Should we take Ray Comfort Serious? If no, what not?

[Jan Ardena]

Here's a dectionary definition of truth for you:

"that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality." https://www.google.com/search?q=truth definition&oq=truth definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8039j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8​

Which is exactly what I said.

That’s not the primary definition.
A fact can be proven to be true, or false.
The truth the quality or state of being true, meaning it is perfectly true.
The definition you decided upon is, based on what one believes, in accordance with what is proposed to be a fact, in connection with a perceived truth and reality.
Heavily inferior.

 

[(Q)]

That’s not the primary definition.
A fact can be proven to be true, or false.

Yes, that is the definition, Jan. There is no such thing as a false fact. Clearly, you don't understand the definition of ...

Fact - A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

 

[sideshowbob]

That’s not the primary definition.

So you admit that there is more than one definition.

A fact can be proven to be true, or false.

By evidence.

The truth the quality or state of being true, meaning it is perfectly true.

No, not "perfectly true". Just "true".

The definition you decided upon is, based on what one believes, in accordance with what is proposed to be a fact, in connection with a perceived truth and reality.

It's based on what is observed to be fact, what can be objectively agreed on by people with different worldviews, different religions, etc.

Heavily inferior.

Inferior to what? You haven't shown us any basis for the definition you propose.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Don't you get tired of being wrong? Ideas don't stem from definitions. Definitions stem from ideas.

No they don’t.
“Truth” isn’t an idea.
Neither is “God”.

 

[sideshowbob]

No they don’t.
“Truth” isn’t an idea.
Neither is “God”.

You're just denying. Don't you have an argument at all?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, that is the definition, Jan. There is no such thing as a false fact. Clearly, you don't understand the definition of ...

Fact - A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

It can be known to be consistent with objective reality. But these are ultimately perceived.
The “Truth” is not a fact. It could be said that it is a fact the the truth is not a fact, in which case you would be correct. But there is no need to state it as such. Evidence can appear to be true. So true that it could seemed a fact. But that evidence is not necessarily the “Truth”.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're just denying. Don't you have an argument at all?

Are you saying Truth is merely an idea?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you admit that there is more than one definition.

There’s more than one meaning, depending on the context. But primary definition, is the source of meanings and ideas.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By evidence.

Obviously.

No, not "perfectly true". Just "true".

No. Perfectly true, compared with half-truths, perceived truths, facts, ideas, opinions, etc...
All those comparisons can be considered “true”.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's based on what is observed to be fact, what can be objectively agreed on by people with different worldviews, different religions, etc.

But not necessarily the “truth”.
The “truth” is necessarily true.

Inferior to what? You haven't shown us any basis for the definition you propose.

That’s not true. It isn’t even perceived truth, as you don’t believe it.

 

[sideshowbob]

Are you saying Truth is merely an idea?

I didn't say "merely".

 

[sideshowbob]

There’s more than one meaning, depending on the context.

If there's more than one meaning, there's more than one definition, depending on context.

But primary definition, is the source of meanings and ideas.

You still have it backwards. Ideas are the source of definitions.

 

[sideshowbob]

Perfectly true, compared with half-truths, perceived truths,

Half-truths are statements. True is a quality. Two different things.

Nothing is "perfectly true". As you admit, truth is based on evidence and evidence is never perfect.

 

[sideshowbob]

The “truth” is necessarily true.

That's just word salad. It has no meaning.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's just word salad. It has no meaning.

No it’s not.
The truth has to be true
Just like the definition states.
The quality or state of being true.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Half-truths are statements. True is a quality. Two different things.

But they can be perceived as true.

Nothing is "perfectly true". As you admit, truth is based on evidence and evidence is never perfect.

“Facts” can be proven true by evidence. The truth doesn’t rely on evidence for it to be deemed true.Evidence relies on truth.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't know...why is it wrong to see intelligent design in the whole of nature?
Alex

Because it raises the age old question, who designed the intelligent designer?
Or to realize that if the universe was not the way we observe it, we would not be here to observe it...It's just the way it is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If there's more than one meaning, there's more than one definition, depending on context.

Meaning is not the same as definition.
We look at the definition of “truth”, or of “God”, then we can get meaning. If we don’t have a definition, there is no meaning.

 

[sideshowbob]

The truth doesn’t rely on evidence for it to be deemed true.

Yes it does. You can't just pull "truth" out of the air. You admitted thst truth is a quality, didn't you? Well, you can't determine the qualities of something without evidence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because it raises the age old question, who designed the intelligent designer?

It’s a trick question, which is why it always brought up.
If manifested nature is brought into being by an ID. Why would the ID be subject to His creation. The person who designed the game “The Simms”, is not subject to the rules and regulations of the game. It is the same with God.