aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/16/84)
>> = me > = Rich Kulawiec >> How do you explain the gifts of the Holy Spirit -- particularly the most >> common one, most commonly called "speaking in tongues"? How do you explain >> the fact that in May, 1972, a man laid his hands on me and prayed, and I >> received the ability to speak without conscious thought in a language I don't >> believe I've ever heard? And I'm not the only Christian of my acquaintance >> with this gift. > Before demanding an explanation for such a phenomenon, you prove that > it actually occurred, AND that it is attributable to the "Holy Spirit" -- > which of course means proving that such a thing exists, as well. There are a number of people who witnessed this occurrence (i.e. my initial receipt of this gift). When you ask for proof that it actually occurred, what are you saying? Are you calling me a liar? (I know I got carried away and called RLR that once in this group, but I'm trying to change my tone.) Also, I can demonstrate this gift at any time. I don't know if there is any way to prove scientifically that it is happening without conscious thought; I've never read whether, say, a person's EEG is different depending on whether he/she is speaking with conscious thought or via some other power. But would you believe in God even if irrefutable evidence of such a difference were provided? Note that I am adducing speaking in tongues itself as one of the evidences of the existence and power of the Holy Spirit; you ask for proof that God exists, and then you reject evidence which is offered! You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of life due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude. > However, offhand, I can think of a number of different explanations for > such phenonenon; perhaps P.T. Barnum's favorite saying is most appropriate: > "There's a sucker born every minute." I thought that was what they said when Dracula's baby was born! :-) Seriously, though, that doesn't explain what could have *caused* this to occur. All you are doing is refusing to believe, not putting up any evidence against the claims made here. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (11/17/84)
>> = Sargent > = Kulawiec >> How do you explain the gifts of the Holy Spirit -- particularly the most >> common one, most commonly called "speaking in tongues"? How do you explain >> the fact that in May, 1972, a man laid his hands on me and prayed, and I >> received the ability to speak without conscious thought in a language I don't >> believe I've ever heard? And I'm not the only Christian of my acquaintance >> with this gift. > Before demanding an explanation for such a phenomenon, you must prove that > it actually occurred, AND that it is attributable to the "Holy Spirit" -- > which of course means proving that such a thing exists, as well. >> There are a number of people who witnessed this occurrence (i.e. my initial >> receipt of this gift). When you ask for proof that it actually occurred, >> what are you saying? Are you calling me a liar? Not at all. I have no idea whether or not you are lying. If I assume you are not lying, then I still have no idea whether or not what you say is true; you may *think* it's true, but it may not be. Can we talk about standards of proof for a minute? If you tell me that you dropped a magtape in your office yesterday, and it hit the floor, I'll probably take your word for it, because (a) it's repeatable on demand, (b) I've seen it happen before, (c) it's a (relatively) common occurence, attributable to the laws of physics. If, on the other hand, you tell me that the Math-Science building was upside down at 8 o'clock this morning, I probably won't believe you, because none of (a) thru (c) apply. I think "speaking in tongues" is closer to this second example, and thus I will not take your word for it. >> You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of life >> due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude. Feh. I've said nothing about the "Source of life", whatever that is, and I really don't think I'm hurting myself. I call it "keeping an open mind". I'm quite ready to be convinced; but blanket statements won't do the trick. See below for what probably would. >> Seriously, though, that doesn't explain what could have *caused* this to >> occur. All you are doing is refusing to believe, not putting up any >> evidence against the claims made here. Evidence!? You have offered a sum total of zero (I counted twice) pieces of evidence in support of your claim; you cannot shift the burden of proof over to me without offering any evidence that your claim is true. Your demanding an explanation without proof for "speaking in tongues" is equivalent to my demanding an explanation for flapping my arms and flying two laps around the building, without offering any evidence whatsoever that this really happened. If you want to try and convince me, here's an outline to get you started: 1. Prove that you can speak this "other language". 