If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

What you're actually doing is stonewalling. I think you should engage the discussion, then handle any terminology or "frame of reference" issues as they come up. You shouldn't trust information about science that comes from a religious source. You can find many satisfactory characterizations of the scientific method on the Internet, but here's my own version:

• Find a problem or ask a question, for example, "Why is the ocean salty?"
  ​
• Form a hypothesis, for example, "Salt is delivered to oceans in minute amounts by rivers and runoff from land, and over time it has become very salty."
  ​
• Determine some implications of your hypothesis that can be tested, for example, "We should therefore find salt in minute amounts in rivers and in runoff from land.
  ​
• Gather evidence, and/or perform experiments from which you also gather evidence.
  ​
• Analyze your evidence, for example, calculate if the salt delivered to the oceans by rivers and runoff is sufficient to account for the amount of salt in the world's oceans.
  ​
• Form conclusions. If your analysis says your hypothesis was correct, great. If not, then go back to step 2 and modify your hypothesis. For example, our analysis will reveal that our hypothesis was correct because rivers and runoff deliver more than enough salt to the oceans to make it as salty as it is. We might also notice that the oceans have received more salt than is actually there, providing a question for the next stage of research: "Where did all the extra salt go?"

--Percy

That's not an answer to Ringo's question. Yes, agreeing on terminology is important. No one is arguing with that. If you have a specific word or term that you think may be causing confusion then please just let us know.Ringo is asking you a different question. He's asking how you establish to your own satisfaction whether something is real or true.--Percy

The question has been posed, "Is reality real or an illusion?" (If there was some original form the question took that is important to discussing this then just let me know.) JRTjr has an answer. Ringo is asking how he obtained that answer.For many people Ringo's request is rhetorical, meant only to point out that JRTjr's answer was not established by any valid method for obtaining knowledge and is just his opinion.--Percy

No they are not. As long as you and I know what the other means, we can communicate, no matter what any dictionary has to say about the subject. If you're using a dictionary definition and I say that definition isn't adequate, we need to come to some kind of agreement beyond the dictionary.So Let's try again: How does a dictionary definition of "true" help you distinguish between a man in a Bigfoot suit and a real Bigfoot? Even if you understand the meaning of "true" to the greatest possible depth of human understanding, how does that help you distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot?What process would you use to decide if a Bigfoot report was real or bogus? What would you do after looking in the dictionary?

Dear Percy,Thank you for your comments; hope you’ll join the fray. Agreed, and to understand that, he must first understand how I define what ‘Real’/‘True’ are; would you not agree?I would not be pressing this issue with him, but, he has come up with some unorthodox definitions for words.Again, thank you for your comments,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Correct accreditation :-0

No.If you had a cogent explanation, you could provide your definitions and that explanation in a few paragraphs. If there were questions, you could clarify.I suspect clarity is the last thing you want.Why are you so coy? It makes one think there's nothing under your skirts but thick ankles.

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again, Great, we can at least agree that we have to be able to agree on definitions to communicate.However, since you are asking me how I tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit explain to me why I have to throughout the definitions I use??Whether or not you think the definitions are adequate would have no bearing on how I decide what is, or is not, real.Second, the reason I am harping on these definitions is precisely because I don’t know what you mean. You make statements and then, when I point out the absurdity of what you said, you complain that you meant something else.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Thank you for your comments. Why?; are you suggesting that just because the Scientist I am getting my information from is ‘religious’ his information is automatically wrong??God Bless,
JRTjr

I think Ringo is hoping that working with him on the Bigfoot example will help you both to a better understanding of each other's views. Explaining one's views by working through an example is often very effective. It might work better than exchanging word definitions. If you don't like the Bigfoot example then suggest another.--Percy

No. I'm suggesting pretty much precisely what I said. Had you vetted that information you would have quickly discovered it was wrong.Any reaction to the correct description of the scientific method? Doesn't it look to you like a very effective method for determining what is true or real? Isn't it pretty much what everyone does, in a much less formal sort of way, when they're trying to figure something out?--Percy

We're on an Internet discussion forum, aren't we? We're talking about communication, aren't we? The question isn't so much about how you convince yourself; it's about how you communicate your thoughts to others.So again and again and again: How would you tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony?I had a teacher once who said that if you can't explain something to an eight-year-old you don't really understand it. So how would you explain to an eight-year-old how you would tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony? The problem is that when I TELL you what else I meant, you label everything I say as absurd. We can't communicate if you assume that everything you don't already know is absurd.If you make an attempt to honestly answer the question that I keep asking, maybe you'll begin to understand what I mean.

That's not any scientific method at all. I think that Hugh Ross was not telling the truth to you. The scientific method starts with observation. Then why?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hugh Ross' explanation of the scientific method is non-standard, but it's not "wrong". The two steps that he adds (1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference; 2. Determine the initial conditions) are normally included as part of doing an experiment and making observations.The scientific method can be thought of as a circular (or spiral) endeavor, with four major parts. It can start at any point in the circle/spiral; with observation, with making a hypothesis, with determining implications of a hypothesis, or with doing an experiment.

While I of course can't be certain without access to the Biblical Paradoxes lecture series, from what I know about Hugh Ross it seems pretty likely that where says "frame of reference" he means Biblical versus non-Biblical. And that where he says "initial conditions" he means a 6000-year old Earth versus a 13.8 billion year old universe.--Percy

Ross is an old-earther. Although that hasn't stopped him making some bizarre claims based on his version of Biblical literalismEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.