I'm talking about. Or if you prefer, scientific facts.

Maybe it's just me but, since no scientific explanation is beyond challenge, I genuinely don't see science as being about truth, simply facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same. Religion, OTOH, sees truth as non-negotiable (absolute).

Kyu

(November 3, 2008 at 9:46 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(November 3, 2008 at 7:51 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Truth doesn't imply absolutes when you're talking about scientific truth which is what I'm talking about. Or if you prefer, scientific facts.

Maybe it's just me but, since no scientific explanation is beyond challenge, I genuinely don't see science as being about truth, simply facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same. Religion, OTOH, sees truth as non-negotiable (absolute).

Kyu

Well scientific facts and truths, are basically theories that are so close to proven, that the probability of them being correct are so strong, that they're not absolute but they are very close to absolute. So they are called scientific facts/ truths etc...
I guess a scientific truth is another word for a scientific theory perhaps. I know that you often don't normally say scientific truths, but when you're talking about "what's true" and science, you can use this term.
I mean it is allowed.
I have heard Dawkins say it.
And like I said it is so close to absolute that it can still be called truth. Besides I don't believe in absolutes (that we can know of at the moment), I don't believe in "nothing buttery".
So am I never allowed to use the word truth at all because it means absolute and I don't believe in absolutes? With the exception perhaps that the start of the universe or universes perhaps there was something of only one part, extremely simple, before 'inflation' took place or whatever happened, happened. But other than that I don't believe in "absolutes", so can't I ever use the word truth? I think truth should mean almost absolute rather than absolute.

(November 3, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I have heard Dawkins say it.

And as I said earlier I disagree ... Dawkins, IMO, uses the worth "truth" in a poetic not a literal sense.

Kyu

(November 3, 2008 at 10:09 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(November 3, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I have heard Dawkins say it.

And as I said earlier I disagree ... Dawkins, IMO, uses the worth "truth" in a poetic not a literal sense.

Kyu

How is that disagreeing? thats what I think, I don't mean it in an absolute or literal sense either.
"Science is the poetry of reality" - Richard Dawkins.
Science does not speak in absolutes, nor do I think anything really does, thats what I'm saying too.

http://artasprayer.blogspot.com/2008/11/...rstar.html

hmmm

(November 3, 2008 at 10:12 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is that disagreeing? thats what I think, I don't mean it in an absolute or literal sense either.
"Science is the poetry of reality" - Richard Dawkins.
Science does not speak in absolutes, nor do I think anything really does, thats what I'm saying too.

Ah communication miscommunication

Sorry about that mate

Kyu

(November 4, 2008 at 5:38 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(November 3, 2008 at 10:12 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is that disagreeing? thats what I think, I don't mean it in an absolute or literal sense either.
"Science is the poetry of reality" - Richard Dawkins.
Science does not speak in absolutes, nor do I think anything really does, thats what I'm saying too.

Ah communication miscommunication

Sorry about that mate

Kyu

No problem. Sorry if I'm not very good at explaining my opinions