[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Barbarian]

Many things that are true also happen to be facts. Remember what a fact is. It's something observable. Something that does not require interpretation to know. There are also things that are not facts, that happen to be true. Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed. Common descent is true, but it's not a fact, because one has to interpret facts to understand it.

According to the dictionary a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

Yep. Common descent is true, but is an inference, not a fact.

So, you disagree with the dictionary when you say that something can be true, yet not be a fact.

No, as you see, the dictionary is mostly right. In science, inferences cannot be proven to be true. They are only supported to the degree that it's foolish to deny them. A fact in science has a more specific meaning than it does in common usage. It has to be provable.

Sorry, Barbarian, but the dictionary is right, and you are wrong.

You've gotten confused again, Paul. Read it carefully.

So, were you, by your phrase, "common descent," referring to something that is true, then you'd be, therein, referring to something that is a fact.

No. It's an inference, not a fact. As Cantor and Goedel proved, truth is a bigger thing than provability. Would you like to learn why? Want to talk about the epistemological issues of truth vs. provability? Let me know if you'd like to learn more about it. It does have some important application to science denial.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It can be perceived by senses and can be documented.

What do you mean by "perceived by senses"?

No fact can be seen by the eyes or heard by the ears. The closest anyone comes to seeing a fact by their eyes is in seeing text on a page, or screen, through which text a fact is being expressed. But, the text seen by the eyes is not a fact; rather, it is merely the means by which a fact is being expressed. No fact has ever been set in a scale, or poured into a test tube. Though you disagree with the dictionary, fact is truth—a fact is something that is true. A dog is not a fact. A cat is not a fact. A tree is not a fact. A mountain is not a fact. An avalanche is not a fact. A process is not a fact. Rather, a fact is something that is true about a dog, or about a cat, or about a tree, or about a mountain, or about an avalanche, or about a process, etc. A fact is something that can be believed and/or denied, and so no dog, cat, mountain, rock, tree, etc. is a fact, since no dog, cat, etc., is something that can be believed and/or denied.

 

[Barbarian]

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Employing a diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorems were the first of several closely related theorems on the limitations of formal systems. They were followed by Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing's theorem that there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Barbarian]

No fact can be seen by the eyes or heard by the ears.

The mechanical watch on my desk is a fact. And yes, it can be seen by the eyes. You're just wrong about that.

A dog is not a fact.

So let's asks Merriam-Webster:

Definition of fact​

1a : something that has actual existence

Definition of FACT

something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The very first definition offered. I'm pretty sure a dog has an actual existence.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Many things that are true also happen to be facts. Remember what a fact is. It's something observable. Something that does not require interpretation to know. There are also things that are not facts, that happen to be true. Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed. Common descent is true, but it's not a fact, because one has to interpret facts to understand it.

Dictionary: fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."
Barbarian: "Many things that are true also happen to be facts."
Barbarian + dictionary: "Many things that are true also happen to be [things that are known or proved to be true]."

Dictionary: fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."
Barbarian: "There are also things that are not facts, that happen to be true."
Barbarian + dictionary: "There are also things that are not [known or proved to be true], that happen to be true."

Dictionary: fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."
Barbarian: "Common descent is true, but it's not a fact,"
Barbarian + dictionary: "Common descent is true, but it's not a [thing that is known or proved to be true],"

LOL

Why are you so addicted to embarrassing yourself like that, Barbarian? Sorry, Barbarian, but you'll never get away from your self-embarrassment as long as you continue in your war against truth and logic.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I'm pretty sure a dog has an actual existence.

I'm pretty sure a dog has a tail, and teeth, and a snout (except for any dog that happens to be missing a tail, and/or teeth, and/or a snout). What (if anything) do you mean by "existence"? Is "existence" supposed to be the name of something? If so, of what is it supposed to be the name? Is "existence" supposed to be the name of some part or property of a dog? If so, of what part or property of a dog is "existence" supposed to be the name?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The mechanical watch on my desk is a fact. And yes, it can be seen by the eyes. You're just wrong about that.

I never said your watch can't be seen by eyes.

Barbarian + dictionary: "The mechanical watch on my desk is a [thing that is known or proved to be true]."

So, Barbarian, how do you go about proving your watch to be true? And, how do you go about proving your desk to be true? Do you believe your desk? I mean, why would you not believe your desk, if your desk is true? Also, every thing that is true has its contradictory, which is something that is false. So, Barbarian, if your desk is true, then what falsehood would you say is contradictory to your desk?

