Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

No. If they actually believe in God may be different than if they just say that they do. Our words and our actions tell the world about us and hopefully more than that. Hopefully they tell the world about the God that we serve.

How do you know if someone's belief in God gives them an accurate view of the objective reality?

But if a person says they do not believe in God, I'm not going to as much consider that what they have to say might be of some spiritual benefit to me.

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God?

 

[Jacob]

You totally skirted my question with that.

Not at all. I answered what I was able to answer with.

Objective reality is objective truth.

Why do you say this? My understanding is that truth corresponds to reality not that truth is reality. But objective truth is similar to objective reality in that it speaks to our desires to both be objective ourselves and to experience life as really is and not be confused or living a lie. There are many delusions in the world. I know the Bible talks about a strong delusion to believe the lie, though you may see that as off subject. But I say the truth is better than a lie every time.

There is only one objective reality, there are a multitude of subjective perspectives.

Yes.

Can you now answer this:

Yes, we are all in a predicament of trying to align our subjective view of the world with the objective reality. And how do you think that is best accomplished?

Certainly there are things you know because of God (whether you are a believer or not). You can start with that.

 

[noguru]

Not at all. I answered what I was able to answer with.

No, actually you did not. I can tell you are trying to be slippery here. This only undermines your credibility with me even further.

Why do you say this? My understanding is that truth corresponds to reality not that truth is reality. But objective truth is similar to objective reality in that it speaks to our desires to both be objective ourselves and to experience life as really is and not be confused or living a lie.

How is objective reality different than objective truth (you can use an example of where you think they are different if need be.)?

Certainly there are things you know because of God (whether you are a believer or not). You can start with that.

So you think there are things that a believer knows that do not need to be verified? How do you determine what those things are (you can give me a list if you think that will work)?

 

[Jacob]

How do you know if someone's belief in God gives them an accurate view of the objective reality?

Just believing in God is not the point. The point is that if you do not believe in God and I do there is a major disconnect between what I believe and what you (any person) believe. A person who does not believe in God has nothing worthwhile for me spiritually. Those who do believe in God... well, so do I. And God reveals things to individuals who have put their trust, hope, and faith in Him.

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God.

Remember I said each idea stands on its own merit. If you are going to objectively evaluate truth claims. I realize people sometimes come up with and speak these claims themselves, or borrow what others have said.

So, no... I verify them more thoroughly. This is because I rarely point out error in the non-believer, unless I can at the same time explain the truth with them. But fellowship with believers is not like that. It involves comparing what people say with the word of God.

 

[Jacob]

No, actually you did not. I can tell you are trying to be slippery here. This only undermines your credibility with me even further.

I cannot speak beyond my experience and what I am given to speak at any moment. I don't claim to know everything. There are things I have learned growing up, and it was an uphill battle. Without explaining those things to you I have no idea if God will allow me to speak further to you (especially about things that are not even yet in my mind, whether they are brought to remembrance by your response or not).

How is objective reality different than objective truth (you can use an example of where you think they are different if need be.)?

An example would be in the case of a car accident. Differing perspectives or opinions might hint at the truth, but the fact of the accident is clear. The details, when seen from God's perspective, are the objective truth. Even as much as the individuals who have observed would have their perspective and subjective opinions about those details.

So you think there are things that a believer knows that do not need to be verified? How do you determine what those things are (you can give me a list if you think that will work)?

That God created the world is one thing that does not need to be verified, because we know it to be true. How God created the world is a different question.

 

[noguru]

Just believing in God is not the point. The point is that if you do not believe in God and I do there is a major disconnect between what I believe and what you (any person) believe. A person who does not believe in God has nothing worthwhile for me spiritually. Those who do believe in God... well, so do I. And God reveals things to individuals who have put their trust hope, and faith in Him.

How do you determine whether you should more thoroughly verify another person's claims if they are a believer, or if they are not a believer (you can leave the things you consider spiritual out this analyses if it makes things simpler for you)?

Remember I said each idea stands on its own merit. If you are going to objectively evaluate truth claims. I realize people sometimes come up with and speak these claims themselves, or borrow what others have said.

So, no... I verify them more thoroughly. This is because I rarely point out error in the non-believer, unless I can at the same time explain the truth with them. But fellowship with believers is not like that. It involves comparing what people say with the word of God.