2. Prove that you couldn't speak it before this experience. 3. Prove that you can speak it now as a result of this experience, keeping in mind that coincidence does not imply causality. 4. Prove that 1-3 are not a result of a psychological phenomenon. 5. Prove that 1-3 are the result of a "supernatural" intervention; i.e. not attributable to other physical causes. 6. Prove that the "supernatural" intervention in 5 is attributable to some "supernatural" entity. This implies showing the existence of such an entity, so that you have something to attribute the effect to. 7. Prove that the entity in 6 is indeed the one you claim it is. Good luck. (I'm not holding my breath.) -- Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center { decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/20/84)
>> = Sargent > = Kulawiec > Can we talk about standards of proof for a minute? If you tell me > that you dropped a magtape in your office yesterday, and it hit the floor, > I'll probably take your word for it, because (a) it's repeatable on demand, > (b) I've seen it happen before, (c) it's a (relatively) common occurrence, > attributable to the laws of physics. If, on the other hand, you tell me > that the Math-Science building was upside down at 8 o'clock this morning, > I probably won't believe you, because none of (a) thru (c) apply. I think > "speaking in tongues" is closer to this second example, and thus I will not > take your word for it. Speaking in tongues is repeatable on demand (perhaps not with the same words, but the same general phenomenon), I've seen it before (in others as well as in myself), and it is a fairly common occurrence; it's just not attributable to the so-called "laws" (actually only observed regularities) of physics. >> You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of life >> due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude. > Feh. I've said nothing about the "Source of life", whatever that is, and > I really don't think I'm hurting myself. I call it "keeping an open mind". > I'm quite ready to be convinced; but blanket statements won't do the trick. OPEN MIND??? I know I'll get flamed for this one, but boy, have you been fooled by one of Satan's greatest masterpieces of propaganda! You deny anything that doesn't fit into your tidy little limited stuffy boxes of scientific rigor (mortis), and you call that keeping an open mind? You're not hurting yourself; you're suffocating yourself inside your scientific prejudices. Whew.... That felt good. It was a little hot, but it's true. The way most people are convinced of Christ's power is not by scientific demonstration, but rather by submitting themselves to Him. He who loses his life shall find it, for the Source of life, God the Creator Himself, shall give him a new one. Your seven-step outline of suggested method of proof seems to show your die-hard, fight-to-the-last refusal to believe in God. There's probably more hope for you than for others not so polarized. I've heard that C.S. Lewis, once a high-powered atheist, wrote in one of his books that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. Of course, once he got there and realized what it was really like, he became one of its greatest supporters. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (11/22/84)
This is not a flame. Rather, it is a substitute for a tactical nuclear weapon, which is an awful bother to carry about, doesn't fit through 1200 baud modems very well, and tends to cause a large amount of irration to those in the general vicinity of the target area. >>> = Sargent >> = Kulawiec > = Sargent >> Can we talk about standards of proof for a minute? If you tell me >> that you dropped a magtape in your office yesterday, and it hit the floor, >> I'll probably take your word for it, because (a) it's repeatable on demand, >> (b) I've seen it happen before, (c) it's a (relatively) common occurrence, >> attributable to the laws of physics. If, on the other hand, you tell me >> that the Math-Science building was upside down at 8 o'clock this morning, >> I probably won't believe you, because none of (a) thru (c) apply. I think >> "speaking in tongues" is closer to this second example, and thus I will not >> take your word for it. > Speaking in tongues is repeatable on demand (perhaps not with the same words, > but the same general phenomenon), I've seen it before (in others as well as > in myself), and it is a fairly common occurrence; it's just not attributable > to the so-called "laws" (actually only observed regularities) of physics. You missed the point. 