Objective Moral Truth

Post Reply New Topic

You probably thought rationally about it instead of "meditating" on it (whatever that was supposed to mean). I think most arguments presented in scripture and preaching are either plain irrational or simply based on claims that the authors never substantiate in a way that we can verify by observation.

The scientific method cannot be rationally substantiated in a way that can verify by observation. Scientists still use it. That's an act of faith.

I don't see how it's an act of faith to entertain doubt about an assertion that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

The scientific method doesn't make claims about reality, it merely proposes a way to test claims about reality. It's based on logic.

Contrastingly religions do make claims about reality, and most of them cannot be substantiated.

There are objects that can roll up. This one is at a University of Michigan lab. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTNsuP2aakk

I will say though that sometimes that testing the claims about reality can surprise me. I would never considered that there were objects that could roll up but here ya go.

You can go to different videos and see various people do this from scientific backgrounds. And, they explain how this is logically possible. It has to do with the center of mass.

I've read about the scientific method and you're right.

It’s impossible to rationally substantiate the scientific method by observational verification. Using the scientific method is an act of faith, not reason.

Also…It’s plenty reasonable to exercise a healthy level skepticism. My doubts are often whether some things really haven’t been demonstrated to be true. I don’t accept the premise that they haven’t been demonstrated to be true. Some things I know to be true whether anyone else believes it or not. For all I know, the supposed skeptic could be delusional or lying.

Actually if you watch the cone carefully you'll see it doesn't rise at all, it actually falls a little bit. So although the track goes uphill, the cone goes downhill. It only appears to go uphill if you're not watching carefully. It's a good illusion.

Lol, I had to watch it a few times but it does seem to have a bit of a hesitation when she first let's go of the double sided code. You are right, it does fall a bit and I did notice it when I watched carefully.

I will say that this is an awesome video and I enjoyed it.

It is an awesome illusion.

And, this demonstrates that senses can be fooled. If there truthfully is a God and maybe there is a God is God truthfully all powerful or did the people at the time who were bronze age people thought he was all powerful and ascribed this property based upon what they understood to be true and what was shown and demonstrated to them?

I believe Carl Sagan said that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Isn't part of being a Bible believing Christian is to make sure you are understanding what the Bible truthfully says and the very nature of God with accuracy and precision. Are we not to be aware of false prophets? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Isn't it the Christian's responsibility to make sure he or she is not fooled?


Even the Bible says that all scripture "2Tim.3 Verses 16 to 17

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

If the Scripture is inerrant, then why would it need reproof and correction?

Isn't part of the Christian's duties is to instruct in righteousness and to make sure that the instruction given is accurate, precise and free of contradictions? Isn't it their job to clear up confusion if the person being instructed is confused about what the scripture says, the nature of God and existence, and what you're talking about? And, why things mean what they mean instead of something else?

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kj ... od%20works.

Science has certain assumptions, but it doesn't deny they're only assumptions. Science overturns and corrects any assumptions that get shown to be wrong. But religious assumptions (articles of faith) are put forward as immutable absolutes.

And I don't think skepticism and science are the same thing. Skepticism is an important part of science because if you start adding faith then it tends to go wrong more often, because you're deviating from what you can show to be true.

You seem to be saying that it's OK to be skeptical. That was precisely the point I was making. Are you agreeing with me or not?

Until I got to the USA, my only experience of Christianity was Church of England, who don't usually try to claim that the entire Bible is correct from cover to cover. I was surprised that such a belief was still common in American Christianity. There are so many suspicious assertions in there that it would be strange if it all turned out to be correct. There are Biblical books purporting to be by one author that contain more than one literary style and it looks pretty clear that they were written by people with rather different backgrounds. There have been numerous edits over the centuries. Nobody knows what some of it means, as it wasn't initially written in plain English (it's impossible to translate between one language and another with perfect precision). It contradicts itself - Paul for example tells two different tales about what (he says) an angel told him. Some actions are deemed OK in one book and sinful in another. So how can the whole thing be absolutely, literally correct?