|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I'm not touching the "absolute truth" issue, but I didn't see a definitive answer to this question:
ProtoTypical writes: Is there some H or He in this universe that has not been through a star? It's a big universe, so it would be surprising if they're weren't - it's knowing when you've identified some primordial H or He that is the problem. But here's a possible identification of some: Galaxy Has Leftover Material from the Big Bang. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ProtoTypical writes: You can't use the word false without agreeing that there is such a thing as truth. It might be more accurate to say, "You can't use the word false without agreeing that there is such a thing as true." I don't know whether Ringo would agree, but what I would say is that you can think something false and know you might be wrong. And you can think something true and again know you might be wrong. But you can't absolutely know whether anything is true or false. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ProtoTypical writes: The misconception about the nature of matter does not change the reality that the table holds up the plate. Just the point I was going to make! A magician making a coin disappear is an illusion, but a table holding up a plate is not. That walls are solid is a misconception, or maybe we're using an insufficiently detailed definition of solid, but in any case it's not an illusion, and that walls are mostly empty space doesn't change the fact that punching a wall will hurt your hand. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
1.61803 writes: You see we are merely arguing the sample size, it would take but one positive sample to refute your premise that there is no such thing as a 8 foot board. In a practical sense you're right, but not in an absolute sense. As soon as you start invoking practicality and pragmatism, absoluteness goes by the (ahem) board. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
1.61803 writes: If I invent a wood replicator and instruct the 3D printer to make my board be composed of 190 trillion atoms x 390 trillion atoms x 190 trillion atoms... Previously you were arguing from a "let's be realistic" perspective suggesting that we should be practical and compromise on the requirements of something being absolute, now you're proposing a hypothetical that asks us to assume your hypothetical is possible (it also has the imprecision NoNukes noted). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Hi JRTjr,
I read back around 10 or so messages of your subthread with Ringo looking for the origin of this digression and didn't find it, so I'm not sure if this will be helpful, but I think Ringo is asking about the process you use to establish what you believe is true or real. Science has a process known as the scientific method. If you're not using this process, what process are you using? Ringo, if I'm off track please just tell JRTjr to ignore this. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
JRTjr01 writes: I am actually trying to get Ringo past the first hurdle of the ‘Scientific Method1’; that is, I’m trying to establish a ‘proper frame of reference’ so that we are not talking passed each other. 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.
Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this. 1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference.2. Determine the initial conditions. 3. Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where. 4. Note the final conditions. 5. Form an hypothesis. 6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations. {Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxesby Dr. Hugh Ross} 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:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
JRTjr01 writes: I already explained how, in post # 609: JRTjr writes: we need to be able to communicate with understanding and not be bogged down with ‘you mean one thing’ and ‘I mean another’. This only leads to confusion. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
NoNukes writes: I don't think your characterization is correct. The scientific method completely avoids the question of whether our measurements, observations, and even our existence are real or fictitious. The assumption is that what we observe is real (absent questions of viewpoint and physical illusions) and that we are real. Ringo is actually asking what I believe is an unanswerable question. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
JRTjr01 writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
JRTjr01 writes: Percy writes: You shouldn't trust information about science that comes from a religious source. Why?; are you suggesting that just because the Scientist I am getting my information from is ‘religious’ his information is automatically wrong?? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Oh, right, Hugh Ross. For some reason my mind fetched the information on Carl Baugh. Turns out it makes little difference. Summary of Reasons To Believe's Testable Creation Model makes clear that Ross is talking about frames of reference and initial conditions described in the Bible.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
kbertsche writes: Hugh tries to show people that they can apply the scientific method to the study of Scripture. But Ross is not "applying the scientific method to the study of Scripture." He's studying scripture using an approach that happens to bear some resemblance to the scientific method. And so what. Independent of whether his approach to studying scripture has any value, it's still not a method appropriate for science and the study of the natural world. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
JRTjr01 writes: Yes, you claim that yours (note here you called this your ‘own version’) is ‘the correct one’; Except that I didn't claim my version is "the correct one." What I said in Message 631 was, "You can find many satisfactory characterizations of the scientific method on the Internet, but here's my own version." That's practically the opposite of what you claim I said. You need to do a better job of reading for comprehension. Now that you've read a number of different descriptions of the scientific method, you understand it doesn't include identifying a frame of reference or determining the initial conditions. I was just trying to help you see that the description you took from Biblical Paradoxes lecture series was bogus. But that wasn't my main point. I was mostly just trying to encourage you to cease being evasive and begin engaging the discussion. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024