 

[Barbarian]

(Paul makes up more things Barbarian never said)

Why are you so addicted to embarrassing yourself like that, Barbarian? Sorry, Barbarian, but you'll never get away from your self-embarrassment as long as you continue in your war against truth and logic.

Paul, it seems you think you can turn things around by semantics and by attributing things to me that I never said. It's very obvious, and it's doing you no good.

As you learned, there are lots of things that are true, that are not in evidence. They aren't facts, because they can't be proven.

So, Barbarian, how do you go about proving your watch to be true?

It's directly observable. One can verify that it's a fact by looking at it. Or by picking it up. Like your argument that a dog is not a fact, you've confused your beliefs with things that have an objective existence.

In your efforts to deny evolution, you're slowly pulling into nihilism. And that undermines faith in God. There are such things as dogs, and they are a fact. This isn't unique to you, BTW; a lot of creationists, when faced with evidence, begin by denying what is, and slowly end up where you're headed.

 

[Barbarian]

What (if anything) do you mean by "existence"?

The state of being. Since you seem to doubt that there is a fact of a dog, I'm wondering what (if anything) you mean by "existence."

 

[Barbarian]

I'm pretty sure a dog has a tail, and teeth, and a snout (except for any dog that happens to be missing a tail, and/or teeth, and/or a snout).

So why would you doubt that there is a fact of a dog?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The state of being. Since you don't think there is a fact of a dog, I'm wondering what (if anything) you mean by "existence."

I don't mean anything by "existence". Try to quote me using the word "existence" in any context other than 1) quoting your (or someone else's) use of it, or 2) referring to the word, "existence." You will fail, because I have not used the word, "existence," other than in those, two ways.

"Since you don't think there is a fact of a dog,"

I do not think you are referring to anything by your phrase, "a fact of a dog". I assume that, were you referring to a dog, you (if you were thinking rationally) would just say "a dog". I assume you wouldn't say things like, "The fact of me just took my fact of a dog for a fact of a walk in the fact of the park."

"The state of being"
The state of being what?

 

[Barbarian]

I don't mean anything by "existence".

That would explain your use of the term, I suppose.

"The state of being"
The state of being what?

It's a term in philosophy. It refers to existence. This is why I suggested you learn a little about epistemology. It would clear up a lot of confusion for you.

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps the weirdest issue in creationism, is the tendency of creationists to call each other heretics, if they don't happen to follow the "correct" form of creationism:

Beware Of The 'Young Earth Creation' Heresy!

Beware Of The 'Young Earth Creation' Heresy!

Beware Of The 'Young Earth Creation' Heresy!

jesusisprecious.org

Alternately:

“In my FIRST post I asserted in effect that for almost 18 centuries NO theologian who so much as professed the name of Christ (including therefore even the various heretics) held any form of old-earthism. Anyone may step up to cite a counterexample, but I’m not holding my breath. Kevin, how do you feel about teaching a doctrine that (among Christians) appeared completely out of the ether over 17 centuries after Christ? From that point of view, if THIS isn’t heresy, nothing deserves that name.”

Is accepting an old Earth heresy?

There has been some controversy regarding this post. I’ll do my best to clear up any misunderstandings here at the beginning: The author of the blog (DefendingGenesis) I reference accused me …

geochristian.com

In fact, neither of these are heresies. Since the Bible doesn't comment on either view, it's probably wrong to even call them "errors." They are merely modern interpretations of Genesis. It really should go without saying that adherents either of these views are no less Christians than any other believers in Christ.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

What (if anything) do you mean by "existence"?

The state of being.

The state of being what?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Your state of being unable to answer the question, "What (if anything) do you mean by 'existence'?"

 

[Paul E. Michael]

They aren't facts, because they can't be proven.

Could you please describe what, according to you, it is for the proposition, P, to be proven? What is the nature of what you would call "proving"?

This is why I suggested you learn a little about epistemology.

LOL

I'm right here, waiting patiently at the feet of Barbarian—the master scholar on epistemology—trying to learn a little about epistemology from him. Why does he refuse to share his vast insight?

 

[Barbarian]

They aren't facts, because they can't be proven.

Could you please describe what, according to you, it is for the proposition, P, to be proven?

Logical certainty.

What is the nature of what you would call "proving"?

It is essentially mathematical. This is why I suggested you learn a little about epistemology. As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science. Because science is essentially inductive, proofs are difficult at best in science. There are inductive proofs, but they don't work so will with hypotheses and verification. Would you like to learn more about that?