1. You *believe* you can repeat it. 2. You *believe* you've seen it before. 3. You *believe* it's not attributable to the laws of physics. You also have a vested interest in *believing* 1-3 because it goes along with your world view; this is just fine by me, but don't expect to convince the rest of us (i.e. anyone who does not share your view of the way things work around here) by merely pointing out that "speaking in tongues" works in your world view. As I thought I pointed out, the standard of proof is relative. >>> You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of >>> life due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude. >> Feh. I've said nothing about the "Source of life", whatever that is, and >> I really don't think I'm hurting myself. I call it "keeping an open mind". >> I'm quite ready to be convinced; but blanket statements won't do the trick. > OPEN MIND??? I know I'll get flamed for this one, but boy, have you been > fooled by one of Satan's greatest masterpieces of propaganda! You deny > anything that doesn't fit into your tidy little limited stuffy boxes of > scientific rigor (mortis), and you call that keeping an open mind? You're > not hurting yourself; you're suffocating yourself inside your scientific > prejudices. Pity, I think, is much more appropriate than flaming. First of all, you don't appear to be able to read; a true tragedy. It would occasionally be nice if you would try very hard to read and understand articles before replying to them. Secondly, I would like to know if you *really* believe that the scientific method/heritage/facts/and-everything-else is really a propaganda ploy by this satan character. This is what you *seem* to be saying. (Note that I did not *assume* you believed that way; I *asked*. You should try this sometime.) Third, look at what you've just said. "Rich doesn't believe Jeff can speak in tongues as the result of divine intervention, THEREFORE Rich has been fooled by satan?" This is a certainly a novel approach. And fourth, the statement "you deny anything that doesn't fit..." is utterly without merit. There are a large number of things that I have never denied that "don't fit"; you just haven't bothered to ask. I'll do the speaking for myself, thank you. > Whew.... That felt good. It was a little hot, but it's true. I'm so happy for you. It must be nice to have something to feel good about, that is, besides gloating over the misguidedness of all of us fornicating-atheist-drunk-drugged-communist-satanic folks. On the other hand, we don't get to feel good about that; we just feel good about being fornicating-atheist--well, you get the idea. > The way most people are convinced of Christ's power is not by scientific > demonstration, but rather by submitting themselves to Him. He who loses > his life shall find it, for the Source of life, God the Creator Himself, > shall give him a new one. This, Jeff, is propaganda. > Your seven-step outline of suggested method of proof seems to show your > die-hard, fight-to-the-last refusal to believe in God. There's probably > more hope for you than for others not so polarized. I did not state in any article in this series that I refuse to believe in a god, or God, if you like. In fact, this entire discussion is unrelated to *my* belief or lack or belief in a deity...this discussion is about your claim that you can speak in tongues as a result of divine intervention. My seven-step outline was a suggested method for you to prove what you say-- --to me. Period. I'm sure other folks would have different criteria. "Probably more hope..." You can take your patronizing attitude and shove it up, over, and sideways. I'm quite happy with my philosophy, religion, and lifestyle, and certainly seem to get more out of life than certain snivelling neurotic illiterates with superiority complexes. > I've heard that C.S. Lewis, once a high-powered atheist, wrote in one of his > books that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. > Of course, once he got there and realized what it was really like, he > became one of its greatest supporters. How marvelous for him; but irrelevant to this discussion. Do you have C. S. Lewis on the brain, or what? -- Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center { decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland) (11/27/84)
