If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

If you had any honest intentions to discuss anything or reach an actual point you would simply ignore obvious misspeaks, such as here where Pressie said he would "set initial conditions." He obviously intended to say the same thing your bogus scientific method says, which is to "determine the initial conditions."Are you ever going to move forward with actually discussing anything, or are you just going to nitpick and misconstrue your way through an entire thread?--Percy

Dear Pressie,I Pray you are doing well. By ruling out all other possibilities.Say, we find an ape like creature (dead or alive) in the hills of southern California. If it matches the general descriptions given by eye wittiness (and we have accounts going back well over fifty years) And, if we {using Logic, reasoning, and scientific methodology} cannot match it to any other ‘known’ primate (including a ‘man in a suit’) Then, we can say we have found the legendary Sasquatch.By the way, this is what happened with the Komodo Dragon; and other mythical creatures that where considered ‘only stuff of legends’ until they were found and investigated by scientists.Hope this answers your question,
JRTjr

Hi JRFjr01,Once again, nothing about the topic. Yes, we know how the topic began. As a subtopic we are now discussing how one establishes what is actually true about the real world, because at one point you claimed there was such a thing as absolute truth. People in this thread are trying to encourage you to actually discuss how one goes about establishing absolute truth, or even just what is true about the real world.--Percy

Great, an answer of sorts, at last. Thank you.With the caution that Ringo and I might decide to go in different directions at this point, let me give my own reaction to this. You're not very specific, but you seem to be implying that we should establish whether a particular instance of a Bigfoot is real or just a man in a suit by studying it, observing it, analyzing it, etc. Is that correct?Once you've done that and established to a scientific level that it is either a Bigfoot or a man in a suit, is that then an absolute truth?--Percy

Dear Ringo,I pray you are doing well. You’re 100% correct; I’d even go as far as to say no one (no beings in this universe) could tell the difference because nothing and no one (no beings in this universe) would exist.To illustrate my point I’d like to invite you to watch Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence (a 15 minute YouTube video).So, if God ever stopped ‘intervening in nature’ nature would simply cease to exist; thus, there would be ‘no one’ to tell the difference {other than God Himself}.God bless,
JRTjr

I'm on a public library computer and I can't watch videos. (I don't watch them anyway, just on principle.) Bring the argument here.

This whole thing started two years ago, in JRTjr01's Message 49.I identified the fact that he is not interested in arguing his position when it was only 6 months old, from my Message 174:

quote:

---

You've got nothing. You're fluffing up your lack of evidence and argument and trying to sound like you have some kind of evidence and argument. But all you've got is fluff.

​

This whole thing started six months ago:

​

I can give evidence both for the existence of God and that He operated outside of our universe; however, to do that you must be willing to look at the evidence and accept it.

​

quote:

---

It may be a tautology but evidence is evident. You don't get to have your own set of evidence. If it ain't evident (to most people, on an objective basis) it ain't evidence. If it needs to be accepted a priori it ain't evidence.

---

​

Unfortunately, I have to, respectfully, disagree with you on this one.

​

Just because ‘most people’ agree on something does not make it true/factual/correct.

​

Thousands, even hundres, of years ago ‘most people’ thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; that did not mean it was true, factual or correct.

​

I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth.

​

quote:

---

You seem to be using the term "objective truth" in the sense of "absolute truth".
There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on

---

​

Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???; and more importantly, can you prove it???

​

And down the rabbit hole you've gone. If you actually had any evidence or argument, then you would have presented it. That you've instead decided to focus on irrelevancies and distractions tell us that you never had anything in the first place.

---

This is all just a big ol' pile of bullshit.

Dear Percy,Hope you are doing well. Yes; using Logic, reasoning, and scientific methodology. This is where a Dictionary comes into play {and why I have been harping on Ringo about definitions.} So, Yes, it would be ‘absolutely True’ using definition ‘3’ of the word ‘Absolute’ and ‘2’ and ‘3’ of the word ‘Truth’. And yet, it would not be ‘absolutely True’ using definition ‘4’ of the word ‘Absolute’ and ‘2’ and ‘3’ of the word ‘Truth’; this because it is a ‘dependent truth’ not an ‘objective truth’.That is, ‘dependent truth’ is dependent on something; whereas, ‘objective truth’ is true period.‘I am 47 years old at this time’This sentence is ‘true’ or ‘not true’ based on who ‘I’ is and what the age of the person ‘I’ is; therefor it is a ‘dependent truth’ even though it is absolutely{3} true that I (JRTjr01) am 47 years old at this time.However, the law of non-contradiction is an ‘objective truth’ it is true and there is no instance in which it is not true. This is an example of an absolute{4} truth.This is where a lot of our problems are in the world today; people don’t say what they mean; and mean what they say. They will repeat something they have heard, because it sounds good, and not really understand what they are saying; mainly because they have not taken the time to think about, and research it.Not that I would ever do that. - snicker, snicker; wink, wink — ;-}Great fun,
JRTjr

Uh, okay. Whatever you said is beyond me. Are you equating scientifically true to absolutely true?--Percy

They say "massive" when they mean "big". They say "awesome" when they mean "good". They say "absolutely" when they mean "yes".

Dear Percy,Thank you for your continued interest in our conversation; Sorry for the delay in my response. The short answer is: 'No'.The long answer is: a 'Scientific Truth' simply means something that has been substantiated by using Scientific methodologies; an 'Absolute Truth', as I have stated before, is an: 4. undoubted; certain: the absolute truth 5. not dependent on, conditioned by, or relative to anything else; independent: an absolute term in logic; the absolute value of a quantity in physicsScientific methodologies are built on the foundations of Absolute Truth; however, they are not the same thing.God Bless,
JRTjr

I can't find that last part anywhere in the link you provided.The closest I got to it was right at the end: Metaphysics is not the same as physics. So, could you specifically refer to where you got physics from that link you provided?

If Absolute Truth is undoubted and certain then what you've said is not true. The foundations of science are not "undoubted; certain." Even the foundations of science are tentative.It's not clear what you mean by the "foundations of science." Perhaps things like, "The laws of the universe are the same everywhere" and "The laws of the universe are unchanging"? Even those are tentative.--Percy

Dear Pressie,Thank you for your continued interest.I see what you mean. That is one of the unfortunate things about living in the Internet age. I often come across links that have been changed or the link to a page no longer exists.It gets quite annoying at times.However, even though the examples have, apparently, been changed; the definitions are still the same:'certain', 'not dependent on', 'or conditioned by' (i.e. [a] something that is free from any restriction or condition.), and 'independent'.Thanks again for your comments,
JRTjr

Dear Percy,Great hearing from you again. Sounds as if you cannot be certain of anything.If you can't be certain of anything then; how can you be certain that you cannot be certain of anything?Now, I can agree that our understanding of the laws that govern our universe are 'tentative'. And, therefore, our 'Scientific' conclusions should always be tentative (to a certain point); however, If we could not trust that the laws that govern our universe were fix and unchanging (i.e. Absolute) then there would be no science at all; we might as well go back to believing in magic.Would you not agree?Great Fun,
JRTjr