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

Jan Ardena said:
It can be known to be consistent with objective reality. But these are ultimately perceived.
Click to expand...

I used this example before, if I gave you an apple, do you perceive it as an apple or a banana? If an apple, then that is objective reality, a fact, the truth. If you perceive it as a banana, then it isn't an objective reality or a fact or a truth. That's how we as humans perceive things that are either truths or not.

The “Truth” is not a fact.
Click to expand...

Truth is based on facts and objective reality.

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”.
Click to expand...

Provide examples. The one example that comes to mind is God, which many theists will claim as "Truth" yet there are no facts or objective reality to support that claim.
 
Jan Ardena said:
No it’s not.
The truth has to be true
Just like the definition states.
The quality or state of being true.
Click to expand...

... based on objective reality and facts, just like the definition states. And, I know how much you are hung up on definitions.
 
Jan Ardena said:
...When asked to show that our meaning of thunder has changed.
Now you say there is evidence for this.
What is the evidence for this?
Click to expand...
You need evidence that people don't attribute thunder to gods throwing thunderbolts? Go out and ask somebody.
 
(Q) said:
... based on objective reality and facts, just like the definition states. And, I know how much you are hung up on definitions.
Click to expand...
Do you think the truth has to be known, for it to be truth?
Or do you think it is still “truth” whether it is known or not?
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
You need evidence that people don't attribute thunder to gods throwing thunderbolts? Go out and ask somebody.
Click to expand...
That’s okay?
Just has to dispel that idiotic atheist meme.

Any theist reading this.
You’ll find explicit atheists are full of nonsense like this. Challenge them. You will find that it’s all bluff.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Based on the definition of God?
Click to expand...

The definition of God does NOT have any references to facts, evidence, objective reality or truth. It is the individual who will claim God is truth, but their claim is not backed up in any way, definitions or otherwise.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Do you think the truth has to be known, for it to be truth?
Or do you think it is still “truth” whether it is known or not?
Click to expand...

If there are facts that are currently unknown to us, then they too would be considered truths.

Bacteria and viruses were not known to us but that doesn't mean they were not true. We now know they are facts.
 
(Q) said:
If there are facts that are currently unknown to us, then they too would be considered truths.

Bacteria and viruses were not known to us but that doesn't mean they were not true. We now know they are facts.
Click to expand...

So truth does not have to be known, for it to be true. Is that correct!
 
Jan Ardena said:
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.
Click to expand...
-_O Nonsense! Who said or inferred about any mythical IDer having to be subject to what he created, other then logic and common sense?
JFC mate, fair dinkum, you would make attempts of escaping some maximum high security prison!!
Or again as a great man noted....in all couragousness, honesty and sincerity....
 
Irony...swearing in a witness..."do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... say so help me God.

Fortunately a trial then proceeds to examine the evidence which is a careful review of the facts excluding all that is heresay.

Alex
 
Jan Ardena said:
Yes you can, when the “quality” is that of being true.
The “Truth” just is, regardless of evidence.
Click to expand...
Nonsense again, the truth is what is factual and is generally cast as a law within science circles. A theory is our bestest estimate/model according to the evidence available, some like the theory of evolution, being that close to fact, as being fact.
By the way, I never saw your answer to the numerous queries of what differences there are between Darwinism and the theory of evolution. NB: You do understand that the theory of evolution is often tinkered with, and improved as more and more data and knowledge becomes available?
 
paddoboy said:
By the way, I never saw your answer to the numerous queries of what differences there are between Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

Jan has refused to answer that question. I think we all know why.
 
paddoboy said:
-_O Nonsense! Who said or inferred about any mythical IDer having to be subject to what he created, other then logic and common sense?
JFC mate, fair dinkum, you would make attempts of escaping some maximum high security prison!!
Or again as a great man noted....in all couragousness, honesty and sincerity....
Click to expand...
It is of great comfort that the great man somewhat agrees with my proposition.

You clearly don't understand that ID is a serious scientific proposition in that their scientists having provided evidence of ID distance themselves from any claim as to who this designer may be...that would be un scientific ;).

And of course you must know their scientists have established the Earth is the centre of the universe with the Sun orbiting the Earth...you want proof..read your Bible and have faith.

Clearly God had a designer and that designer was human.


And don't tell anyone..the virus spreads by the use of toilet paper:)

Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top