path to truth

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Can you falsify the age of the universe, earth, or do you call those that do having blind faith? Can you falsify abiogenesis or do those that hold to that people of blind faith? Without seeing your answer I am almost willing to bet not being able to falsify isn’t applied equally to that which you support.

The estimated age of Earth is falsifiable on the basis of evidence that the radiometric age-dating of meteorite material is inconsistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

As regards abiogenesis, the falsification of the theory must be grounded on the basis of the impossibility to synthesize complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Any belief can be grounded on false or accurate evaluation of the mind herenow, however an untrue to you belief can well be true to me, and the opposite.

If one does not hold as provisionally or proven in practice true whatever one evaluates herenow or under any circumstances as true, then one has a problem. This has nothing to do with some kind of arrogance or hubris, as you appear to suggest.
😵

No an opinion can be wrong, truth is truth by definition isn’t wrong. You don’t seem to use some words as they are defined, instead just to suit you.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
The estimated age of Earth is falsifiable on the basis of evidence that the radiometric age-dating of meteorite material is inconsistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

As regards abiogenesis, the falsification of the theory must be grounded on the basis of the impossibility to synthesize complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
😵

So it really isn’t falsifiable it is just true according to your methods which is where you are going anyway, convenient if you ask me. You know your radiometic are correct, because that is what you use to date things.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No an opinion can be wrong, truth is truth by definition isn’t wrong. You don’t seem to use some words as they are defined, instead just to suit you.

This is false. Truth is under any circumstances and at any level of perception relative because is strictly depended on specific ever-changing causal fields and also on the way the bodymind of the sentients beings that perceive it is hard-wired to the Physical World. There is not other kind of "truth" available to us, for which we can comment.

If you think this is not the case, kindly please demonstrate an eternal, absolute and "objective" truth, and explain in detail:

How and by what means is not depended on an ever-changing causal field;

How and by what means can it be perceived by a sentient being absolutely in no dependence to her bodymind;

How can it be evaluated as "absolute truth" in strict separation from the purely subjective evaluation of the mind of the sentient being that conceives it and evaluates it as such;

How can it ever be eternal, since nothing in Kosmos is eternal;
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So it really isn’t falsifiable it is just true according to your methods which is where you are going anyway, convenient if you ask me. You know your radiometic are correct, because that is what you use to date things.

For one, of course both of them are falsifiable, as I just explained you. You repeatedly distort what I say. Why is that?

For two, the estimated age of the Earth is considered scientifically validated in practice and thus accurate herenow,

So, what exactly is your point?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
The estimated age of Earth is falsifiable on the basis of evidence that the radiometric age-dating of meteorite material is inconsistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

As regards abiogenesis, the falsification of the theory must be grounded on the basis of the impossibility to synthesize complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
😵

How about for abiogenesis you can tell us what the environment it occurred in, if you cannot is that blind faith? Tell us what combined and how, if you cannot is that blind faith? How about what life ate early on, or is that blind faith? What kept this life early on from avoiding both external and internal dangers so it all didn’t die off, or is that blind faith? You seem to have a very simplistic notion on what it takes to falsify abiogenesis!

Originally posted by @black-beetle
The estimated age of Earth is falsifiable on the basis of evidence that the radiometric age-dating of meteorite material is inconsistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

As regards abiogenesis, the falsification of the theory must be grounded on the basis of the impossibility to synthesize complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
😵

So as long as radiometric readings are actually giving us spot on readings of time, it’s not blind faith? Because if they were not....what than?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
This is false. Truth is under any circumstances and at any level of perception relative because is strictly depended on specific ever-changing causal fields and also on the way the bodymind of the sentients beings that perceive it is hard-wired to the Physical World. There is not other kind of "truth" available to us, for which we can comment.

If yo ...[text shortened]... and evaluates it as such;

How can it ever be eternal, since nothing in Kosmos is eternal;
😵

No again we disagree, if what you are referring to is only a matter of perception than it isn't
anything more than musing over something, truth isn't what is at stake only opinion. While
truth, under any circumstance isn't a lie, it isn't a fabrication, a world view, or perception
all of which might be settled within any given person, but truth isn’t a lie, it isn’t wrong, it
isn’t dependent upon someone to judge it so. You really spend too much time thinking we
are the bottom line in judging all things to be or not to be, as if we had that type of power.

So tell me how is something true, if is not, absolutely true? If I tell you a story and only
50% of it is true, is it a true story? How about if its 78% would it than be true? How about
if the key central point to the whole thing is a lie, but it is 99.9999% true, what than? You
have a low bar on accepting things without regard to them actually being true, you just
need to accept it I guess, no need for anything independent out side of yours or other's
point of views you value. If the world believes a lie, is it then truth, or a lie because it isn't
dependent on those who believe it?