> > This is not a flame. Rather, it is a substitute for a tactical > nuclear weapon, which is an awful bother to carry about, doesn't fit > through 1200 baud modems very well, and tends to cause a large amount > of irration to those in the general vicinity of the target area. > . . . Lets hear it for a reasonable and logical approach to the discussion. However, lets get the terminology right. That was a strategic not tactical nuke. And it was the best argument for an arms buildup I've ever seen. Put the nukes to good use. Randy Buckland Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
teitz@aecom.UUCP (11/27/84)
> >> = Sargent > > = Kulawiec > > > Can we talk about standards of proof for a minute? If you tell me > > that you dropped a magtape in your office yesterday, and it hit the floor, > > I'll probably take your word for it, because (a) it's repeatable on demand, > > (b) I've seen it happen before, (c) it's a (relatively) common occurrence, > > attributable to the laws of physics. If, on the other hand, you tell me > > that the Math-Science building was upside down at 8 o'clock this morning, > > I probably won't believe you, because none of (a) thru (c) apply. I think > > "speaking in tongues" is closer to this second example, and thus I will not > > take your word for it. > > Speaking in tongues is repeatable on demand (perhaps not with the same words, > but the same general phenomenon), I've seen it before (in others as well as > in myself), and it is a fairly common occurrence; it's just not attributable > to the so-called "laws" (actually only observed regularities) of physics. > > >> You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of life > >> due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude. > > > Feh. I've said nothing about the "Source of life", whatever that is, and > > I really don't think I'm hurting myself. I call it "keeping an open mind". > > I'm quite ready to be convinced; but blanket statements won't do the trick. > > OPEN MIND??? I know I'll get flamed for this one, but boy, have you been > fooled by one of Satan's greatest masterpieces of propaganda! You deny > anything that doesn't fit into your tidy little limited stuffy boxes of > scientific rigor (mortis), and you call that keeping an open mind? You're > not hurting yourself; you're suffocating yourself inside your scientific > prejudices. > > Whew.... That felt good. It was a little hot, but it's true. > > The way most people are convinced of Christ's power is not by scientific > demonstration, but rather by submitting themselves to Him. He who loses > his life shall find it, for the Source of life, God the Creator Himself, > shall give him a new one. > > Your seven-step outline of suggested method of proof seems to show your > die-hard, fight-to-the-last refusal to believe in God. There's probably > more hope for you than for others not so polarized. I've heard that C.S. > Lewis, once a high-powered atheist, wrote in one of his books that he was > dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. Of course, once > he got there and realized what it was really like, he became one of its > greatest supporters. > > -- > -- Jeff Sargent > {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq > "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." > "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity." The one point I want to add here is that no one can be convinced of the existence of G-D. If we could be, then we'd be in alot of hot water if we didn't believe. This way we get rewarded for recognizing Him and He decides what punishment we get if we don't see Him. Scientific methods can't and don't work in this area. Faith can not be proven. It's a seemingly ( to those who haven't taken it ) illogical notion, and the logic can be, and has been, argued for millenia. As for speaking in tongues, I don't know. The whole concept was foreign to me until it came up on the net, and to me it proves nothing. I had a friend who knew nothing of Polish, yet he made up sounds that in actuality were Polish. Does this prove anything? Yes. My friend has a good imagination and a creative mind. Eliyahu Teitz.
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/29/84)
>>> = Rich Kulawiec >> = Jeff Sargent > = Rich Kulawiec > 1. You *believe* you can repeat it [speaking in tongues]. > 2. You *believe* you've seen it before. > 3. You *believe* it's not attributable to the laws of physics. 1. Yes, I do believe. Belief surpasses knowledge. Of course, for that matter you could say I know I can repeat it, because I know God, and I know He doesn't fail. 2. People who, from my general personal knowledge of them, had trustworthy characters, have said they experienced this phenomenon, sometimes in my presence. I have no good reason to doubt that I've seen it before or that it has happened before. 