Hahaha! Cadillac!

Oh, I don’t deny the fact that someone can go, “It’s the truth, just trust me.” I’m certainly not saying that every form of “proving” is a waste of time. That would make no sense.

My mention of Galileo is he had proof, and that got him no where. When people are predisposed to disbelief, and are stuck in a certain mode of thought, proof doesn’t of itself amount to much.

The overarching point is this: take the example of Christ. We have a lot of really reasonable things we can point to to assert his reality in history and his Divinity. Sure, there’s a lot we can make use of for the purpose of apologetics.

But most of the world does not Believe. Does this mean there’s something wrong with the Truth itself? Well, no. It might mean that we’re not good evangelists or that Sin has placed people in a strangle hold. But if you were the only Christian, would that make Christ less true? Absolutely not. Reasonable proof aside, a truth is not “more true” because the majority of people adhere to it, nor is it more true because it has great potential for being believed — some truths are HARD to believe. “Hy husband would never cheat.” “God doesn’t condemn people.” “Trix ARE NOT just for kids.”

Truth is truth, not matter how bitter it might be, how many fans it might have, or how much “proof” of ac ertain kind can corroborate it.

Any time we approach the issue of truth danger is involved. Not accepting a truth because to few people are testifying could be equally dangerous.

Danger aside, the argument is still valid — many people believe that the more people subscribe to a truth, the better it is.

I mean, take Galileo. Most people in his day believed the earth was the centre of the solar system. Yes, he had evidence, but that didn’t matter — there was no capacity for people to believe him (because of a philosophical limitation). Proof, even of a scientific kind, was not sufficient (I believe the reverse is true today, and that most only view scientific evidence as the only kind — just as dangerous).

So, did the capacity or potential for belief negate that truth? Not having a multitude agreeing with you does not have any impact on the value or quality of that truth. Truth is not a democracy.

Of course someone can lie and make things up… but that wouldn’t be a truth. Besides, people don’t need a philosophical excuse from me to manipulate anyway.

So then the question is, well, how do you KNOW that person is being truthful or is correct? They could just be persuasive or a master at deception.

Well, Galileo wasn’t… there are ways in which a truth can be conveyed, even in the face of mass denial (yes, I’m getting there).

Again though, “relativism” or not, I do think that “strength in numbers” is an assumption that science is predicated on, and this come at the expense of other disciplines and fields of human endeavor.

We will never rid the world of danger.

The consequences for this line of reasoning though are dangerous. Telling people that you have a secret that you can not corroborate in any way but that is nonetheless true places no limit on what you can tell them. This is the sort claim that a cult leader might make. Right next to me now is a pink elephant that tells me you must give me all your money or he will surely kill you. This is true even though I cannot prove it. Give me your money, the pink elephant demands it!

According to your reasoning, you cannot refute my truth claim. Now pay up. Your inability to see the pink elephant does not excuse you!