If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

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

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

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

Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure hearing from you. "There is no absolute truth" and "There is absolutely no absolute truth" are saying the exact same thing. ‘There is no’ is an unequivocal statement; it does not leave room for anything less; so, by using it you are not ‘leaving the door open for anything’.I.e. you did not have to add ‘absolute’ to your statement because your statement was already giving ‘no room’ for the possibility of there being anything less.If I say There are no Apples in the basket and you look in the basket and you see an apple I am not telling you the truth. There either ‘are’ or ‘are not’ apples in the basket.So, which statement are you going to stand behind? "There is no absolute truthOrThere is an open door for the possibility of absolute truth.It has to be ‘one’ or ‘the other’ because these are two ‘mutually exclusive’ statements. That means they cannot both be true (factual).One of these statements is true :-} and one is not :-{Thanks for the stimulating exchange,
JRTjr

Merry Christmas to all; for those whom celebrate it, I hope it was a good one.Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure hearing from you; I hope you’re holidays are filled with joy.Now that we have gone back and forth on this several times I hope you see that we have not come to an agreement on what is generally understood when using the phrase ‘There are no’.You say it means one thing I say it means something else —so— how would you suggest we work toward a resolution of this question?I clearly see what you ‘meant’ to say, however, what evidence can you provide to bolster your contention that what you said actually means what you meant it to indicate?God bless us, everyone,
JRTjr.

Dear Ringo,Again, a pleasure hearing from you. I’d love nothing more than to ‘get on with it’; however, you seem to have trouble saying what you mean and meaning what you say.Since I can’t read your mind, especially from so far away ;-}, I can only go by what you post. To do that, however, we have to agree on the meanings of the words we use. (That’s where a Dictionary comes into play).If you’re willing to stick with what you say (as appose to changing it when someone backs you into a corner); I’m more than happy to move on.It’s really up to you.Are you going to stick with "There is no absolute truth?In which case you’re denying any (pardon the pun) ‘real’ possibility of ‘Absolute Truth’. OrAre you going to go with the possibility that absolute truth may exist; however, you doubt it?I’ll take on either one.Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjrP.s. Let me start you off with a few Definitions:

Dear Ringo,Thanks for your reply; hearing from you is always great fun. Well, I doubt that. ;-} If they are not contradictory statements then, would you please, give me a definition of ‘Contradiction’ that does not apply to these two statements? Because, unless you can convince me that they are not contradictory, I will continue to state that they are (in fact) contradictory statements. Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Hope you are doing well. Unless you are ‘Absolutely’ sure that there are no contradictions between those two statements I would like to, politely, ask you to take a second look at everything I have written about these two statements and re-evaluate your position on the question of whether or not they are contradictory. Both of these statements require you to be ‘absolutely’ sure you are correct to tell me that I am wrong.If you’re not ‘absolutely’ sure that your statements are correct then there is the possibility that I am correct and that you are the one in error. Really? Because you are trying awful hard to get me to accept that: There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on. for not trying to convince me of anything. As always, great fun,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Hope you are doing well. I have provided an example of ‘Absolute Truth’; it’s called the law of non-contradiction And, of course, you are still contradicting yourself: there is no absolute truth is something that is either ‘Absolutely’ ‘True’ or it is ‘absolutely’ ‘Faults’. There is no in between when you use this statement.If it were, in fact, a ‘True’ statement it contradicts itself; because then that would be an ‘absolute truth’. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it is not a ‘True’ statement.‘Contradiction’ is one of the first tools we use to figure out whether something is ‘True’ or ‘Faults’. If two statements contradict each other then one of the following must be true (factual):

1. Statement #A is true and statement #B is faults.
2. Statement #B is true and statement #A is faults.
3. Both statements are faults.