You believe nothing in the Kosmos is eternal, that blind faith, a doctrine, a belief, hope, a
notion, theory? If you say fact, care to share how you know? Would you suggest this
statement of yours is true, as in absolutely true, or do you maintain there is no absolute
truth, and you know this is true absolutely?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No again we disagree, if what you are referring to is only a matter of perception than it isn't
anything more than musing over something, truth isn't what is at stake only opinion. While
truth, under any circumstance isn't a lie, it isn't a fabrication, a world view, or perception
all of which might be settled within any given person, but truth isn’t a ...[text shortened]... tely true, or do you maintain there is no absolute
truth, and you know this is true absolutely?

Of course we disagree.

So why don't you simply answer my question and educate me as regards your unjustified belief on the existence of "absolute truth", instead of keeping up deflecting?

In the meantime, I have not the slightest problem to reply to your questions although they have nothing to do with my approach. So I will tell you how is something considered true by me:

It is by any means considered "true" by me in the case I accept it as such due to the fact that it is proved by me or by our collective subjectivity true herenow in practice, on the basis of the accurate evaluation of the mind alone, which is grounded strictly on the way our bodymind is hard-wired to the Physical World. This truth is under any circumstances conventional and not abaolute.

This is the reason why all kinds of truth for which we can comment are strictly relative and mind-depended; and of course, when I say "mind-depended", I repeat I do not mean we are able to turn a mountain into a lake with the power of our mind, as you falsely keep up to assume.

Finally, when I say that a statement of mine is true, I mean that I consider it as such strictly subjectively and provisionally herenow because it is a part of a verified in practice herenow theory of reality. I do not suggest that it is a part of some kind of "absolute truth".
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
How about for abiogenesis you can tell us what the environment it occurred in, if you cannot is that blind faith? Tell us what combined and how, if you cannot is that blind faith? How about what life ate early on, or is that blind faith? What kept this life early on from avoiding both external and internal dangers so it all didn’t die off, or is that blind faith? You seem to have a very simplistic notion on what it takes to falsify abiogenesis!

I already told you that the falsification of the theory of abiogenesis must be grounded on the basis of the impossibility to synthesize complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. What is your point?
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So as long as radiometric readings are actually giving us spot on readings of time, it’s not blind faith? Because if they were not....what than?

No it is not blind faith. The method can be falsified; one has simply to prove that the process as regards the theory and the method on which the readings are grounded, is false; in that case, the method would be considered flawed, and the results based on the method would be considered false😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I already told you that the falsification of the theory of abiogenesis must be grounded on the basis of the impossibility to synthesize complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. What is your point?
😵

There are so many things that had to be just right for that to possible, including being able
to synthesize organic from inorganic which is just one of the last things that need to
happen. Being one of the last means there was so much more required before that, if we
just limited falsification to only that point in a mountain of requirements we do the topic a
disservice.

You call this belief in abiogenesis blind faith?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Of course we disagree.

So why don't you simply answer my question and educate me as regards your unjustified belief on the existence of "absolute truth", instead of keeping up deflecting?

In the meantime, I have not the slightest problem to reply to your questions although they have nothing to do with my approach. So I will tell you how is someth ...[text shortened]... enow theory of reality. I do not suggest that it is a part of some kind of "absolute truth".
😵

Speaking to you I think reminds me of talking to Mormons when I first became a Christian.
I spent a couple of frustrating hours with them, we were talking about the same subject,
even using the same words, and it was frustrating because we were not saying the same
thing. it is not much different with your use of the words truth and reality. You always
make it about you and not truth and reality.

I pointed out to you all truth is absolutely truth, if were a lie, if it were a fabrication, if it
were imaginary, some ideal, anything to do with my approval than we are talking about
me and what I think. I have chairs around my kitchen table, that is a true statement if you
believe it or not it is. I believe the universe is much younger than many believe and
accept, while it is true I believe that, how old the universe is remains beyond me and
everyone else. So I give you my opinion not the age of the universe.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No it is not blind faith. The method can be falsified; one has simply to prove that the process as regards the theory and the method on which the readings are grounded, is false; in that case, the method would be considered flawed, and the results based on the method would be considered false😵

You mean it doesn't matter if we can validate the results as being accurate and true? I'm
not talking about getting the same results each time the thing is used, but knowing if those
results mean what we say they do? Unless, it doesn't matter what they mean, it only
matters what we say, because what we say and think is more true than the 'reality'
or 'truth' of what actually is?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You mean it doesn't matter if we can validate the results as being accurate and true? I'm
not talking about getting the same results each time the thing is used, but knowing if those
results mean what we say they do? Unless, it doesn't matter what they mean, it only
matters what we say, because what we say and think is more true than the 'reality'
or 'truth' of what actually is?

If someone says
I do not know how the universe came into being
I do not know how the universe is "fine tuned"
I do not know how life started
I do not know how man evolved
I do not know ANYTHING

Is that proof of a god?