|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
No I do not. I asked you:
You ask me a question and then tell me I can only answer it a certain way.quote:How do you COMPARE reality with the dictionary definition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
In the movie S1m0ne, Al Pacino creates a digital movie star and then he can't convince anybody that she isn't real. The technology may not be quite there yet but it does underline the fact that people are easy to fool about "reality".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
So how does a dictionary definition of "true" help you distinguish between a man in a Bigfoot suit and a real Bigfoot? Even if you understand the meaning of "true" to the greatest possible depth of human understanding, how does that help you distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot? Because this is the only way I am going to be able to spell out, in any detail, how I distinguish between a man in Bigfoot suits and Bigfoot itself. What you need to define is not the meaning of "true" or even the meaning of "Bigfoot". After all, a dictionary is likely to tell you that a Bigfoot is a creature that may or may not be real. What you need to define is what kind of EVIDENCE would distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot. Evidence is as close to "real" or as "true" as anything you're going to find. Definitions are only a shadow of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
But JRTjr01 thinks he has the answer and I'm trying to get him to tell us how he got it.
Ringo is actually asking what I believe is an unanswerable question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes:
No they are not. As long as you and I know what the other means, we can communicate, no matter what any dictionary has to say about the subject. If you're using a dictionary definition and I say that definition isn't adequate, we need to come to some kind of agreement beyond the dictionary. ‘Dictionary definitions’ are just the foundation of communication. So Let's try again: How does a dictionary definition of "true" help you distinguish between a man in a Bigfoot suit and a real Bigfoot? Even if you understand the meaning of "true" to the greatest possible depth of human understanding, how does that help you distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot? What process would you use to decide if a Bigfoot report was real or bogus? What would you do after looking in the dictionary?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
We're on an Internet discussion forum, aren't we? We're talking about communication, aren't we? The question isn't so much about how you convince yourself; it's about how you communicate your thoughts to others. However, since you are asking me how I tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit explain to me why I have to throughout the definitions I use?? Whether or not you think the definitions are adequate would have no bearing on how I decide what is, or is not, real. So again and again and again: How would you tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony? I had a teacher once who said that if you can't explain something to an eight-year-old you don't really understand it. So how would you explain to an eight-year-old how you would tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony?
JRTjr01 writes:
The problem is that when I TELL you what else I meant, you label everything I say as absurd. We can't communicate if you assume that everything you don't already know is absurd. You make statements and then, when I point out the absurdity of what you said, you complain that you meant something else. If you make an attempt to honestly answer the question that I keep asking, maybe you'll begin to understand what I mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I'm not suggesting that. The fact that you suggest that there is a difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit shows that even you can distinguish, with some accuracy, the difference between something that is ‘real’ and something that is ‘Fake’. I'm not the one who claims to be able to tell the difference. I'm saying that IF you claim there is a difference, you need to be able to show us HOW you tell the difference.
JRTjr01 writes:
Of course you can. That's why I used the example of Bigfoot. We DON'T know if there's a real Bigfoot or not. What we need is some method of examining reports of Bigfoot so that we can determine whether they are describing something that does exist or something that SEEMS to exist. One cannot logically say something is ‘fake’ (not real) if there is not a ‘genuine article’ (real thing) to compare it to A fake Bigfoot "exists" only in the sense that there is SOMETHING that SEEMS to be a Bigfoot. The question remains: How do you tell the difference? How do you tell the difference between Nelson Mandela and Morgan Freeman dressed up like Nelson Mandela? How do you tell the difference between the Mighty Hulk and Lou Ferigno dressed up like the Mighty Hulk? How do you tell the difference between a new hominid species and a homo sapiens dressed up like Bigfoot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I'm not claiming anything. I'm asking how YOU would tell the difference.
Are you now claiming that there is no difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit?? JRTjr01 writes:
We KNOW there are guys in Bigfoot suits. We see them on TV, etc. We DON'T know whether or not there is a real Bigfoot - i.e. a non-human who is NOT wearing a costume. Because it is defiantly implied in the question itself that there is a difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit So again: How would you tell the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
But that doesn't tell us anything about the ones we don't know. Then the only logical conclusion is that guys in Bigfoot suits are not Real Bigfoots. We know there are "X" and we know there are "Y". The question is: How do we know whether the specimen at hand is "X" or "Y"? Suppose we have a video of a furry creature about the size of a man walking through the woods. What process do you use to decide whether it's a guy in a Bigfoot suit or "something else"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's what I'd like JRTjr01 to think about.
But if we used the video evidence to track, locate and capture the creature in question could we then determine whether the specimen at hand is X or Y?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Exactly how, though? What are the actual differences between the two videos that allow you to rule definitively on one and not the other? The second one is better quality - technology has improved a lot since 1967 - and CGI is a possibility today but you haven't shown any evidence that CGI was used. What's the fundamental difference between the two videos?
Using the same methodologies, I can definitively say that this is a ‘man in a suit’ not a ‘Real’ Bigfoot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
You said in Message 677: "Using the same methodologies, I can definitively say that this is a ‘man in a suit’ not a ‘Real’ Bigfoot." I'm asking you how YOU came to that conclusion. Be specific. What SPECIFIC features of the video prompted your conclusion? You take your copy of the scientific method {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used}, use some logic, and work the problem; just as I demonstrated in my last post. I'm being difficult about this because your basic claim seems to be that there is "real" reality beneath what we can actually observe. I'm trying to get you to tell us how you can tell "real" reality from observed reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I don't think we're so far off topic. It seems that if God did stop intervening in nature, believers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Real Bigfoot or illusion of Bigfoot? Real God or illusion of God?
As to wandering off course; we are so off course in this string already I have to keep reminding myself that the original question was:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I'm on a public library computer and I can't watch videos. (I don't watch them anyway, just on principle.) Bring the argument here.
To illustrate my point I’d like to invite you to watch Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence (a 15 minute YouTube video).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
They say "massive" when they mean "big". They say "awesome" when they mean "good". They say "absolutely" when they mean "yes".
This is where a lot of our problems are in the world today; people don’t say what they mean; and mean what they say. They will repeat something they have heard, because it sounds good, and not really understand what they are saying; mainly because they have not taken the time to think about, and research it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024