Hope this isn't too philosophical for you but: How does one determine a statement to be "true"?

Question

Take ANY statement as an example: "trees grow up from the ground". When you first heard this statement, at some point you thought "Yes, that sounds right to me..." and accepted it as fact.

The same can be asked of religious statements you read or are otherwise exposed to.

Answer 1

1. Logic
2. My trust of the source
3. Evidence

Answer 2

"The religious take as a basis assumption "there is a god". The atheist take as a basis assumption "there is no god"." True and false, depending on the context. You'd be surprised how many Theists (capitalized intentionally due to the context) start by constructing arguments to prove that a god exists, rather than just assuming it. Virtually all of the arguments are valid, although none of them are sound. "Basis assumptions in philosophy--like geometry--can't be proven or disproven." Technically that isn't true, but that isn't your question. "Isn't the question really which is most congruent with reality?" Yes, which is what philosophers of religion are trying to prove. "We have the god philosophy which requires cessation of natural laws at times, requires casuality not be a constant--requires the creation of mass and energy." For a theistic god, such as those advocated by Christians, Muslims, etc., that's a common belief (see the works of Leibniz for an interesting difference of opinion from a theistic philosopher). For other concepts of a gods, this isn't necessarily true. Deism, for instance. Also, causality became an interesting concept to explore after David Hume. Even though many regard his arguments to have been laid to rest, it's still interesting. "In fact the sum total of observations of human beings is in agreement with this position." I get your point, but this would be irrelevant to the truth. Just because we can't detect something doesn't mean it wouldn't be there (although, in true atheist spirit, I do acknowledge that, if there's no reason to believe in something, we probably shouldn't think it's true--and like most atheists, I know what it would take to change my mind). "So while we can't say that god exists or doesn't exist because it is not a valid question" Disagree. "can we agree that the atheist philosophical position is clearly more congruent with reality?" No, because there is no 'atheist philosophical position.' Atheism is a stance; the philosophies that atheists will adopt, which might assume or result in atheism, are very different. Just put an Objectivist and a Communist in the same room (and put a paramedic on standby) to see what I mean. I do think that atheism is congruent with reality, but that's a single fact and shouldn't be confused with either an assumption or an entire philosophical system.

Answer 3

Seeing is beleiving. You can see a tree growing from the ground. You know the sun rises in the east, because you see it. I have yet to see a man walk on water, calm a storm, raise the dead, heal the sick, or turn water into wine. That's where faith steps in. I don't have to have faith to know, if I play with fire, i will get burned.
But, it's touted too much as fact, that a man did all this in a book. One of the reasons I chose a different path is because too much was being asked of me in the word of faith, with no evidence.

Answer 4

first you must accept that what our senses perceive is real, which is an instinctive choice; you have to work at solipsism. all things that are based upon verifiable and testable aspects of perceived reality can be accepted as most probably true. some truths are provisional and liable to change with the accumulation of more information, some truths are self-evident, (if we accept reality at face value then trees do grow up from the ground). things that cannot be directly perceived or experienced, but can be conjectured from what we have already established to be true are probably true.
things that cannot be perceived or experienced and cannot be conjectured from what we have already established to be true, empirically and theoretically,(such as the supernatural), may or may not be true. if you accept it to be true your choice is totally subjecive and it is reasonable for others to reject it.

Answer 5

If a few people believe something, it's probably true. If an entire society believes something, it's brainwash. But a tree growing from the ground can hardly be considered true, it's simply fact.

Answer 6

Evidence

Answer 7

They say when reading the news paper only believe half of what you read. Hmmm I say, does this go for all books as well.

There is the reasonable doubt based on the balance of probabilities it may have happened and there is beyond reasonable doubt, where fact relates to the crime committed as proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Your DNA was allover the murder weapon and you were captured on closed circuit video TV and I say to you, you did it with nine hundred witness to testify against you.

So will you please plead guilty to the crime so I can go home.

Answer 8

How could this be explained. Well how did Abraham find that there is one true G-d without anyone telling him. I think I can only answer it with a question but it comes down to being able to see. It is beyond logic or verifiable experience.

Answer 9

nothing can be completely proven true or untrue because our senses are easily fooled. how often do you notice your blind spot? we can't experience what percentage of the spectrum? drugs and placebos (i.e. standard placebos, faith, and hypnosis) and dehydration and insanity can all cause delusion. how many people can look at a magic trick and instantly know how it's being done? our brains are not wired to be able to see the truth, if such a thing could even come about.

Answer 10

Everyone of us has a worldview, and everyone of us measures all statements against our worldview to see if they are believable. That is true with religious statements as well.

grace2u