If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

No. Ideas are electrochemical patterns in the brains of humans. (Better say "organisms" because I don't think we can draw a fine line between our brain processes and those of other animals.)Even if God the entity exists, God the idea would exist only in human minds. There may or may not be a "reality" that exists separately from our perception of reality. Many people believe there is. But all we really have is our perception, individual and collective, of what that reality is. For some of us, agreement with other people's perception strengthens our confidence in how "real" our perception is.

Let me make the distinction between absolute truth and objective truth more clear.Objective truth is what we have left when we remove all of the biases. It's what we can agree is "true". Yes, it is fairly arbitrary. What was considered true yesterday might not be considered true today. Objective truth is our best estimate of what "is".Absolute truth is a philosophical construct. If it does exist, we can never know what it is. The closest we can come is the best estimate.So "real reality" is in fact a perfectly good concept. It's what we "know" is "real" today, as opposed to the woo-woo "reality" that we can never know. Even if we could know it, we wouldn't know whether we really knew it or not. Tomorrow we might know something completely different.

Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure hearing from you; thanks for your continued interest.I’m not trying to be malicious here, however, you’re still vacillating; are we now talking about disputing the claim that there is absolute truth. Or are we talking about Absolute truth is a philosophical construct. If it does exist, we can never know what it is.First you were trying to say that ‘absolute truth’ absolutely does not exist; now you’re saying it may exist but we can’t know that it exists if in fact it does exist.Both, please forgive my bluntness here, are poppycock.Just as we could not know that absolute truth does not exist because to know that would, in itself, be and ‘absolute truth’; If it does exist knowing we could not know it would, again, be an ‘absolute truth’ we would know. Even a school child should know that this is not the definition of ‘Objective truth’ it is the definition on ‘Subjective Truth’. If you actually picked up a Dictionary you would find these definitions: In other words ‘Objective truth’ means: ‘Something that accords with established or verified fact’, reality existing independent of thought (what people think) or an observer (No one has to see it to know that it is true, real, factual, etc.). ‘Objective’ ‘Truth’ as opposed to ‘Subjective’ ‘Truth’.That is the problem we (Mankind) have with things like ‘Truth’, ‘Fact’, and ‘Real’ they do not bend to our will, they cannot be swayed by public opinion, they are Immutable Laws we cannot break; and we love breaking Laws.But, none of that changes what is ‘Real’, ‘Objectively True’, ‘Absolutely True’, or ‘Factual’.Some people will admit that there are things they cannot do {My body cannot survive in a vacuum} others, even though they cannot break these laws will stubbornly continue to try; even if it kills. Those who agree with them will say Ya, but at least he did it his way; to which I would say Ya, but he is still deadSorry, I’ll step off my soap box now.Hay, hope I didn’t lose ya there,
JRTjrDictionary.com

​

Immutable:

​

adj
unchanging through time; unalterable; ageless

Dear Jar,Thanks for your thoughts, they are appreciated. ‘Yes’ I agree ‘There are ‘Subjective’ truths’; however, I am not sure I agree that there are things that are nether true nor false. at lease I can’t think of anything that is nether true nor falseThanks again for the input,
JRTjr

quote:

---

I am not sure I agree that there are things that are nether true nor false. at lease I can’t think of anything that is nether true nor false

---

Self-referential paradoxes are neither true nor false. e.g. "This sentence is false" - if it's true then it must be false, if it's false it can't be false.And I don't think that jar was talking about "subjective truths" either. Newtonian mechanics is not absolutely true. It's a very good approximation to the truth in many situations - too good to write it off as simply "false" - in fact true enough to be taught in schools.The simple binary labelling of true and false is too simple - it erases the difference between "close enough for all practical purposes" and "completely wrong". Things which aren't absolutely true don't need to be absolutely false.

Dear Paul K.,Thanks for joining the ruckus, hope you stay a while. As Dannie says on CSI: NY: BoomI couldn’t come up with anything, but, you are right.Thanks for the save there. Agreed, however, that does not mean that nothing is ‘Absolutely True’, just because not everything is ‘Absolutely True’; does it? Again, I agreed, however, Newtonian mechanics is a way of making since of the absolutes around us. Our understanding of mechanics changes with respect to time, but the laws of mechanics themselves do not; those laws are ‘Absolute’.Or, to put it a different way: Newtonian mechanics is ‘Subjective Truth’; those equations are based on our (Mankind’s) understanding of ‘Absolute Truth’ (I.E. the actual laws of physics that govern our universe.)I can hold up a ball and tell you This is a ball. The words I use This is a ball are ‘Subjective Truth’ (in other words whether or not the words are true depends on something) the fact that the sphere in my hand is a ball is ‘Objective Truth’ (the Sphere being a ball is not dependent on something else).These are the things that, I believe, Jar was talking about; and that is what ‘Subjective Truth’ is.I hope Jar agrees with me on this.Again, thanks for joining the fun,
JRTjr

It could be theoretically possible to know someone who knows what absolute truth is. Thats closer than an estimate, no?

Yellow is the best color.Strawberry ice cream is white with big red strawberries.People should do as I say.

