If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Dear Catholic Scientist,Thanks for joining the fray, You’re absolutely right; as a matter-of-fact, I would be willing to venter that the odds would be roughly even (in our hypothetical scenario) that there would be a black cat, no cat, other cat or even a dog in the same strange basement.Which, of course was my point, the sentence made no since at all.Hope you stay while and chat,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure hearing from you. It is great to see that you can acknowledge that what I’m pointing out is circular logic; however, you may want to check out our previous correspondence and see who came up with this everything should be doubted hypostasis to see who is the one actually chasing their tail. ;-} I absolutely agree; of course, this is just the opposite of ‘doubting everything’.At some point you have to decide this is true and/or that is faults; to ‘doubt everything’ is to not accept anything as true. This sounds eerily familiar, u, ya, now your repeating what I said: You can hold on to the idea that ‘the Law of Non-Contradiction’ is somehow ‘trivial’, that’s your prerogative; but don’t expect me to treat it as anything less than paramount.The ‘Law of Non-Contradiction’ underpins all of Science (including Theology); this is one of the tools we (should) use to reason out what is ‘true’ and what is error. If I find something that I think is ‘true’ (will call it ‘A’) to be in contradiction with something else I accept as ‘true’ (let’s call that ‘B’) then I have to figure out if:

1. ‘A’ is ‘true’, then ‘B’ must be wrong.
2. ‘B is ‘true’ then ‘A’ must be wrong.
3. or both ‘A’ and ‘B’ are wrong.

I don’t know; if you buy a can of White paint at the store, and when you get it home and open it and it turns out to be Black paint, you thing that may make a difference?I have already shown you two other ‘real world’ instances of how ‘the Law of Non-Contradiction’ works from examples you gave me. You may want to go back and re-read those.I hope this helps,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again, hope you are well. We haven’t been able to get passed the Law of Non-Contradiction because you keep contradicting your own statements. And what gets me is; you recognize that what you’re saying is circular reasoning because you accused me of ‘chasing my tail’ when I was pointing out the ridiculousness of ‘Doubting Everything’.Again, I am afraid I must point out that, you seam awful sure that you’re right about ‘Doubting Everything’; which, of course, is a contradiction in and of itself.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Pressie,Thanks for joining the conversation, hope you stay a while. Actually, if you think about it, your point about what ‘White’ and ‘Black’ are makes my point even more valid.a range of wavelenghts of light reflected from the paint could not, in the same way or at the same time be a lack of humanly detected wavelenghts not being reflected from the paint One ‘is’ reflected light, the other is light ‘not’ being reflected. Let’s see here:‘E’ and ‘G’ are covered under ‘C’.‘D’ is self-contradictory; and therefore obviously wrong.‘F’ fits in the frame work of ‘A’ through ‘C’ because in those instances where ‘White’ would be ‘True’ ‘Black’ would be wrong; and in those instances where ‘Black’ would be ‘True’ ‘White’ would be wrong; and then there would be those instances where both ‘White’ and ‘Black’ would be wrong.Good try Pressie, at least you’re thinking.However, you have to watch out for those contradictions. This is what I’m trying to get through to Ringo.Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Sorry, corrected 'F' to 'G' in my fourth paragraph. {Starting off with : 'Let’s see here:'}

Thanks for the info; I made the correction.

