Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 563
#541
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case?
You can never get an "ought" from an "is" (Hume's Guillotine). [LINK] and [LINK]
The second link suggests something outside the physical universe or naturalism alone. I have no problem with such a view. The question is what that "unnatural" or supernatural view is? The problem of utilitarianism is correctly surmised, IMO. Some people enjoy pain. If someone believes their survival requires someone else to die, so be it. If there is only so much food and there is competition, yet there is no God to hold us accountable, do whatever you can get away with doing. 

I think you might want to investigate the reasonableness of such a belief - no God, before you live as if anything is permissible if you can get away with it, though. 

#542
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Look,  I'm willing to accept your hypothetical god.

I'm even willing to follow all of your hypothetical god's rules.

Just explain the rules to me.
#543
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
1) Opinion: "I believe it will rain tomorrow."
I'm not sure this is 100% opinion.  This is more of a prediction regarding a Quantifiable-Event.
Opinions are usually based on siding with a view you favour but they could just be offering an option that you do not believe as a devil's advocate.

It could be an opinion based on the "red sky in the morning."

"In my opinion, since it is a red sky tonight it will rain tomorrow."

It rains tomorrow. What I believed and stated turned to be what corresponded to the truth. 

"In my opinion, since it is a red sky tonight it will be a beautiful sunny day tomorrow."

Tomorrow turns out sunny. 


An opinion would be, "I believe if it rains tomorrow it will be the most beautiful rain any human has ever seen".

Fact: It rains tomorrow. 
I agree this is a fact.

HOWEVER, the prediction (that it would rain) was not FACT -until- it was verified.
In that case. Facts are what is or what is the case. A prediction is only true once the event happens. That is why biblical prophecy is so compelling. The evidence or prediction is made long before the evident happens.

Neither is an opinion known as fact until it is verified as fact. But a fact (what is the case) is true/fact whether it is verified or not. 


The prediction is merely a unverified prediction (not a fact) up-to-and-until it is verified (at which point it becomes a fact).
True. Something has to be what it is to be fact. Nevertheless, my opinion about the weather, no matter how I got it, proved to be true of the fact. Not all opinions are valid. 
 

And in the case that you believe the rain will be the most beautiful rain any human has ever seen, well, NO AMOUNT OF RAIN WILL EVER MAKE THAT STATEMENT A FACT.
It is a relative truth for someone who believes a rainy day is a beautiful day, and especially this one rainy day. Relative truth is definitely true to that person's preference/like/dislike, nature or circumstance but it is not an absolute truth (objective, universal), which applies to everyone. Relative truth is a truth that applies to an individual such as, my name is Peter, I live at this present address, in this city (this specific location), and I am 63-years-old. Truth is always true. That particular truth is true for me now, since my name is Peter, I am 63-years old and I live in this specific city, at this specific location I am typing from, which I leave undisclosed to protect myself and my family from crack-pots. The facts comply with what is the case, yet those particular facts are not true of you.

Relative truth is not the same thing as relativism. Ronald Reagan was president of the USA from January 20, 1981, to January 20, 1989. That truth is relative to a timeframe. Even though it is not true now that Ronald Reagan is president, at that period in history it was a fact and will always be so. Thus, the fact is relative to a specific time, or a specific person or persons, or both.


An absolute, objective or universal truth is a truth that applies to all people at all times in history. It corresponds to what is the case and does not depend on my belief, likes, or taste, for it to be so. For instance, I could disbelieve it, yet regardless truth is true no matter what I think.



That opinion can never be verified or validated by facts.

The verification is hard, IMO, probably impossible for anyone but the individual to know if they can. Does the person actually, truly feel this way? Will they always feel this way? Is it a time relative truth, applying to one specific rainy day, or has that person always liked/loved every rainy day (not bloody likely)?

If the person truly feels and believes that a rainy day is a beautiful day, or that specific rainy day is the most beautiful day ever (perhaps because of some event) then that could, in fact, be the case for that person, provided no day supersedes or superseded it. It would be something that could only be verified as being the case by the person who loves rainy days and/or that particular day in specific. Perhaps they recognize it as being the case on their deathbed. It would be the case if that was the way things actually are or were to them.
#544
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...you cannot call it good, just preference. Not only that, you can't establish an unchanging standard like you can with quantitative measures/values UNLESS God exists.
Ok, you seem to have a rudimentary understanding of the difference between Quanta and Qualia.

We seem to agree that a dog is Quanta and good is Qualia.

You insist that good must be Quantifiable and standardized by your hypothetical god.
I claim He is necessary for making sense of goodness. I believe my faith in God is a reasonable faith for what must be the case to make sense of ultimately anything existentially. I believe I have reasonable grounds in which to justify my belief in God as reasonable, although I am aware that however reasonable a belief it, others may choose to reject it.   