No I am not.I told you before that if I meant absolutely I would have said absolutely. I did not say that absolute truth absolutely does not exist. I said that absolute truth does not exist until it has been shown to exist. Exactly. If we ever did find absolute truth, we couldn't possibly know that it was absolute truth. We couldn't be sure that it wouldn't be improved or overturned in the future. I said that objective truth is what you have left when you remove the biases. Subjective truth has the biases left in. Even a schoolchild can see the distinction. Yes, verifiable. We verify by observation. We compare observations. New observations may very well falsify tomorrow what was verified yesterday. We don't know that there is any reality independent of thought. We only think there is.Without an observer, we can not verify.

I wouldn't call it a theoretical possibility. That would require a mechanism for how that someone knows. It's a hypothetical possibility for which no test for verification/falsification has been proposed.

quote:

---

Agreed, however, that does not mean that nothing is ‘Absolutely True’, just because not everything is ‘Absolutely True’; does it?

---

I wouldn't argue that nothing is absolutely true. In fact I would argue that the truths of logic and other formal systems ARE absolute truths.
(An extreme skeptic could argue that we can't know that for sure, because we have to rely on our own thoughts even for that).But I would argue that our knowledge of any external concrete reality is uncertain and may well be approximate or incomplete. And we can't know that it isn't. Just as Newtonian mechanics proved to be.But I wouldn't call that subjective truth. Approximate truth would be better. Newton's laws are objectively very close to the truth in many situations, and that ought to be recognised.

Dear Paul K.,Great hearing from you again; thanks for joining the fray. For the most part I agree with you.The only thing I would say differently is that we can be ‘relatively’ certain that our knowledge of any reality is going to be an approximate and incomplete knowledge and understanding; for the simple fact that we exist in a four dimensional universe that is only a small part of an X dimensional region (that we call the ‘Multiverse’).This is why I get so tickled at people who try to say that Jesus (The Christ) could not have ‘risen from the dead’ or ‘walked on water’ or ‘raised others from the dead’, etc.We, as mere mortals (confined to this four dimensional universe), could not do these things; however, a being that exists and operates in 10+ dimensions could perform these miracles; could He not?As Scripture says: 12 For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma] , but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood [by God]. Enjoyed your comments immensely, hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Hope you are doing well, O.k. so, I can assume that you misspoke when you said: There is no absolute truth. and that you actually meant that you did not ‘believe’ that ‘absolute Truth’ existed.That’s fine, I have misspoken before myself. You say: Exactly — presumably because you agree with what I said- and then you state exactly the opposite of what I said.Let me put it to you this way: If you cannot be ‘Absolutely’ sure that ‘Absolute Truth’ does not exist then you cannot ‘correctly’ tell me that it does not exist.Also, if you cannot be ‘Absolutely’ sure that we cannot know ‘Absolute Truth’ {even if it does exist} then you cannot ‘correctly’ tell me that we cannot know ‘Absolute Truth’.Why? Because in both instances you’re canceling out your own statement by stating your position; this is called a self-defeating argument. Using this logic I can say the universe is only between 50,000 and 100,000 years old. There were no (Modern) humans to ‘observe’ the universe; no one to ‘verify’ it existed before that time therefore it did not exist.Same with the galaxies, and most of the stars, we have only been able to see beyond a few thousand stars for about 100 years. So, according to you; they did not exist until 100 years ago when someone ‘observed’ them to ‘verify’ that they existed. Correct??The problem is actually worse than that; see, if we need an ‘observer’ to ‘verify’ something before we can say it is ‘real’ or that it ‘actually exists’ then we can only ‘verify’ that the Earth is around 120 years old because that is the age of the oldest living person whom can ‘verify’ that the Earth was around back then.Sorry, something made up by our mind is not reality —we call those delusions-. For it to be ‘real’ it must exist independent of thought.Once again you are making a self-defeating argument. If, as you say we cannot know that there is any reality independent of thought then that would mean we could never ‘verify’ the things we ‘observe’.It’s been great fun, I hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Dear Jar,Great hearing from you again; hope you are well.Thank for the comment,
JRTjr

Maybe you should stop assuming and read what I actually write.One more time: I said, "There is no absulute truth." I did not say, "There is absolutely no absolute truth." I do leave the door open for the possibility of absolute truth. When you can demonstrate that you have absolute truth about anything, I'll be glad to retract the statement that there is no absolute truth.And I don't "believe" there is no absolute truth any more than I believe there are no unicorns. When you provide evidence of unicorns and/or absolute truth, I will be glad to accept them. You're treating "absolutely" and "correctly" as if they were synonymous. I consider myself "correct" if I give the best possible information that's available to me. (Of course that information would be subject to peer review.) That's the oldest and worst trick in the creationist toolbox.Ever see a footprint? Are you really foolish enough to suggest that it was not made by a foot just because you weren't there to see it made?"Verifying" does not mean you have to be there to watch it happen. It means using every reasonable means to draw an inference. Maybe you do but "we" don't. Delusions are thoughts that don't match objective reality (not absolute reality). If the consensus is that there is no elephant in the room but you see an elephant, then the consensus is that you are deluded. You're using your own definition of "verify". Since I do not accept that absolute truth exists, I don't expect anybody to verify anything absolutely. To verify means to reach a consensus on what the "truth" is.