There's intuitive knowledge since creation. But not all of it is accurate. How do you personally decide what is accurate?
Accuracy is subjective for all.
- Alan HLv 74 weeks ago
Check it against evidence and experience
- DavidLv 74 weeks ago
You give us no example of “intuitive knowledge” or any other kind. Are we talking about science or personal beliefs? Opinion is often intuitive, does that count? Biology maybe?
"Biology has plenty of theories [to explain origins]. They are just not discussed—or scrutinized—in public" (Laughlin 2005, pp. 168–169). Just try to confirm the assumptions for "accuracy" in fact of any sustainable evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Dead end; no mechanism, never been observed, and people seriously state this is fact? These people have no responsibility to truth, and dishonor themselves w/o support making empty claims.
In a general sense, accuracy means correctness, truth, and exactitude. However, this means different things depending on whether you view it through an objective or a subjective lens. The objective version of accuracy is rooted in prediction.
How do you form a belief? By what method process or probative measure? The three known methods to me would be the scientific method, philosophy/logic, and the process used in a court of law. In a court of law, the "story" is generally true when the evidence of the people and places is proven true, especially with several lines of outside evidence.
In one of His debates with the Pharisees, Jesus said, “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true” (John 8:17). This oft-repeated concept refers back to Deuteronomy 19:15—“by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” This same idea is at the heart of the American judicial system. Witnesses appear in trials to help establish the truth of the matter. Prior to the use of modern forensic experts and recording devices, reliable eyewitnesses were essential. People believe in the historicity of many past events because of eyewitness testimony without ever seeing photographic evidence for those events.
The legal method does not ignore testimony or facts because they are not reproducible or testable. By a process of elimination and corroboration, the legal method allows history and testimony to speak for itself until a verdict is reached beyond a reasonable doubt, and the balance of probability is achieved.
Scientific discovery relies on truth in burden of proof of the evidence. Math is cavelier towards burden of proof.
Empirical evidence is very simple:
1. Observable in nature OR
2. Experimentally demonstrable AND
Objectifying the inferences being made and validating everything with secondary lines of evidence means the burden has been met.. It's just that simple!
Anyone can use science, even Creationists:
“From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.”
—Professor of Mathematical Physics Frank Tipler.
Biblical evidence of Creation and Noah’s Flood from Genesis qualifies as “observed” evidence by eyewitness account, either by verifiable persons (verifiable by the empirical evidence of the genealogy given all the way back to the first man, Adam) or the witness of God, Himself; either way, vivid portrayal of an eyewitness, literally.
How do you test history or the Bible? By confirmation, Noah's grandson, Cush, is named in the Sumerian King's List (son of Ham). And Noah’s grandson’s names keep popping up on monuments in the Fertile Crescent.
Creationism is a viable model of origin in today's scientifically literate world because science has established the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. This was the law established by the Author of Life. Science has proven abiogenesis to be false a thousand times over, even though the media and our humanist school curriculum teaches otherwise. The materialist attempts to explain origins (that are relevant and applicable) are non-existent. Ask an atheists, "who created the universe? " The only answer they can give is an absurdity...
In scientific terms, Creationists claim evidence from the Bible with corroboration of the observed origin of matter, and it is consistent with our belief.
We must keep in mind the difference between scientific observations and opinions of scientists, especially in historical arenas. We are all aware of the ideas, opinions, and theories of some scientists which contradict portions of Scripture, but if we are careful to separate that which is established fact from that which is merely theory, we find that there are no contradictions between the facts of science and the Bible.
The Bible is not a science book, but I'm not aware of ANY instance, where the Bible DOES touch on science, that it has been proven incorrect. How can anyone DENY the evidence of the Bible and the scoreboard, when science corrects itself (proven incorrect?) almost daily?
So you test the details given in Genesis of a 24 hr day: If you’re confused about what a “day” means in Genesis, there are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1-11. Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant. It says exactly what Moses and Adam and God intended it to say. Ask any Hebrew scholar what Genesis 1 “says”: 24 hr days, six day creation; Young Earth.
Find further confirmation: For “morning and evening” to have occurred consecutively, the Earth must also have been rotating on its axis from Day One, allowing part of the earth to be exposed to the light while the opposite side was in the darkness. This initial, temporary light was evidently replaced with the sun on Day Four.
A plain reading of Genesis 1–2 yields a chronology that is incompatible with the proposed evolutionary schedule. Even in an old-earth creationist view where a day could refer to an epoch of time, how could plants survive for thousands of years without the sun?
“Day” in contrast to “night” means the lighted portion of a day (1:5, 14, 16, 18). Or was there six epochs of darkness also?
Applying the laws of causality and the natural laws that relate to information one can infer certain things about the Creator. My understanding and definition of the Creator is based on the evidence. I call that creator God!
I am satisfied that the evidence found in nature clearly points to the material world being the product of creation and so there must be a creator..