Dear Ringo,Hope this message finds you doing well. Are you absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’?? If not, I respectfully request that you go back over my posts and see if I am not correct in my assertion that you are contradicting yourself in many areas. Would you, please, explain what reasoning of mine is circular in nature? Thank you. Of course, because, as you have begrudgingly acknowledged ‘Absolute Truth’ does, indeed, exist. Therefore, to ignore it would be, in my opinion, ludicrous. Actually, when I form a hypothesis (based on all available evidence) about something I automatically assume it to be ‘true’ until I can convince myself, or someone else can convince me, otherwise. On this point I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, the reason we can be sure that our hypotheses are not ‘The Truth’ (as you put it) is because we know that we know in part.Many people have gotten themselves in ‘Scientific Hot Water’ (so-of-speak) because they have thrown out a presupposition as ‘Fact’ only to find out they did not know enough about the situation to make that claim, and it turned out to be either invalid or not ‘true’ in all situations/respects.As with many things these days word are often thrown around and misused; and that causes confusion and misunderstandings. (This is why I often offer a definition when using certain word.) Again, agreed! However, there is a difference in ‘doubting the perfection’ of a ‘hypothesis’ and doubting the vary foundations of reality.We should always be aware that we know in part, and we see in part; but that does not mean we must doubt that there is a ‘fullness’.In other words, when I look up into the night sky and see (with my naked eye) only a few hundred thousand stars (or what looks to be only a few hundred thousand stars) that does not prompt me to doubt that there are more stars and even galaxies full of stars beyond what I can see.In the same way I may not fully understand everything there is to know about ‘Absolute Truth’ but that does not make me doubt that it exists. We can always learn more about the ‘Absolute Truth’s’ we know exist; like the Law of Non-Contradiction, I know it is an ‘Absolute Truth’ even though I do not fully understand and appreciate how it impacts everything around me. First, I respectfully ask that you not make generalizations where you lump me into a category of ‘those people’. I personally, in my discussions with you, have not stated that something is ‘Absolutely True’ and you have proved that I was wrong; Have I??Secondly, you are right that there have been people (not just religious people, not just Atheists, and not just Scientists) that have made claims that something was an ‘Absolute Truth’ and either have been proved wrong or others have claimed they were incorrect.However, how does that effect whether or not Absolute Truth does, in reality, exist? Please, define ‘trivial’; Trivial to me is a subjective1 term, what one person considers ‘trivial’ someone else may think is paramount?Like with the Law of Non-Contradiction you say its ‘trivial’, but it permeates our daily lives, all of science is based on it, and we can’t even do math or even something as simple as arithmetic without it; so I would argue that it is paramount.Again, great fun, hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,A pleasure hearing from you again. Since you are not ‘absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’’ why do you keep say There is no contradiction?? I have substantiated that your statements are indeed contradictory; have you evidence that my conclusions are in error??OrAre you just going to deny anything that you disagree with? You say That's not how science and critical thinking work. and then repeat exactly what I said in different words. So, how is what I said not how science and critical thinking work?? How is stating: the ‘law of non-contradiction’1 is an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist ducking the question??Even though you have not directly acknowledged this as being an ‘absolute truth’ (I.e. you have ‘Ducked the question’ as you put it) you have not stated that it is not (nor have you provided any evidence that it is not); therefor I conclude that you have been unable to form an argument against the ‘law of non-contradiction’ being an ‘Absolute Truth’ and that therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ indeed exists. To do science we must start with a few pre-suppositions.First: The Universe2 is Real3.
Second: the law of non-contradiction 1 is unquestionably ‘True’4.Science5 itself hinges on these two (and other) ‘Facts’6.God Bless,
JRTjr

1. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction ) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B " and "A is not B " are mutually exclusive.
   ​
   Wikipedia.com
   ​
2. Universe:
   ​
   1 the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
   ​
   1 astronomy the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space
   ​
3. Real:
   ​
   1Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL
   ​
4. True:
   ​
   adj , truer , truest
   1 something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. .
   ​
   1b being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.
   ​
5. Science:
   ​
   1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge
   ​
   2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
   ​
6. Facts:
   ​
   1 the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
   ​
   1 something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
   ​
   3 a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
   ​
   All definitions of words come from: Dictionary.com
   ​