I am not asking about whether you point out errors with other people. I am talking about claims made to you by people. I will ask this again;

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God (you can leave out the things you believe are spiritual issues for now if that makes it simpler for you - we can get into that later)?

 

[Jacob]

How do you determine whether you should more thoroughly verify another person's claims if they are a believer, or if they are not a believer (you can leave the things you consider spiritual out this analyses if it makes things simpler for you)?

I am not asking about whether you point out errors with other people. I am talking about claims made to you by people. I will ask this again;

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God (you can leave out the things you believe are spiritual issues for now if that makes it simpler for you - we can get into that later)?

You are asking do I and how do I. Are you clear that those who claim they believe in God should be evaluated more thoroughly than those who do not? Be mindful that some people are new in the faith.

So, no... I verify them more thoroughly.

It's not a matter of trying to find people to defeat in argument, but in explaining what we know to be true... our hope in believing.

It may be difficult to determine if some claims by themselves are said by believer or unbeliever, but there is always spiritual significance in the things we say.

 

[noguru]

An example would be in the case of a car accident. Differing perspectives or opinions might hint at the truth, but the fact of the accident is clear. The details, when seen from God's perspective, are the objective truth. Even as much as the individuals who have observed would have their perspective and subjective opinions about those details.

How is the objective reality different than the objective truth in this example?

That God created the world is one thing that does not need to be verified, because we know it to be true. How God created the world is a different question.

Very good, I agree.

But how do you determine who has more credibility (do you verify the believer as thoroughly as the non-believer) on the matter of "how God created the world"?

 

[noguru]

You are asking do I and how do I. Are you clear that those who claim they believe in God should be evaluated more thoroughly than those who do not?

I verify all claims by all people equally in regard to how thorough. I never claimed to place less effort in verifying non-believers, I asked you the question:

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God (you can leave out the things you believe are spiritual issues for now if that makes it simpler for you - we can get into that later)?


Will you answer that?

It's not a matter of trying to find people to defeat in argument, but in explaining what we know to be true... our hope in believing.

I never said it was a matter of "defeating someone in argument". I was not even thinking along those lines. Those are your words. I am trying to discover your method for getting your subjective perspective as much in line with the objective reality as humanly possible. Can you explain how you do that?

 

[Jacob]

How is the objective reality different than the objective truth in this example?

The way things are is different from the way people perceive them to be.

Very good, I agree.

But how do you determine who has more credibility (do you verify the believer as thoroughly as the non-believer) on the matter of "how God created the world"?

That's a great question. I believe it is more important that the believer understand that God created the world than to understand how God created the world. Also, how God created the world may or may not be relevant to man's redemption in Jesus Christ.

 

[Jacob]

I verify all claims by all people equally in regard to how thorough. I never claimed to place less effort in verifying non-believers, I asked you the question:

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God (you can leave out the things you believe are spiritual issues for now if that makes it simpler for you - we can get into that later)?


Will you answer that?

It depends on what you mean.

I never said it was a matter of "defeating someone in argument". I was not even thinking along those lines. Those are your words. I am trying to discover your method for getting your subjective perspective as much in line with the objective reality as humanly possible. Can you explain how you do that?

I know those are my words. I am the one who said them.

I compare what people say to what the Bible says, and if they do not understand something then I try to help them. If I am the one that needs help then so be it.

 

[noguru]

It depends on what you mean.
I know those are my words. I am the one who said them.

I compare what people say to what the Bible says, and if they do not understand something then I try to help them. If I am the one that needs help then so be it.

I said you can leave the things you consider spiritual matters out of this.

I'll ask you again:

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God (you can leave out the things you believe are spiritual issues for now if that makes it simpler for you - we can get into that later)?

I am trying to discover your method for getting your subjective perspective as much in line with the objective reality as humanly possible. Can you explain how you do that?

 

[Jacob]

I said you can leave the things you consider spiritual matters out of this.

I'll ask you again:

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God (you can leave out the things you believe are spiritual issues for now if that makes it simpler for you - we can get into that later)?

I am trying to discover your method for getting your subjective perspective as much in line with the objective reality as humanly possible. Can you explain how you do that?

I believe all matters are spiritual in nature.

 

[noguru]

The way things are is different from the way people perceive them to be.

That does not answer my question. You and I already agree that there are a multitude of subjective perspectives. The way people perceive things is a subjective perspective, it is not an objective truth or reality.

How is the objective reality different than the objective truth in the car accident example you gave?

