posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
I understand exactly what you mean, but this is precisely why I recommend everyone starts off with a mindset that they are wrong. For one, if you
believed yourself to be right, in the end, you're going to find out you were right. Don't take this next analogy the wrong way - but if you were
guilty of a crime and were, obviously, found guilty, in your mindset you would find as many ways as you can to prove yourself innocent, because you
feared prison. The problem is, when you actually ARE guilty, there's no evidence to prove otherwise, so obviously, the truth would stand out after
I do my research as well, I've spent countless hours doing personal research, and many more hours debating against others, and I've tried to
disprove my beliefs many times. I could talk about how I believed the grand canyon was formed over millions of years, as it was something I was taught
in school - but again, truth has a funny way of sticking out. Then I was taught, "the great flood created the grand canyon, and Noah's ark was
real" - "What!", I said to myself, "how can anyone believe in this?"
Turns out, the Huvusapai Indians are just one example of a tribe of Indians who live where the Grand Canyon is today, and they have stories apart of
their culture that teach of a great flood that covered the world, which created the Gran Canyon - one example of over 270 stories globally.
Ultimately, Truth stands out above all else. Evidence for Truth exists through all time, and it cannot be kept hidden. I've learned this the hard
way, take my word for it.
i do not understand the point you try to make
but i appreciate that at least we're debating in a sensible way
this is becoming scarce so: appreciated!
as you might have guessed, i'm using scientific methods to try to start some understanding of reality,
being inspired by the ideas in Poppers' Falsification Theory. Basically i "know" i will never know what is true. contrary to belief, science (in
theory, the daily practice - i admit - is different, unfortunately) aims at getting rid of temporary "truths", tries to kill its theories, which
gives it a very dynamic nature, a nature that corresponds better with what i think is a feature of reality: it's dynamic.
So basically science can't tell you something is "eternally true", but it can tell you when things are wrong. If a stupid book tells a story of a
guy that was killed by roman soldiers and that guy rose from the dead, science comes in very handy to dismiss this story as non-factual. If it's
presented as fact, count on my verbal response. If it serves other purposes... well, fine, just don't bother me with it as it distracts me from my
attempt to further understand reality.