If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Dear Straggler,I have conversed with a few of the others in this string; but have just now gone to the top to see what started this all.Thanks for the interesting topic.I notice that several have commented on your post but it looks like no one has tried to actually answer your questions.If you don’t mind, I’d like to take a stab at it. A far as I know, only the Bible (Hebrew Torah, Christian New Testament) states that there is only one God and that this God actively intervenes in; and ‘holds up’ the Universe. If I may, let me try to answer these with a ‘Word Picture’.Imagine you are holding an ornament by its hook. You are ‘Actively’ sustaining that ornament in midair.The bacteria on the inside of the ornament may not even be aware that you exist or even that if you let the ornament fall they would all die; but that does not change the fact that you are actively holding their world together.This is how it is presented in the Bible. The Creator is actively sustaining our universe from outside of our four dimensional universe.If He ever stopped; our universe would simply cease to exist.This is why I thank God that He has allowed me to exist for as long as He has.Thanks for questioning,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Minor Corrections

Is this idea actually supported by the text of the Bible? I see a lot of people make up stuff about what God does or would do when their only basis is what they themselves would do if they were omnipotent. That kind of silly speculation is practiced by both believers and non believers.Sure, God is powerful enough to constantly control the path of the earth around the sun instant by instant. But God is also powerful enough to speak gravity into existence with one word that does not return to him void. So which path did he take and why should we believe your answer?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Dear NoNukes,Hay, great hearing from you again; hope you’re doing well. I hear ya! It’s amazing to me to see (presumably) intelligent people treat their ‘opinions’ as {pardon the pun} Gospel truth. I’m going to give you some Scripters to look up and I'll let you make that determination on your own. Isaiah 40: 26, Isaiah 48:13, Hebrews 1: 2 & 3, and Colossians 1: 16 & 17.Hope to hear from you again soon; please, let me know what you decide,
JRTjr

You seem to be using the term "objective truth" in the sense of "absolute truth".There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on. Once you point out my biases and I point out your biases, what we have left is as close to "the truth" as we can hope to get. When most people thought the sun revolved around the earth, it was "the truth". Old truths only become false when "most people" agree that they are false. I don't know of any atheists who have said that. Rather, they tend to say that since there is no evidence for God, we can not use God as an assumption in anything. I don't have a "conviction that there is a reality". I have perceptions and you have perceptions and we can discuss the overlap in our perceptions. You see, it all boils down to agreement.

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again, hope your day is going well. Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???; and more importantly, can you prove it???:-}Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

What if most people agree on there being absolute truth?Are they wrong? Or are the right?

I knew you were going to say that.If I had meant absolutely I would have said, "absolutely." The onus is on the one making the claim to provide evidence that the claim is true. If you claim there is "absolute truth" then you need to provide evidence of absolute truth. Until you do, I stand by my statement the same as I stand by the statement that there are no unicorns.

They are neither absolutely wrong nor absolutely right, just like they are neither absolutely wrong nor absolutely right about anything else.

Dear Ringo,How’s it going, hope you are well. Actually, I said: I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth. To which you replied: There is no absolute truth.You are the one making a claim about whether or not ‘absolute/objective truth’ is factual; therefore, by your own supposition, would it not be you who must back up his claim??However, I have already made a case for ‘absolute Truth’ in the question I asked you: Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???With that said; let me just expand on my statement by quoting something I said to someone else who was making a similar argument.His argument was: facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. In the definitions I gave in a previous post ‘Truth’, ‘Fact’, and ‘Real’ are pretty much interchangeable; so you can substitute ‘absolute Truth’ for ‘Fact’ in what I said and it still holds water.Hope I have not lost you there,
JRTjr

Not at all. I am disputing the claim that there is absolute truth. Until there is evidence of absolute truth or unicorns, the default position is that they do not exist.I am also making a distinction between absolute truth and objective truth. The argument isn't that "we cannot know facts". It's that we don't have all the facts yet. Some day we might find new facts that overturn our current interpretation of the current facts. Some facts we may never discover - but I would never suggest that there are facts that we "cannot" discover. Dictionary definitions are useful for schoolchildren. For serious discussions among adults, words are seldom interchangeable. Most sticking points seem to be based on the distinctions between terms.

I think there is also a bit of equivocation of the word truth also. But that shouldn't surprise any of us.

ok here is my questions:

Do ideas exist without humans to think them up?

​

For instance, does science exist without humans to complete the tests and verification?

​

If all humans agreed on reality, would reality conform to humanity or would reality exist...regardless...outside of consensus?

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Dear Ringo,Always fun hearing from you. O.k. I’m not going to argue over who made the claim and who should prove their position because this is to fun a topic to pass up.I was going to go a different rout with your comment but I think I found something that will help you understand my position on what truth is.I dropped the word ‘Absolute’ because saying ‘Absolute Truth’ is like saying ‘Real’ reality; something is either true or falts.I took these quotes from Stand to Reason: If someone says... Great fun,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Went different rout.Edited by JRTjr01, : Accidentally left something out.

Well, no, there are other states than just true or false. There are things that are true but only within a given context and things that are partially true and partially false (a whole spectrum of those) and things that are nether true nor false.

While you're waiting for Ringo.... No No