Only a truth seeker will continue the search for life. But many of us confirm things as a profession and a way of life. It’s a skill most of us can develop, and after a decade or two you develop a keen eye for the truth, spot a fake in 5 seconds.
I’ve never been refuted with verifiable evidence in four decades of proving myself and earning a paycheck, either here or in court as an expert witness. 100% is pretty accurate, it’s just the truth, it exposes itself when you pay attention to burden of proof.
Nelson Glueck a Jewish scientist, and universally esteemed as one of the greatest archaeologists, said that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. Because it is the unrefuted truth of millennia, stick to verifiable truth and you can hardly go wrong. 100% is pretty accurate.
Evidence suggests the truth while corroboration attests to it and vouches for it and strengthens it. The concurrence of all corroborates the same truth.
When you've put the work in to validate, verify and prove many of the scriptures that are provable or verifiable outside of the Bible from science or historical account, then you have the confidence to believe the parts that cannot be tested or proven and allow it to become "intuitive knowledge", that gut feeling that searches for the priceless pearl of certainty, I can now express in a firm decided, clear language, "I know that my Redeemer lives."
Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible)
Five Evidences of Noah’s Flood
A dozen evidences against evolution
10 Problems with Big Bang
- Doug CatholicLv 74 weeks ago
In light of God's revealed, objective truth.
- tizzoseddyLv 64 weeks ago
The accuracy of knowledge isn't subjective. One might think knowledge is accurate or inaccurate, but no matter what one thinks, knowledge about objective reality either correlates well with the actual situation, or it doesn't.
Explaining how I personally decide what is accurate seems, to me, a difficult task. I suppose I evaluate things, taking into account all my past experience, and settle on answers that seem the most sensible and reasonable.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- keyjonaLv 74 weeks ago
Those with the Keys of the Kingdom decides:
GOD, CHRIST, and HOLY GHOST ordained Simon Peter Barjona, the last major Prophet. Simon Peter Barjona's DESCENDANTS(NOT the popes) are his successors. The NATION/CHURCH, the Keys of Kingdom, and Peter's AUTHORITY are with BARJONA(Simon Peter's seed). If you're looking for today's prophet, look among Simon Peter Barjona's DESCENDANTS.
- Anonymous4 weeks ago
Check with the right Teacher.
The wrong teacher thinks truth is variable.
- RonLv 54 weeks ago
You are correct in that not all knowledge is accurate. The Scriptures tell us that our hearts are treacherous - Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it? - - - - But Jesus' words tell us exactly where we can get the truth (accurate knowledge) that can lead to our being sanctified - John 17:17 - Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. - - - - So, no human can rely on themselves to have accurate knowledge - Romans 3:23 -
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, - - - - In view of this, we must rely on God's word as the truth. Where we can make sure we are getting accurate knowledge. And that is what God wants. Is for everyone to have an accurate knowledge in order to be saved, as this shows us - 1 Timothy 2:4 – whose (God’s) will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. - - - - God's word warns us of those putting trust in their own knowledge. It tells us that many will twist the Scriptures - 2 Peter 3:16. . . and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. - - - - Rather than accept the true knowledge found in God's word, they twist the Scriptures. Then it is no longer accurate knowledge. That is why God has preserved his written word, so that we can examine it closely. And that is the guidance that God gives us in his word here - Acts 17:11 . . . carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. - - - - IF we examine God's word carefully, we can make sure we are not misled by those that twist the Scriptures. There are so many different religions all teaching so many different things. They can't all be accurate. But they try to marry all their different teachings by just saying that all we need to do is believe in Jesus. That is definitely not what Jesus himself said. He warned about false teachers - Matthew 7:15-20 - 15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men. - - - - Even though we are not judges, we do inspect the fruit of people and their teachings. Comparing it with the accurate knowledge of truth from God's word. To make sure we are actually getting the truth. In view of these things, I invite all to visit the following web site where free Bible lessons are offered online. But ALWAYS examine the Scriptures carefully, to make sure you are indeed getting an accurate knowledge of truth from God's word. The site is:
- JeaLv 74 weeks ago
Intuitive knowledge is a textbook oxymoron.
Knowledge is borne of facts, not of conjecture.
- 4 weeks ago
What do you THINK Jesus died for?
Weren't people working themselves to death for righteousness in order to be accurate under the Old Covenant?
Didn't Jesus come to "fulfill the law" (Matthew 5:17-18)?
Didn't GOD SAY under the law that Jesus "fulfilled"
"I will put My Spirit within you and (((CAUSE))) you to walk in My statues, and to keep My judgments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:27)?
Didn't Jesus "fulfill" the prophesy of Isaiah under the New Covenant, on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:2-4) when He came back in the glory of the Holy Ghost as promised (John 14:18; 26) and began "giving us commandments" (Acts 1:2) after we believed and were Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 1:5;8)?
What makes you THINK that GOD IS NOT ACCURATE (Psalm 18:30)?
Therefore accuracy is not subjective if you BELIEVE!Source(s): THUS SAITH THE LORD!