Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Existance of "Christ"

" Unfortunately most people are more interested in convincing themselves and others that what they believe is true, rather than wanting to beleive what is true."

It's not about believing, it's about discovering. The problem is that religious types (and some others) commonly just decide what they want to believe and then go about justifying their belief. There's no serious asking "what's true?"

Religions is an attempt to define Truth, rather than discover it.

For once Falliable I agree with you but I'd rewrite your last sentence

FROM:

"Religions is an attempt to define Truth"

TO:

"Religions is an attempt to DICTATE Truth"

Their definition is that their truth is the correct one and that all others are misguided or worse.

some truths are personal and should only be discovered by the person, not dicated to others. (note, this is completely different that scientific facts. truths and fact are not necissarily the same things)

If it doesn't exist ... claiming it does is a lie.

It is no more complex than that.

truths exist that cant be proven. its not a fact if they cant be. some things are truths only for the person that discovers them.

fact: the sun appears to rise in the east. any one with eyes and even a small amount of sense will know that. it can be proven.

just because a truth cant be proven, this does not mean its a lie.

here is an example. a disabled athlete may be the very best, yet there are many athletes that are better. why, because he has pushed himself to the point where he has overcome his disability. he may never be able to run a three minute mile. but he's a champion. that is a truth, but prove it. cant be done. the only measure that exist for measuring if he is a champion or not, is inside of him. since it cant show up on a x ray, cant be tested, cant be dissected you can only measure it by his standards. it exist, it is a truth, but it does not fit the definition of a fact.

another example: "christ is the son of god". prove it. unless you can get god and christ to come in to court and give dna, your not going to prove it. The bible says he is, but that only works if you beleive the ppl that wrote it. IF you believe that he is, and IF your heart and soul says its the truth, then its the truth.... FOR YOU. IF your heart and soul says that, then by all means believe it, keep in close, and cherish it for all time. Just dont expect me to believe it if i dont feel it.

Another Christ story!

It seems that some of the members profess the belief in the concept that Jesus Christ was the son of "god" but keep searching for some new found proof. Why is that? Is that a part of their scripture that starts with, "let ye of little faith..." that they fail to understand or are they just doubtful? I would run a poll but I doubt it would prove anything more than what we observe. The proof is in the history if you choose to believe. Confirmation is unnecessary.
I do not consider Jesus to have any relationship to any god, past or present, but if I could bring myself to accept the fact I would not be seeking confirmation from non-believers.

Make you choice and grow with it.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"truths exist that cant be proven."

There isn't enough ergot fungus on the planet to make me believe your preposterous fabrication.

Facts are provable.

If something is not probable ... it is not a fact.

Get a book and read it if you can.

Dan,

He did say 'truths' and not facts.

Einstein's relativity theory was not provable right away. But it was correct - so it was always a truth.

So truths exist that cannot be proven - doesn'tmean they will always be unprovable - doesn't mean they aren't truths.

Of course you can prove relativity theory in a lab with pencil lead (graphene) now :-)

Blacknad.

Granted: And the difference between 'truths' and 'facts'? Can you define the difference and provide a clear example that elminates the gray area inbetween?

Assuming you have access to a dictionary:

Webster's dictionary defines truth as being the "body of real things, events, and facts," in other words the colollected facts and events create the truth.

Care to dissemble ... be my guest.

facts are things that are proven. like that an object will fall if it is not supported in earths gravity. even if its in orbit, its still falling, just its falling around the earth.

Truths are usually things that are a bit more personal. things like the Christian's saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". it not a fact that will protect you from evil hearted people, but its a truth about the way they want to live.

a wiccan truth is the return of three. that means what ever you do, in some form will return to you three times. If you deliberately go out to harm others, you will be harmed three time as much. i cant prove to you, a non believer, but i know its true. that is why you find very few warlocks (male or female) in Wicca. If they betray the craft, they will be betrayed by it three times. Try to prove that to an atheist, and he will come up with all kind of excuses why those three betrayals occur.

since you brought up Websters, here's more of it

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions

spiritual truths cant be proven, they can only be believed.

here's is another example. prove to me that Christopher Columbus actually set foot on any par of the 'new world'. there is no remaining proof, save the words of people who wrote what they saw then, or his own words, all of which could have been falsified. yet to day, it is an accepted truth that he discovered America, even though there is no evidence that he ever saw it with his own two eyes. He did discover the Americas meaning all the land in this hemisphere.

dehammer dissembles:
"Truths are usually things that are a bit more personal."

And you found this definition where? In a box of breakfast cereal?

I gave you Webster's dictionary and you give me a blivet.

no, you gave me a snip it of webster's dictionary definition and i gave you back a fuller one that included the religious aspect. It would appear that you dont accept webster's including religion as part of a defintion. either take it all or dont bother quoting it.

That's a bit unfair.

It was once considered a fact that the earth was flat, but the truth all along was that it was round.

Therefore facts change with our understanding, but the truth of the matter never alters.

There are many things we consider fact at this time, but 'in fact' will be discovered to be false. So at this point in time we consider them fact but that does not make them true.

Blacknad.

dehammer wrote:
"no, you gave me a snip it of webster's dictionary definition and i gave you back a fuller one that included the religious aspect."

One that you wrote yourself or one from a recognized book? Name the book. Name the edition. Name the page.

Lying is a sin!

Blacknad wrote:
"It was once considered a fact that the earth was flat, but the truth all along was that it was round."

That my friend is dissembling.

It has never been a fact that the earth was flat.

And neither has saying so been the truth.

It has, at best, been a error in judgement stated with conviction.

That my friend is not dissambling. Dissembling is a conscious attempt to mislead or conceal the truth. I'm prepared to admit it was dodgy thinking - but not dishonest. Would I lie to you?

But there is surely some mileage in the idea that what we consider fact is sometimes different from the truth. Science surely has its share of accepted facts that have later been shown to be false and revised. The truth never changed but our understanding of the facts did.

Come on Dan - give me a little encouragement - let me win an argument. I won't tell anyone.

Blacknad.

Not a conscious effort on your part ... that wasn't what I meant. But anyone that says this was once a common belief is ... it was not ... that is just urban legend.

I see nothing wrong with the dictionary definition other than the fact that it requires those that are incorrect to be willing to step up and acknowledge it. Something sorely lacking in most here at SAGG.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=truth

you should know about lying, since its you're so good at it. my definition has the same wordings as yours, which means they likely came from the same source. you did not give your source. that means you likely saw the same definition i did, but choose to exclude the part that did not agree with you. lying by omission is still lying.

you really should study history, at least read a book about it, before making statements. it was not an urban myth, it was what everyone believed was a fact.

urban legend
Function: noun
: an often lurid story or anecdote that is based on hearsay and widely circulated as true <the urban legend of alligators living in the sewers> -- called also urban myth (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/urban%20myth)

note that this says 'widely'. i forget who was the first one to notice that two wells dug straight down, in two latitude, had different angles of sunlight. I do know that his theory that the earth was round was not accepted at the time. this does not meet the cryteira of urban legend. it meet the cryteria of accepted facts. accepted facts change when evidents that they are wrong comes. urban myth's ignore the facts. aligators in the sewers has been proven to be an urban myth, with no evidence to back it up, yet it remains. the accepted fact of a flat earth was changed when the scientist of the day disproved it.

dehammer wrote:
"it was not an urban myth, it was what everyone believed was a fact."

Oh really? Where is even a shred of evidence that your statement is valid? Do you have a refernce?

I can easily provide evidence it is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

You might want to look up the word "ignorance" in your copious spare time.