3. I find it hard to believe that the mere act of a man's laying his hands on my shoulders and saying a few words could possibly physically change me so that now, over 12 years later, I can still speak in tongues! Your (apparent) assumption that this phenomenon is physically caused is more absurd than my belief that it is caused by God. > You also have a vested interest in *believing* 1-3 because it goes > along with your world view; this is just fine by me, but don't expect to > convince the rest of us (i.e. anyone who does not share your view of the > way things work around here) by merely pointing out that "speaking in > tongues" works in your world view. As I thought I pointed out, the standard > of proof is relative. Speaking in tongues happens. That's a fact, regardless of the world view with which you interpret it. Your world view states that those who believe as I do are lying, as far as I can tell. (It could be claiming that we don't know we're lying; but then how do you know you're not? No double standards here.) The last sentence is the real key. Your standard of proof is limited, being relative *only* to the physically perceptible world. When we start talking about God, things don't always work according to humanity's standards of proof or logic. (Both Testaments are full of examples.) The lunch crew is about to leave; I'll finish this response later. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Clearing /tmp
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (12/01/84)
> Jeff Sargent replying to Rich Kulawiec: >Speaking in tongues happens. That's a fact, regardless of the world view >with which you interpret it. Somebody may have asked you these questions before, but if so I missed it: When you speak in tongues, are you just babbling meaninglessly, or are you speaking some real language? If you are babbling, what does it prove? If you claim to be speaking some actual language, has somebody who knows that language ever heard you speaking it and been able to understand it? > Your world view states that those who believe >as I do are lying, as far as I can tell. (It could be claiming that we >don't know we're lying; but then how do you know you're not? No double >standards here.) <entering sarcasm mode> Look, there's this really simple idea, of being *mistaken*, and there's this other simple idea, *lying*. I'll try to explain the difference for you, in simple words, so you can understand. If you are saying something that is false, and you believe what you are saying, then you are *mistaken*. On the other hand, if you say something that you believe is false, then you are *lying*. You will notice, I hope, that if you are mistaken you can say something false without lying. Now, Rich has been saying that some of the things you *believe* are wrong. This means he doesn't think you are lying. Now, what can you possibly mean by the phrase "we don't know we're lying", above? You have to believe that what you are saying is false, in order to be lying. You can't lie without knowing that you are lying. Can you say "absurd"? I knew you could. <leaving sarcasm mode> Most normal people can understand the distinction between being mistaken and lying by about the age of 5. Christianoids, it seems, take a bit longer. David Canzi
ndsss@ihuxx.UUCP (Alfred R. Zantow) (12/02/84)
I don't care if he can talk out of his ass, (which I personaly think he is) please move off to net.religion or net.drivel or something. This battle of the Jesus Freaks VS the Godless Athiests is getting old. Is gotten to the same old stuff: "I can too speak in tonges, God told me so." ""Bullshit. You and this God dude can go take a flying fuck."" And so on, back and forth. I hope this offends someone, I've wanted to try these fire-retardant longjohns out. Al Zantow "Benson, you are so free of the ravages of inteligence"-Time Bandits
mark@uf-csv.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) (12/04/84)
<this blank has intentionally been left spacey>
Just a few vagrant obiter dicta, from a former linguistics doctoral student
(I've since reformed :-) )
The phenomenon of glossalalia has, indeed, been studied, phonologically
and psycholinguistically, on several occasions. The result?
The morphophonemics of glossalalic utterances are (surprise! surprise!)
exactly those of the native language of the speaker. IIn short, an English
speaker will produce phonetically and morphologically English nonsense, a
French speaker nonsense assembled from French phonemes and morphemes, and so
forth... Now, that's not to say that some deific agency doesn't inspire each
separate glossalalic with his/her own "holy tongue," that just coincidentally
resembles a nonsense brew of the language structures s/he already knows, but it
sure do beggar Occam's razor...
---------
"Why, so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you do call them?"