You insist that we must establish "moral high-ground" by referencing your hypothetical god.

One of the key problems with this approach is the problem of identifying the "perfect and unchanging rules" that your hypothetical god endorses.

The "ten-commandments" is a shockingly inadequate moral/ethical framework.
Why is that? Jesus summed them up in two commands, love God and love your neighbour as yourself. 


And most of the rest of it can be summarized as "Jews who worship YHWH good, everyone else is human garbage".

No, it runs deeper than that summary.
1. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory which is God and all are responsible to Him for how they live.
2. The Fall has affected our relationship with God.
3. Knowing good and evil means you have a moral obligation to God.
4. The Bible demonstrates that humans have never been able to live up to that relationship, except for One. 

So, you have a moral obligation to God to live a good life in order to have a relationship with, instead of apart from, this God. God has demonstrated to humanity that their merit (works-based salvation), through a people He chose (Israel) and who agreed to live in a special relationship with Him, is not sufficient. They demonstrated that meeting God's pure, holy, just requirements are something they were incapable of, as we also do by our lives that include many moral wrongs. God shows us what we must do to be right or morally acceptable to Him, we must believe in His righteousness (Jesus Christ) as meeting the standard and paying for our moral wrong. If those conditions are met we are justified and restored to an intimate relationship with God that was lost in Eden. 
#545
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If the person truly feels and believes that a rainy day is a beautiful day, or that specific rainy day is the most beautiful day ever
You are conflating sincerity with FACT.
#546
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Look,  I'm willing to accept your hypothetical god.
Then you must believe that He exists and is not hypothetical, that He may reward you when you diligently seek Him. 

You are not going to believe a revelation of a hypothetical God. Read the Bible as God speaking to you.

It requires humility on your part. An arrogant or self-autonomous person will not open themselves to God but oppose Him.


I'm even willing to follow all of your hypothetical god's rules.
Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

The Bible teaches the natural man (the one who is not yet regenerated or born anew) or sinner of what Jesus Christ has done on the part of those who will believe and be saved. 


Just explain the rules to me.

I don't like the term rules. It is God's love and grace in Christ that reaches out to us. The OT is a demonstration that we can't live by those rules or that covenant. That is why Jesus came to fulfill it and make a better one. 

I will take that as an honest, sincerely request in my answer to you and ask God for His mercy and grace to be known in your life.

Be sorry that you have sinned against One so holy and pure, confess that you have wronged Him, ask for His forgiveness, and trust in the one means that meets all His requirements.

Ask the Holy Spirit to be born again or renewed into a living hope and into a living faith through your belief in Jesus Christ as the means to know God.

Then find out more about this Jesus and why He mets God's requirements, that you may know Him. As you read, rely on God's understanding penetrating your mind. Do not go beyond His revelation by reading in all kinds of speculative things. The Spirit guides us into the truth through the Word that expresses who and what Jesus is and has done.

The biblical revelation concerns mostly God's revelation to Israel as the primary audience of address. Thus, prophecy centers around Israel. So remember that audience but also remember that through them God is speaking to us, the secondary audience. Take note of the time frame passages and note the specific people being addressed. As you grow in your faith in Jesus things will become more clear. It takes time to grow in that understanding and there are many trials along the way that sometimes side-track us. Keep focused on what Jesus has done on your behalf!

Offer others the same forgiveness that He has granted those who believe. That is gracious. God is gracious enough to forgive you in Christ for what you have done against Him thus you should be gracious enough to apply the same standard yourself to others. Grace is giving someone what they do not deserve by their own merit (or lack of), love and friendship. If someone does not accept that grace at least your heart is relieved of the burden of hate or a grudge. Shun evil. It corrupts.   
#547
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If the person truly feels and believes that a rainy day is a beautiful day, or that specific rainy day is the most beautiful day ever
You are conflating sincerity with FACT.

Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day. I'm posing a hypothetical from a hypothetical. Either what they believe about the rainy day it true or it is not. That does not rule out them being deceived into thinking but if it is fact, it is fact. As you say, we can only go on what others tell us about themselves and hope they are being integral not only with us but with themselves. 
#548
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE (GNOSIS).

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is neither TRUE nor FALSE.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.

SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
#549
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE (GNOSIS).
What I am saying is that I'm not a mind-reader. I can't know what someone is thinking in their mind unless they put it into words and express those thoughts, feelings, beliefs. Once a person says, "I like all rainy days" then I can know their thinking. They have then expressed there inner thinking to me. I can also judge whether their thinking is true of other things they say and do regarding that belief or those feelings. An experience that is contrary to that statement would be inconsistent with the statement and bring to my mind whether the person was sincere, or perhaps even delusional. 


PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.
For the person holding the "private knowledge," what they believe is either true to what is the case or it is not. Not expressing that "knowledge" (justified true belief) to anyone else does not justify that it is the case. Just by expressing "private knowledge" means nothing to its verification. 


PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
Then it (no-truth-value) is not knowledge. Knowledge is what is true to the case. If I know I am six feet tall because I have checked and measured my height yet fail to tell you, I have the knowledge of what is the case, yet it is private to me. I think it, but the thought has not been expressed to you but contained within my mind that corresponds with what is true.


PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is neither TRUE nor FALSE.
Logically, knowledge is what is the case. What a person believes would have to be either true or false to the case. If it is true and justifiable to that truth it is knowledge. "Private knowledge" corresponds to what is the case or it is not knowledge.


PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.
Until someone expresses what they believe (inner thoughts and beliefs) I have no means of judging it as to its truth claim to "know." 

If someone said, "I have an inner knowledge that God exists with evidence that I am not willing to express to you," then that is "private knowledge" and subject to doubt by others. All they have done is express an unjustified belief. Only if that belief corresponds to the truth, and they can justify it according to what is true, do they have knowledge.


SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

Sincerity can = real true facts. Again, it depends on what is believed.

"I am sincerely sorry to have offended you." Either I am sorry or else I'm not being sincere at all and those words do not mean what they suggest they mean. 
#550
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
KNOWLEDGE =/= JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF

For example, I know that people who drive old cars are terrible drivers.

This statement is (NEITHER) justified (NOR) verifiably true.

WHAT DO YOU CALL UNJUSTIFIED/UNJUSTIFIABLE/UNVERIFIABLE/NOT-NECESSARILY-TRUE INFORMATION?

If you don't call it knowledge, please tell me what you call it.

Do you call it OPINION?

Would you prefer I said, "Private Information" instead of "Private Knowledge"?
#551
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
KNOWLEDGE =/= JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF
Then you are saying what you know you can't justify as true. How do you know that?


For example, I know that people who drive old cars are terrible drivers.

This statement is (NEITHER) justified (NOR) verifiably true.

Then it is just a belief, not knowledge, whether reasonable or not and as it stands is not logical. You need to drive home the point with evidence. It is also a generalization and a hasty one at that.

Some people with old cars are safe and capable drivers and some are not. 



WHAT DO YOU CALL UNJUSTIFIED/UNJUSTIFIABLE/UNVERIFIABLE/NOT-NECESSARILY-TRUE INFORMATION?

That which lacks evidence or reason.


If you don't call it knowledge, please tell me what you call it.
Either a reasonable or irrational belief or opinion.


Do you call it OPINION?
Yes. Opinion and belief. Nothing in that statement is backed up with stats and facts. 


Would you prefer I said, "Private Information" instead of "Private Knowledge"?

Call it whatever you want, but unless the evidence is substantiated and reasonable it is not knowledge
#552
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-INFORMATION (GNOSIS).

PRIVATE-INFORMATION is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION is neither TRUE nor FALSE.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.

SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
#553
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
With 30,000 denominations of Christians young people are wary of how many ways the bible can be interpreted. 
When leading biblical scholars who dedicated their lives to studying the bible become  disillusioned the more they learn about the bible. 
More Americans now believe the bible is a book of fables.

The prognosis for the future of Christianity  is not good.
#554
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Harikrish

The prognosis for the future of Christianity  is not good.
Same with Hinduism

#555
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
The prognosis for Christianity is already out, and things are going exactly as Jesus said they would.

Christianity will outlast all other religions. Hinduism for example, is clearly going to decline. It adds members by birth, and for the last 3,000 years has not been able to leave the dusty Indian valley of its birth.

Now that the government of India has banned Hinduism's caste system, young people are ignoring the religion in droves. Hinduism will clearly die.

The list of people and religions predicting the death of Christianity is long, and secularists tend to think numbers is what validates a religion.

But Christians know that truth is what validates a religion, regardless of size. Christianity is still the largest religion, and remains the fastest growing in terms of actual numbers of new converts, and will remain so for a long time.

Young people are leaving the catholic church. Other churches around the world are growing.
#556
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church
Because people are understanding how bullshit it is.

Nothing more, nothing less.

#557
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
RM--Because people are understanding how bullshit it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Young and dumb except when it comes to Christianity.

Christianity will outlast all other religions. Hinduism for example, is clearly going to decline. It adds members by birth, and for the last 3,000 years has not been able to leave the dusty Indian valley of its birth.

Pagan female worshipping will outlast all other religions and especially patriarchial Biblical religions. Female pagan religion has been with for at least 30,000 years.  It is here to stay.  Women birth men. Men birth no-things.

#558
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @ebuc

Women birth men. Men birth no-things.
Men impregnate women, women impregnate no things.

Pagan female worshipping will outlast all other religions....
So will cockroaches.
#559
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@ethang5

The prognosis for Christianity is already out, and things are going exactly as Jesus said they would.