There is no way around this; and ‘Yes’ this is an ‘Absolute Truth’ Not really so, If you can demonstrate (give evidence that) I am wrong (that there is ‘Absolute Truth’); I’ll state right here (and for the record) I’ll hear you out. If the evidence is substantial (outweighs the evidence I have presented) I am willing to acknowledge that I was wrong.As of yet, I have not seen any evidence that something that is ‘objectively’ ‘True’ can, at the same time and in the same way, be ‘objectively’ ‘Faults’.I use the term ‘objectively’ here because ‘sub objective’ ‘Truth’ is just that ‘sub objective’.I like Chocolate Ice Cream.This is a ‘sub objective’ statement because it is dependent on who ‘I’ is referring to.‘Objective’ ‘Truth’ is independent.The law of non-contradiction is an independent Fact; it does not depend on anyone or anything to be True; it just is.As always, Great fun,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,As always it is a great joy hearing from you. I hope you are well. First, let me commend you on not trying to say that the law of non-contradiction is not an ‘Absolute Truth’.Second, whether you consider it to be Trivial or not is irrelevant; it is still an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist. I’m sorry, I do not get your point; can you give me a better illustration? While this is very true; it has no bearing on those things that are, in fact, ‘objectively true’ or ‘objectively false’. Have you ever tried to use a hammer as a screw drive; it’s not very useful either.The law of non-contradiction is a very useful tool in many areas of science including theology; it’s also useful in philosophy and has many everyday applications.However, just like any other tool, if you do not use it correctly it is not going to be useful to you or anyone.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Again, a great pleasure hearing from you. A trick I have used on several occasions myself; however, that does not negate the fact that trying to use a Hammer as if it were a ‘Screw Drive’ is a very inefficient way to screw a Screw into whatever you’re trying to fasten; which, of course, was my point. You seem to be awfully sure of a lot of things for believing that Everything should be doubted. I would expect someone that actually believed that everything should be doubted would not be so sure of anything.So, do you really ‘doubt everything’, or just the things you don’t want to be ‘true’? ;-}With that said: ‘Theology’ fits at least three of the above definitions. (1, 4, and 5) I know that Atheist don’t like it but, Yes, Theology is a Science.You really should dust off your Dictionary and crack it open once in a while. If you did, you may not find yourself saying so many ridicules things; but hay, to each his own.;-}}One last thing, I know my post is getting a little long here, but it intrigues me that you think that the "law of non-contradiction" is trivial.I see the law of non-contradiction as being the vary bases of Science, not to mention engineering.You can’t do ‘Science’ if two contradictory things could be true at the same time in the same way.Saying that the "law of non-contradiction" is trivial. is like saying that the foundation of a building is trivial.Besides all of that, as I said in my last post: whether you consider it to be Trivial or not is irrelevant; it is still an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Thanks for taking the time to continue our discussion. This I can agree with; the Bible puts it this way: 21 But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast. (1 Thessalonians 5:21 AMP)However, your statement that Everything should be doubted Is as self-defeating as the statement: there is no absolute truth; this because to ‘doubt everything’ would mean you could not be sure of any conclusions because you would have to doubt those as well.In other words; to truly ‘doubt everything’ one would have to doubt the validity of everything; therefore you would have to doubt that you had to doubt everything. Well no, you don’t have to ‘reference it’ at all. However, the problem with ‘Absolute Truth’ is it is in effect whether we acknowledge its presence or not.Take your example as a case in point: even though the dimensions of ‘two’ and ‘four’ are man-made units of measurement you can’t have a 2x4x8 that is, at the same time and in the same way, a 4x6x12.Same hold true for the distance a star is from our Star. If I say that Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from us and Bob say’s ‘No, it is 6.25 light years away from us’ there are only three possibly logically correct outcomes:

1. I am right, and Bob is wrong.
2. Bob is right and I am wrong.
3. Both Bob and I are wrong.

So it applies even though we generally have no reason to ‘reference it’. We are getting to the point where we can discuss other ‘Absolute Truths’; however, I believe it would do the most good to resolve this last issue (everything should be doubted) before moving on.Always Great fun and God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Coyote,Thanks for the input, hope you stay and chat awhile. This is a very funny statement; I had a nice chuckle over it.The thing that struck me is how would you know that there was no black cat?If, presumably, the place was pitch black and no one had a flashlight, the lights were out and no one had night vision goggles on; those who believed that there was a black cat down there would have just as much evidence as those who believed there was no cat. That’s like saying Tall people can touch their nose with their index finger (I mean no disrespect to Tall people; I am one).It’s like Du, people in general can convince themselves of anything; after all, the easiest person to fool is ‘yourself’.But hay, thanks for the quote anyway; it’s always good to have a laugh or two.God Bless,
JRTjr