If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

I'm not touching the "absolute truth" issue, but I didn't see a definitive answer to this question: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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