If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

I'm not so sure. Can you expand on that argument? Why does the premise lead to the conclusion?When we zoom in on actual reality, the farther in we go, the blurrier and blurrier it gets. Its gets less and less "absolute" the closer we look at it.When we get into really deep quantum levels, things stop being particles and behave like wave function and probability distributions. There's really nothing "absolute" about that.But all that doesn't stop us from approximating reality at our macro level and figuring out how things work. So I don't see how without absolute truths, that we cannot make scientific predictions.Added by edit:To further my point, in the context of the length of a two-by-four. I contend that even without absolute truths, scientific predictions would still be possible.Let's say we have a two-by-four. You're saying that it has an absolute length. So, God drags out a board, makes a cut with his saw, and proclaims this absolute truth: "This is an eight-foot two-by-four."You walk out with your tape measure, slap it down; "ninety-six inches... on the dot."Now, for the scientific perspective; we bust out a magnifying glass and take a closer look. The edge of the board is all pointy and spikey. Its hard to find an exact edge. We zoom in closer, its even crazier. The cells themselves have varying length. In closer and the particles become more like clouds. We cannot find a point to draw an actual edge on. We doubt that there's an absolute length because that shit is too blurry.So, let's grant that the scientific perspective is actually right. That as you get closer to defining the absolute edge of a board, the less clear it becomes where it is.Please realize that this doesn't mean that you can't walk up with a tape measure and go: "Yup, ninety-six inches"Or even; 'hey, random guy: "How long is this two-by-four?"'<.< "Uh, eight-feet?"Sweet, add it to the wall.No wait, there's really no absolute length of the board and we have to doubt all our predictions about how level the top of this wall is going to be! Oh noes! and the wall vanishes into non-reality.But seriously. From a non-absolute perspective, you can still "do science" and make predictions about how level the top of your wall is going to be. It won't be absolutely level, but that random guy knew it was level. And all our eyeball observations agree.The lack of an absolute doesn't prevent the measurement. And once we have those observations, we can begin the predicting. And that's just the half of itYou gotta account for inerrancies in your observational methods. Maybe you can't see real good, and it was really on ninety-five and fifteen-sixteenths. Granted, that would mean that God was fucking with you.But still, as we zoom in we might be loosing some clarity. Starting from your eyeballs and even your brain, themselves, down through the lens in the magnifying glass and microscope.Even if there is an absolute truth, you still can't be sure that your objectification of it was absolutely correct.But that's where objectivity comes into play. If we can all agree that this board is eight-feet long, and the top of the wall really is fucking level, then it never matters that the board's length isn't really absolute. And it is possible to make scientific predictions about how level the top is going to be.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Added

Because predictions aren't absolute. I can predict that you won't win the lottery this week but I have to have some doubt in that prediction because there's a finite (though tiny) chance that you will win. Maybe we can know that A is A absolutely but we can not know what A is absolutely. Knowing that A is A is of little value unless we know what A is.

Is that how you feel about the possibility that the sun won't rise in the east?

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.

Not quite. All truth is self referential. There is no such thing as truth without an observer.

Your position seems to be evolving.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree that those 2 statements appear to be in contradiction but they are not.Reality exists independent of consciousness but any assessment of it requires the consciousness. The concept of truth exists because the conscious mind has conceived it but reality can get along just fine without our appreciation of it.Statements of truth describe the relationships between entities. Reality is the relationship between entities.

As we approach the truth of any matter the points of corroboration will necessarily increase. That's how we know that we might be approaching the truth.I fully appreciate how easy it is to be wrong. My point is that it is possible to be less wrong and because of that then there must be something to be less wrong about.

Dreams, drugs and chemistry are real things that affect my consciousness. All of our perceptions are caused by something real. Only some of our conclusions are correct. Logic can be used to sort them.

That's simply nonsense. One might equally well say that if we are wrong then there must be some way to be right. Further, increasing points of corroboration does not equate to being "less wrong" anyway. Now modify those things with "possibly" or "maybe" and it is clear that you've said less than nothing.No experiment that anyone could have conceived of and carried out in say 1492 would have led anyone towards the theory of special relativity. Hundreds and even thousands of lines of inquiry available at that time would not have caused us to become any closer to the truth. The problem is that points of corroboration may increase even when we are completely wrong and even when we are heading in the wrong direction. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The odds in favour of the sun rising are better. The sun rising tomorrow is pretty certain but can you say it's absolutely impossible for the sun not to rise tomorrow?

You think they're real. Ever hear of placebos? All logic can do is test the internal consistency of your constructed "reality". You can construct logical worlds that have no relation to "reality" at all.

As has already been discussed - We may well be able to agree on this with a high degree of confidence but it cannot be stated as an absolute certainty. Given that distinction - What then is an "absolute truth"?

I don't think the rotation of the Earth can be stopped at a rate fast enough that it won't still spin enough distance for the sun to appear above my horizon before what would be tomorrow.And if by some magic it was, then nobody would be here to know the answer to the question... so it wouldn't matter.

There are plenty of things that we could put on a list of "physically impossible" events: an ant can't lift an elephant, etc. If people want to call that "absolute truth", that's fine with me. If that's all they have, I'm not impressed. Anything is possible with magic. If absolutely everything is possible, "absolute truth" is diluted to the point of irrelevance.