Dear Catholic Scientist,Again, a pleasure hearing from you, I hope you enjoy our little endeavor. I’m sorry, I find this hard to believe; I mean come on; you really want people to believe that someone comes up with a hypothesis, says Well I doubt this is true but let me go to my financiers and tell them of this hypothesis of mine, I doubt, and ask them to give me money to prove I am wrong.Sorry, don’t buy it. The more likely story is that a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, he believes fits the facts (he believes to be true); he then goes to his financiers and says: Hay, I think this is true and if you give me the money to prove it I could make you even more money.No one, I know, is going to put time and effort into something that they came up with unless they believe it to be true. Unless, they are trying to scam someone; but even then the scammer has to believe that the scam will work.This is the problem with gamblers, they believe their systems, or luck, or ‘whatever they call it’ will work; not that it will not work.Now there is such a thing as going too far the other direction as well. History is replete with Scientist (and other people as well) who were so convince that their hypothesis was so absolutely correct that they would not even acknowledge that there was any evidence that could refute their claim. {There are people like that even today.} Sorry, I think you misspoke here. You acknowledge that this is a ‘Paradox’ and then say it violates the law of no contradiction.So which point are you making?Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle is a ‘Paradox’?OrAre you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle violates the law of no contradiction?Hope to hear from you soon :-}God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Hope this message finds you well. If I had to be absolutely sure before saying something I would have very little to say myself; however, my point was not that ‘you should be absolutely sure before saying something’; my point was: ‘If, as you say ‘you cannot be absolutely sure of anything then’ why are you stating unequivocally1 that I am, in fact wrong about anything.’I could see it if you used phrases like ‘I don’t think you’re right about that’ or ‘as far as I understand it you’re point is incorrect’ or ‘I believe it is possible that you are mistaken’; but no, you do not use these phrases that leave room for error. You state things like There is no absolute truth., Objective truth is what we have left when we remove all of the biases., I said that absolute truth does not exist until it has been shown to exist., No. I'm denying the possibility that you can know it absolutely.; all of these statement are unequivocal statements. Sorry, but you’re misquoting me. When I said: You say That's not how science and critical thinking work. and then repeat exactly what I said in different words.I was speaking of my statement: and you’re statement: These two statements, for all intents and purposes, say the same thing; do they not? Actually, the question we are still dealing with is: Now, if you’re willing to admit that Absolute Truth does indeed exist (I.e. the ‘law of non-contradiction’ is an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist), as you stated you would 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. then sure; we can move on to other Absolute Truths.However, if you’re going to continue skirting the Absolute Truth of the ‘law of non-contradiction’, make contradictory statements, and accusing me of making bad arguments when I am using your logic, no, I see no reason to continue offering more Absolute Truths if you can’t acknowledge the Absolute Truth I have already provided.It is not wise to build a house until you’re sure you have a good foundation.I’m not going to stop responding to your post, or start slandering you in anyway (as many do), but I prefer to not jump over steps just because someone does not want to deal with the ramifications.Logic, in some ways, is a lot like math; if you skip a step you are more likely to get the wrong answer.This is why there is so much confusion in the world, because we either accidently or purposefully skip steps and then are unwilling to go back and check our work.When someone points out our mistakes we have a choice to make; we can either entrench ourselves in our position (unwilling to admit our failings) or accept our errors and make the necessary corrections.God Bless,
JRTjr
1Unequivocal:

​

adjective

​

1 not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.

​

2 absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions: The cosigner of a note gives unequivocal assurance that it will be paid when due.

Dear Catholic Scientist,Great hearing from you again, hope all is well. Soo, what you’re telling me is that you can ‘believe’ your hypothesis is correct; but you’re going to assume that its wrong??Still not buying it; you’re still not going to say: ‘Well I ‘believe’ this hypothesis of mine is right, however, I want you to give me a bunch of money to prove myself wrong’!? Sorry, I did not define my terms.
Paradox:

​

adjective

​

1.a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

​

3.any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
Contradiction:

​

adjective

​

2.assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.

​

3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

​

4.direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.Now, Light does have properties of both ‘Particles’ and ‘Waves’; however, it is neither a ‘Particle’ nor a ‘Wave’ and it is this vary problem that has lead us to the theory of Quantum-Mechanics (Please, see YouTub video Here).Using Quantum-Mechanics we now know that Light can behave both as ‘Particles’ and as ‘Waves’ and that this is a ‘Paradox’ (two things that only seam contradictory) not a ‘Contradiction’ (two thing that are, in every respect, contradictory).If two things could be true, in the same way, at the same time, and be contradictory then there would be no way to know anything; and that would include knowing that we could or could not know anything.I give an example of this problem in a post to another person I have corresponded with in the past.He stated:

quote:

---

facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us.

