If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Some things are true by definition. I'm not sure that counts as 'absolutely true', but I suppose one could define it that way without too much difficulty For what its worth - there can exist atoms with only one electron that are not hydrogen atoms. Further reading into this off-topic point. These are contingent on the truth of the assumptions we use to derive them. There's a lot of debate about this one. Again, a minor point but only where you measure F in Newtons, m in kilograms and a in ms^-2. If you use other units it is not likely to be true. What might be always true is that F ∝ ma. But we don't know if this is always true. First quantum or relativistic effects may muck about with this finding, I don't know.More importantly, we can not know it is always true in all circumstances without observing it in all circumstances, which we cannot do. All empirical laws are general laws based on specific observations. These are the epitome of things for which there should be some doubt. Maybe more precise measurements will show the relationship doesn't always work or there is a small constant that has little impact except in certain circumstances. Maybe this doesn't work outside of a solar system. Maybe it only works in the observable universe, but in some regions outside of this it doesn't. This is, I believe, the kind of doubt we should have over these ideas.We may doubt them, but we put our lives in the hands of the notion they are true enough, and we can fly to the moon using them. Again - we might have been measuring it wrong, it might vary over large time scales or over large distances or under unusual gravitational or interference. We're pretty confident that whatever it is, it is a constant and that is in some sense 'absolute'. But we can't say that there is no doubt whatsoever in this notion. Are you saying that human perception is 100% reliable? If not, then any conclusion based on human perception has some room for doubt. Even if we can mathematically reduce this to negligible amounts and linguistically choose to ignore it in discussion.Think about an assumption you have to make - that you can know the truth through perception. Are you saying there is no doubt here? That you are not in a Matrix, or just a brain in a jar or what have you?

Of course, for practical values of 'sure'.Just not absolutely, for strict definitions of 'absolutely'. It is a means to demonstrate the need for a certain degree of epistemic humility. IF the Matrix existed, and we were in it, we wouldn't know this. We cannot rule it out. Ergo, from our position of limited knowledge, there is a non-zero chance we're in a matrix, or in a divine testing grounds, or a brain in a jar tormented by an evil scientist or a demon or whatever. Thus we cannot know absolute truths, since our mind may be being deceived in our senses or in our estimates of mathematical proofs or whatever.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well there has been a lot of discussion based on a tiny aspect of this post. Let me go back to the start. Excellent. If I agree you have done so I will make a modest donation to a charity of your choice. I can guarantee I will do my utmost to look at the evidence, but some considerations may interfere. I'm not going to read a 800,000 word book on your recommendation alone, for example. And if you tell me that the evidence can be found at www,8yearoldboysnaked,com/divine,aspx then I simply won't attempt to look.I can't say I will accept what you present as evidence of a panenthiest (or what have you) deity before you present it, for obvious reasons. But I am willing to accept evidence of God's existence should I recognise it as such, will that suffice? Yes. In fact let me insist upon the fact of our existence, the law of Non-Contradiction and the capability of the mind to know the truth.Edit: AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But surely, if you are going to have a discussion about the contents of reality, regardless of your confidence in the proposition, you have to accept there is such a thing. If you must be thorough you could say, for example 'Crows drop nuts from various heights depending on the stratum and nut type whereas blackbirds tend to maintain the the same height and just increase repetitions.The research hypothesis is that crow's are smarter than blackbirds. The null hypothesis is that crow's are equally smart to blackbirds. They hyper-skeptical hypothesis is that reality does not really exist.If the h-s hypothesis is true, it seems clear that in my mental realm there are crows and blackbirds and I sense that crows make smarter decisions(see below).
Else
The null hypothesis can be rejected, which increases our confidence in the research hypothesis, crows are brainy, further research needed, etc etc. Publication.It'd get pretty tedious. And since you consider this entire argument stems from the question - do you believe there is 'enough scientific evidence to state that: The universe is real?' it seems to me that the denizens of EvC have masterfully demonstrated what we are often demonized for - pedantic bickering over something that completely overwhelms the discussion and deters the originator of the subthread from bothering any further. I'm not answering for Proto, obviously.Something that is universally true. True in all times and places. God exists might be an absolute truth, but we can't really know.
On the other hand, 'I exist', with a suitable essay on 'I' and another on 'exist', might be regarded as absolute truth if we're allowed to be creative with boundaries with an additional treatise or two on those boundaries and subjectivity.There are certain logical propositions, which if not absolutely true, it is often necessary to treat them as such in order to get anywhere (imagine trying to argue the Earth is about 4 billion years old with someone that denies that the mind is capable of knowing the truth, or that something can both be and equally not be simultaneously). Doing otherwise often results in lengthy discussions about the fine points of confidence, the metaphysics of 'absoluteness' and so on in answer to a question about whether there is enough scientific evidence to conclude the universe exists. There really is enough of that, right?

I don't know, as the poster in question has not been able to get passed his first premise, the universe exists. I'm not. Nobody asked if it was an absolute truth, or if it was, if we could know this with 100% certainty. But if it were true, it might be absolutely true. Even if we couldn't be absolutely sure. Can an observation be objective? But 'absolute truth' isn't really the standard in question. 'Truth' will suffice.

Well it is now. And it has gone absolutely nowhere! Message 49

quote:

---

I can give evidence both for the existence of God and that He operated outside of our universe...Do you agree that there is enough scientific evidence to state that: The universe is real ?

---

Message 58

quote:

---

If it ain't evident...it ain't evidence

---

Message 60

quote:

---

I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth...
Definitions:

​

Truth:

​

that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality; an established or verified fact, principle, ect.

---

See? Just verifiable truth. Message 64

quote:

---

You seem to be using the term "objective truth" in the sense of "absolute truth".

​

There is no absolute truth.

---

And then begins the long discussion about absolute truth that I mentioned that served as a distraction to the original point being made, which was that the universe can be said to exist. Because some people enjoy arguing about it, I suppose. Simples.

True, but on the other hand maybe something novel to argue about might have reared its head. As long as you're not absolutely not sure, we're cool...

I hear Lester Moore used to be called Paul Marrane. Do you know this to be absolutely false? If it is true, he must still be alive and the grave marker is fake. That is, unless Jesus has returned and I didn't notice.

That's nice. But if you are to claim something as absolutely true, rather than scientifically true, you'll need something better than a handy science philosophy catchphrase.

I have no idea, the question is a bit fuzzy.But I know you won't be able to convince me that it is absolutely true that Lester is dead. Ontology does not recapitulate phylogeny.