---------
Mark Fishman/U.Fla./CIS Dept.mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (12/04/84)
In article <1525@pucc-h> Jeff Sargent writes: > Yes, I do believe. Belief surpasses knowledge... Yes, I agree with you that your belief surpasses your knowledge. (Using the definition "exceeds" for surpasses. :-) But you want to use the definition "transcending the reach, capacity, or powers of". You're welcome to use that as an assumption, but you can't trick us into that foolishness. > Speaking in tongues happens. That's a fact, regardless of the world view > with which you interpret it... Here again, we "agree". People of MANY religions speak in tongues, and ascribe the power to their own gods, spirits, or whatever. Since they all can't be correct, it must be rather easy to "speak in tongues" without any supernatural help. Thus, you must prove a case of speaking in tongues is supernatural, rather than use it as evidence for the supernatural. > When we start talking > about God, things don't always work according to humanity's standards of > proof or logic. (Both Testaments are full of examples.) Yes, when you start talking about god, what you say doesn't work according to standards of proof or logic. :-) However that argument can be used to support ANY statement about ANY religion about ANY god(s). This is a classic example of the fallacy of argument called special pleading. If you need help understanding fallacies of argument, I'll be happy to provide it. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (12/08/84)
Speaking in tongues is repeatable on demand (perhaps not with the same words, but the same general phenomenon), I've seen it before (in others as well as in myself), and it is a fairly common occurrence; So are many forms of insanity and mental illness... repeatability only repeats the outward symptoms and not proof of the inward cause. it's just not attributable to the so-called "laws" (actually only observed regularities) of physics. People who speak in tongues no more defy physical laws then do those people with multiple or split personalities. If you're going to argue these points at least make sure your arguments hold up to the test. Arguments that cannot be faithfully defended are self-serving and prove only your alignment. OPEN MIND??? I know I'll get flamed for this one, but boy, have you been fooled by one of Satan's greatest masterpieces of propaganda! You deny anything that doesn't fit into your tidy little limited stuffy boxes of scientific rigor (mortis), and you call that keeping an open mind? You're not hurting yourself; you're suffocating yourself inside your scientific prejudices. The same may be said of those who view the Bible as the greatest masterpiece of history ever written. Christians deny anything that doesn't fit into their tidy little limited stuffy boxes of religious rigor (mortis) and dogma. You see? The shoe fits on the other foot too. There is nothing prejudicial about wanting to know the truth and thus taking ones time and examining ALL of the alternatives and possibilities before making a conclusion. Granted this regime of thinking can be taken too far, but it is irresponsible to claim that (what can be labeled as) the scientific approach is propaganda. Not ONE of you has the guts to admit the flaws in your arguments or the inadeuqacies of either of your positions. How the hell do you expect to ever attain any true knowledge with such closed (and pridefull?) attitudes as these? Christ advocated two-way DISCUSSION and helpfull INTERCHANGE, not this confrontational choosing of sides and beat the other guy's head in attitude so prevelent on net.religion. If religionists are going to claim they have "proof" for their claims then they should put up of shut up. Claims of Satanic manipulation will REMAIN claims without SOME sort of objective testimony or evidence to back them up. Now you people know very well that such statements are going to be disputed for their lack of evidence or credible proof. The way most people are convinced of Christ's power is not by scientific demonstration, but rather by submitting themselves to Him. He who loses his life shall find it, for the Source of life, God the Creator Himself, shall give him a new one. But the problem is that few people will believe what you say simply because you are uttering the contents of the Bible. Relience on the Bible as a source of proof is one of the causes for this hopeless net.religion.conflict. We all know what the Bible says. Show us WHY it is the truth! Your seven-step outline of suggested method of proof seems to show your die-hard, fight-to-the-last refusal to believe in God. There's probably more hope for you than for others not so polarized. I've heard that C.S. Lewis, once a high-powered atheist, wrote in one of his books that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. Of course, once he got there and realized what it was really like, he became one of its greatest supporters. The die-hard method that you refer to is NOT necessarily an attempt to deny God as Larry Bickford and Ken Nichols continue to assert, but rather an attempt to VERIFY what anyone with half a brain can read about in the Bible. There's nothing wrong with looking for tangible proof as long as one realizes that he might not find it. In fact there's nothing wrong with testimony, as long as its reliable and responsible. How can anyone trust the testiment of people long dead or of those who have read such testiments and then merely reiterated what has already been said? "The Truth" is not attained overnight. Christian testimony on this net never will be believed until some responsibility and reliable stewardship of any form of truth are proven. - John