Christianity will outlast all other religions. Hinduism for example, is clearly going to decline. It adds members by birth, and for the last 3,000 years has not been able to leave the dusty Indian valley of its birth.

Now that the government of India has banned Hinduism's caste system, young people are ignoring the religion in droves. Hinduism will clearly die.

The list of people and religions predicting the death of Christianity is long, and secularists tend to think numbers is what validates a religion.

But Christians know that truth is what validates a religion, regardless of size. Christianity is still the largest religion, and remains the fastest growing in terms of actual numbers of new converts, and will remain so for a long time.

Young people are leaving the catholic church. Other churches around the world are growing.

You are wrong. Christisnity is moving to Africa. 

By 2060, six of the world's 10 largest Christian countries will be in Africa

By 2060 six of the countries with the top ten largest Christian populations will be in Africa, up from three in 2015, according to a new Pew Research Center report. The projections are in line with the gradual shift that has increasingly seen Christian populations live outside the historical cultural centers of the religion.

The size of the Christian population in Nigeria alone—already the largest on the continent—is projected to double by 2060. In addition, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya are projected to join the list of countries with the top ten largest Christian populations, replacing Russia, Germany and China.

In total, the Christian population in the six African countries on the list alone will account for just under a quarter of the projected global Christian population of three billion people.

The only thing that came out from Africa that was extremely popular were African slaves. Nothing good has ever come out of Africa, since. Christianity moving to Africa is the last Christian stand.

BTW Africa is also a dumping ground for electronic waste or e-waste.

Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.
#560
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Christisnity (sp) is moving to Africa. 
And India, and Asia, and China, and South America....
#561
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-INFORMATION (GNOSIS).
Are we speaking of Gnosticism or having self-knowledge?

For the former see,


If the latter then,

Knowledge = Justifiable true belief. 

In the case of thinking every rainy day is something they like to see, that either is the case or it is not. It is either true they feel that way or it is not. Basically what the Bible says is that every reasoning person knows their own thoughts. 

In the case of the latter,

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.


PRIVATE-INFORMATION is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.
I disagree if you are using the latter definition (see above) of gnostic. The person knows. The "rainy day" analogy is a poor one since it overgeneralizes but if every time you asked someone how they are and they said, "It's raining, I love rainy days," and their mood reflected this, or they are happy it is raining, you would begin to realize the person loves rainy days. 


PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
It does if it corresponds to what is the case and has been justified as true to the person thinking such things. IOW's, there are lots of things you think privately that corresponds to what is the case, thus you know them. 


PRIVATE-INFORMATION is neither TRUE nor FALSE.
It is either one or the other, the question is whether you know what you think privately is true because you have justified it as true.


PRIVATE-INFORMATION is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.
Not all the time. Again, it depends on whether that information has been justified as true. Private information is the information that you think that I don't know about yet either corresponds to what is the case and is known or it does not. 

During the rise of the early church, the Gnostics were saying they had private knowledge about Jesus which was not the case. They were actually denying Scripture. Thus, what they claimed to believe did not correspond with what Scripture said.

1 John 4 (NASB)
Testing the Spirits
4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 

Even at the time of John's writing (i.e., before AD 70) people were denying Jesus had come in the flesh. 

The Gnostics were claiming that they had private knowledge that did not correspond to biblical teaching. They denied Jesus' the physical, bodily resurrection and/or His physical bodily suffering and death, or that Jesus had become a physical, bodily human being. Their self-knowledge was counter to the biblical message. Some early church fathers fought back by exposing the heresy. 


But, in regards to you or I having a self or private knowledge that we think but do not express to others concerning a particular thing, that thought is either true or it is false. If it is true and justifiable by what is the case it is known by the person thinking it. 


SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

It does if it corresponds to what is the case. "I'm truly and sincerely sorry for hurting Joe's feelings in regards to what I said." That either is the case or it is not. If it is and the person thinking it is sincere, it is a true and justified belief.  That person will usually express their thoughts in actions to the hurt party. They may cry or change how they treat the offended person by being more compassionate in the relationship after the point of verbal injury.
#562
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
It does if it corresponds to what is the case and has been justified as true to the person thinking such things. IOW's, there are lots of things you think privately that corresponds to what is the case, thus you know them. 
Do we agree that REAL-TRUE-FACTS = Quantifiable, Scientifically Verifiable, and or Logically Necessary?

#563
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
It does if it corresponds to what is the case and has been justified as true to the person thinking such things. IOW's, there are lots of things you think privately that corresponds to what is the case, thus you know them. 
Do we agree that REAL-TRUE-FACTS = Quantifiable, Scientifically Verifiable, and or Logically Necessary?


Scientifically verifiable? What do you mean by that term? How do you scientifically verify logic? It is abstract so how do you empirically verify it?