"I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth."
Not exactly. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is both true and fact. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. It's a fact that he owned slaves. It doesn't matter that some people don't "subsc…
"I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth."
Not exactly. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is both true and fact. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. It's a fact that he owned slaves. It doesn't matter that some people don't "subscribe" to these facts. Those people are wrong. Or they're redefining terms so that we're not talking about the same thing anymore.
But was George Washington a good man? Well, that's not a matter of truth or fact. We can both have our opinions about it, we can present our reasoning for those opinions and all that's required is that the reasoning should also be based on facts, even if the conclusions are dumb.
You could say, for example "Washington owned slaves and all slaveowners were evil" or "he founded America and all Americans are good" and we can argue or agree to disagree and that's all fine.
But if you say he was good because he gave women the right to vote or evil because he gassed the Jews, you are wrong. And every conclusion you build on these incorrect facts is that much more likely to be wrong too.
Again, there is a difference between fact and opinion. And one of the biggest problems we face right now is that people are losing track of that very important difference. As for God being the arbiter of truth, I'll take that claim seriously once we establish God's existence or establish the veracity of a single one of the truths "he" has told us.
p.s. Science doesn't define gravity as a mathematical equation. It calculates gravity's effects using mathematical equations. This is a different thing.
Newton literally defined gravity as a mathematical equation.
Many would claim that all science is defined as mathematical concepts.
Science can disprove the existence of gods by coming up with a mathematical equation that predicts the future. That was the premise behind Asimov's Foundation Theory.
Truth ideally is the same as fact where a fact is proved by science but society doesn't always use truth that way.
Its arbitrary to use the term truth or true. It can mean multiple things.
a. The standard definition - something that is factual - i.e. scientifically proven
b. The judicial definition - something agreed to by judges or a jury
c. The religious definition - something only God defines.
d. The common definition - something someone believes by saying that's the truth.
That's the bottom line that Tim Rice stated so eloquently - "But what is truth, is truth unchanging law. We both have truths, are mine the same as yours".
Even in this discussion we are debating what is truth.
One more additional comment on your "historical" reference to truth by stating it's true that George Washington was the first president. Have you read 1984? Is Critical Race Theory true?
I get it, in an ideal world things like George Washington being the first president would never be challenged. But we don't live in that ideal world. We live in a world where truth is subjective to the beholder. Its wise to start with that "truth". ;)
"I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth."
Not exactly. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is both true and fact. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. It's a fact that he owned slaves. It doesn't matter that some people don't "subscribe" to these facts. Those people are wrong. Or they're redefining terms so that we're not talking about the same thing anymore.
But was George Washington a good man? Well, that's not a matter of truth or fact. We can both have our opinions about it, we can present our reasoning for those opinions and all that's required is that the reasoning should also be based on facts, even if the conclusions are dumb.
You could say, for example "Washington owned slaves and all slaveowners were evil" or "he founded America and all Americans are good" and we can argue or agree to disagree and that's all fine.
But if you say he was good because he gave women the right to vote or evil because he gassed the Jews, you are wrong. And every conclusion you build on these incorrect facts is that much more likely to be wrong too.
Again, there is a difference between fact and opinion. And one of the biggest problems we face right now is that people are losing track of that very important difference. As for God being the arbiter of truth, I'll take that claim seriously once we establish God's existence or establish the veracity of a single one of the truths "he" has told us.
p.s. Science doesn't define gravity as a mathematical equation. It calculates gravity's effects using mathematical equations. This is a different thing.
Newton literally defined gravity as a mathematical equation.
Many would claim that all science is defined as mathematical concepts.
Science can disprove the existence of gods by coming up with a mathematical equation that predicts the future. That was the premise behind Asimov's Foundation Theory.
Truth ideally is the same as fact where a fact is proved by science but society doesn't always use truth that way.
Its arbitrary to use the term truth or true. It can mean multiple things.
a. The standard definition - something that is factual - i.e. scientifically proven
b. The judicial definition - something agreed to by judges or a jury
c. The religious definition - something only God defines.
d. The common definition - something someone believes by saying that's the truth.
That's the bottom line that Tim Rice stated so eloquently - "But what is truth, is truth unchanging law. We both have truths, are mine the same as yours".
Even in this discussion we are debating what is truth.
One more additional comment on your "historical" reference to truth by stating it's true that George Washington was the first president. Have you read 1984? Is Critical Race Theory true?
I get it, in an ideal world things like George Washington being the first president would never be challenged. But we don't live in that ideal world. We live in a world where truth is subjective to the beholder. Its wise to start with that "truth". ;)