---

quote:

---

Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them?

---

My response was: So, in this illustration we can either ‘Know Facts’ (and know that we know them) or we cannot ‘Know Facts’ (and therefore cannot know that we do not know facts); however, we could not know that we cannot know facts.Ooooo, circular logic make my head spin.I hope I have not totally confused you, Hope to hear from you, again, soon :-}God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure. Using the word Absolute is not the only way to denote that you’re not leaving any room for error.Example: This is an unequivocal statement.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you.The reason it is so difficult is because you have not given evidence that it isn't what I said it is.I have given evidence (in the way of arguments and Definitions) that support my suppositions; unfortunately you have offered no evidence that my suppositions are wrong, you simply dismiss them.Hope to hear from you soon.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Phat,Thanks for joining the fray, hope you enjoy our interactions.Where do you get the idea that ‘Absolute Truth’ is equal to ‘God’? It is an interesting hypothesis but I have not heard of this idea before.Hope to hear from you soon.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Hope this note finds you well. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to ‘say’ what you ‘mean’ and ‘mean’ what you ‘say’; you’ll ‘say’ one thing and then tell me you actually ‘meant’ something else entirely.I have tried to allow you to correct your inaccurate statements but you continue insisting that the things you say are not contradictory, even though thy not only contradict each other but also contradict what you ‘say’ you ‘meant’ when you said them; all the while denying that you can actually know anything for sure.On that note, if, in dead, you doubt everything, then should you not doubt that what you ‘say’ you ‘mean’ is actually what you mean to say? Should you not also doubt that you are correct in saying I am wrong? If it is possible that I am right about what I say then why are you so insistent that I am wrong?This is the problem with not ‘meaning’ what you say; and ‘saying’ what you ‘mean’. You said you keep telling me what you ‘meant’ by what you ‘said’ but how do I know you ‘meant’ what you ‘say’ you ‘meant’ by what you ‘said’ if you can’t ‘say’ what you ‘mean’ in the first place?I try to be very careful to say what I mean. When I talk about ‘Objective Truth’ I mean ‘Objective1’ ‘Truth2’ not ‘Absolute3’ ‘Truth’; I’m not hiding ‘god’ in between my words. I’m speaking (Typing) plainly, using words (and their definitions) as they are found in any English Dictionary. If I use a word metaphorically {like I did in the previous sentence} I put the meaning in prentices or I add a definition at the bottom; one that can be verified by just about any English Dictionary {as I have with the words defined below}. I do not try to re-write the English Language and give new meaning to words to fit my particular beliefs and then expect everyone to just accept my new definitions.So, if you would, please, re-state your position using the standard (Dictionary) definitions of the words you use so that we know what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’. This way you do not have to constantly re re-define what you mean by what you said.Great hearing from you; and I hope to hear from you again soon.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again; I hope you are enjoying our discussion. If you ‘ultimately’ doubt what you ‘mean’ then how do you expect me to be sure of what you ‘mean’? If you, yourself, doubt what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’ then, of course, you would be forced to doubt that I understand what you ‘mean’ by what you ‘say’. This has been my point all along. If you truly ‘doubt everything’ then it is impossible for you to use phrases like There is no absolute truth., Objective truth is what we have left when we remove all of the biases., I said that absolute truth does not exist until it has been shown to exist. and No. I'm denying the possibility that you can know it absolutely. and state them factually; simply because you cannot be sure of any of them. Therefore to tell me I am wrong, about anything, is to go against your own contention of ‘doubting everything ’.You would not only have to ‘doubt’ I am right about anything I have stated, you would have to equally ‘doubt’ I was wrong about anything I have stated; and that would include what I have said about your own statements.Is that not correct?Best wishes,God Bless,
JRTjr