I'm right here, waiting patiently at the feet of Barbarian—the master scholar on epistemology

You know how hard epistemology is for barbarians. But it could untie some of those knots you're in.

Why does he refuse to share his vast insight?

You'd have to first spend some time reading the philosophers of the Enlightenment. They got some stuff wrong, but they were the first since the Greeks and Arabs to consider the question of how we know what we know. They re-established the notion of public reason, the exposition of one's arguments according to a rigorous examination of how that argument is formed. Worth a look.

The key for you is to know that there are things we know to be true, that cannot be proven. Truth is stronger than provability.

 

[Barbarian]

What (if anything) do you mean by "existence"?

The state of being.

The state of being what?

“To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do Be Do Be Do - Sinatra” ​

- Kurt Vonnegut (WFTH-I)

It's a term in philosophy. It refers to existence. This is why I suggested you learn a little about epistemology. It would clear up a lot of confusion for you. But now, you seem to have wandered off toward ontology (the nature of being).

Your state of being unable to answer the question, "What (if anything) do you mean by 'existence'?"

See above. Pick one. Aristotle thought only humans have being. But it seems clear enough that short of complete solipsism, lots of things have being.

Meantime, have you still not found any reason at all to believe that birds are not dinosaurs?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

But now, you seem to have wandered off toward ontology (the nature of being).

You seem to just be making noise because you like the sound of yourself making noise. Why did you react to my questions about your nonsensical use of the word, "existence," by bringing up epistemology?

The presence of pneumatized bones in dinosaurs is easy to demonstrate, and is a fact shown by physical evidence.

VS​

As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science. Because science is essentially inductive, proofs are difficult at best in science.

So, according to you, demonstrating is easy "in science", but proving is difficult at best "in science"? And, what about showing? Is showing easy "in science," or is showing difficult at best "in science"?

You say that proving is "not part of science". Would you also say that demonstrating is "not part of science," and that showing is "not part of science"?

Is proving that the proposition, P, is true not the same thing as demonstrating that the proposition, P, is true? Is proving that the proposition, P, is true not the same thing as showing that the proposition, P, is true?

What is the difference between proving that P is true and demonstrating that P is true?

One can verify that it's a fact by looking at it.

Barbarian, what is the difference between verifying that P is true and proving that P is true?

You say that proving that P is true is difficult at best "in science". Is verifying that P is true, also, difficult at best "in science"?

Both are obviously four-legged, so they are homologous for that trait; the anatomic details of shoulder, pelvis, number of long bones, etc. establish this fact.

Barbarian, what is the difference between establishing that P is true and proving that P is true?

You say that proving that P is true is difficult at best "in science". Is establishing that P is true, also, difficult at best "in science"?

 

[Barbarian]

But now, you seem to have wandered off toward ontology (the nature of being).

You seem to just be making noise because you like the sound of yourself making noise.

Some people find big words to be just confusing noise. I can understand that. Here you go...

Definition of ontology​

1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence
Better now?

Why did you react to my questions about your nonsensical use of the word, "existence," by bringing up epistemology?

Because you seemed confused as to how we know about these things, including existence, I suggested you could learn about them.

The presence of pneumatized bones in dinosaurs is easy to demonstrate, and is a fact shown by physical evidence. As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science. Because science is essentially inductive, proofs are difficult at best in science.

Barbarian, what is the difference between establishing that P is true and proving that P is true?

Here, you're confusing a fact, with an inference. Facts are things that are in evidence. Inferences are conclusions we make from evidence.

They are not proofs. Do you see why?

Barbarian, what is the difference between establishing that P is true and proving that P is true?

A fact is just evidence. So the presence of pneumatized bones and other structures of the avian respiratory system is observed in dinosaur fossils. The inference, that birds are dinosaurs is based on that and other evidence, as you have seen. The theory has been confirmed by all the evidence you just learned about. However, confirmed inferences are not proofs. Because logical certainty is not something you normally can obtain by inductive reasoning. Deduction involves proofs, because with deduction you know the rules and apply them to get the particulars. Induction involves observing the particulars and inferring the rules.

Since you seem to have abandoned your earlier claim that birds are not dinosaurs, we'll just assume you've figured it out now, and unless you make that assertion again, we'll let you go on it.

 

[Barbarian]

So why do so few pastors share the "Answers in Genesis" worldview? Mostly because they have studied this:

And it's not possible to reconcile "Answer in Genesis" teachings with that book.