That's a great question. I believe it is more important that the believer understand that God created the world than to understand how God created the world. Also, how God created the world may or may not be relevant to man's redemption in Jesus Christ.

I do not agree. I think understanding "how" is also important, though I agree that it is probably not relevant to redemption given that we are all ignorant of various things. But I am talking about people who are researching this "How God created" question.

How do you determine who has more credibility (do you verify the believer as thoroughly as the non-believer) on the matter of "how God created the world"?

 

[noguru]

I believe all matters are spiritual in nature.

Great, then you can still answer these:

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God?

I am trying to discover your method for getting your subjective perspective as much in line with the objective reality as humanly possible. Can you explain how you do that?

Your answer does lead me to another question though;

If your car breaks down and you have a choice between 2 mechanics. One is a Christian and you have heard many horror stories about the repairs from this person. The other is an atheist and you have only heard good things about his service. Both mechanics tell you they know what they are doing, would you choose the Christian over the atheist?

 

[Jacob]

That does not answer my question. You and I already agree that there are a multitude of subjective perspectives. The way people perceive things is a subjective perspective, it is not an objective truth or reality.

How is the objective reality different than the objective truth in the car accident example you gave?

Reality is the way things are, and the truth is the explaining of the way things are.

I do not agree. I think understanding "how" is also important, though I agree that it is probably not relevant to redemption given that we are all ignorant of various things. But I am talking about people who are researching this "How God created" question.

Well, people know God created. But God says in the Bible that some have suppressed this truth.

How do you determine who has more credibility (do you verify the believer as thoroughly as the non-believer) on the matter of "how God created the world"?

I generally go by what the Bible says.

Great, then you can still answer these:

So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God?

I am trying to discover your method for getting your subjective perspective as much in line with the objective reality as humanly possible. Can you explain how you do that?

I read the Bible and compare.

Your answer does lead me to another question though;

If your car breaks down and you have a choice between 2 mechanics. One is a Christian and you have heard many horror stories about the repairs from this person. The other is an atheist and you have only heard good things about his service. Both mechanics tell you they know what they are doing, would you choose the Christian over the atheist?

You might be able to encourage the Christian in the things that are true, but conversely you may be able to minister God's love to the unbeliever. I believe you are free to make either choice.

 

[noguru]

Reality is the way things are, and the truth is the explaining of the way things are.

So in essence they are the same. When I claim to speak the truth. The "truth" is my attempt to accurately report the objective reality, right?

I generally go by what the Bible says.

On automotive repairs?

I read the Bible and compare.

You compare it to what?

You might be able to encourage the Christian in the things that are true, but conversely you may be able to minister God's love to the unbeliever. I believe you are free to make either choice.

This does not answer my question at all. You are way out in left field here, and I do not appreciate your attempts at obfuscation. I did not ask you about "encouraging the Christian" or "converting the atheist". I asked this question:

If your car breaks down and you have a choice between 2 mechanics. One is a Christian and you have heard many horror stories about the repairs from this person. The other is an atheist and you have only heard good things about his service. Both mechanics tell you they know what they are doing, would you choose the Christian over the atheist?

 

[noguru]

Well, people know God created. But God says in the Bible that some have suppressed this truth.

How do you determine who is "suppressing the truth"? What is your methodology (how do you get as close to the objective reality/truth as humanly possible) for determining that in regard to "How God created"?

 

[Jacob]

So in essence they are the same. When I claim to speak the truth. The "truth" is my attempt to accurately report the objective reality, right?

Sure. This may be different from the objective truth, however.

On automotive repairs?

No.

You compare it to what?

I compare what people say to what I read in the Bible.

This does not answer my question at all. You are way out in left field here, and I do not appreciate your attempts at obfuscation. I did not ask you about "encouraging the Christian" or "converting the atheist". I asked this question:

If your car breaks down and you have a choice between 2 mechanics. One is a Christian and you have heard many horror stories about the repairs from this person. The other is an atheist and you have only heard good things about his service. Both mechanics tell you they know what they are doing, would you choose the Christian over the atheist?

Sir, with all respect... you could do both.

How do you determine who is "suppressing the truth"? What is your methodology (how do you get as close to the objective reality/truth as humanly possible) for determining that in regard to "How God created"?

I know God is ultimately the judge in such situations.

What really matters is that people know the gospel.

 

[Jacob]

The Book of Beginnings, meaning the book of Genesis, talks about the creation... for starters.