|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
JRTjr01 writes: When I look at those black rocks in the Drakensberg and study them, I don't set initial conditions. I never said anything about 'Setting' "initial conditions". 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Pressie,
I Pray you are doing well.
Pressie writes: How would you go about determining a real Bigfoot from a false Bigfoot? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
JRTjr01 writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
I pray you are doing well.
Ringo writes: It seems that if God did stop intervening in nature, believers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
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.
To illustrate my point I’d like to invite you to watch Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence (a 15 minute YouTube video).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
If you had any honest intentions to discuss anything or reach an actual point... 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: This is all just a big ol' pile of bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Percy,
Hope you are doing well.
Percy writes: 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? Yes; using Logic, reasoning, and scientific methodology.
Percy writes: 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? This is where a Dictionary comes into play {and why I have been harping on Ringo about definitions.}
Absolute: 3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial. 4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom . Truth: 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Uh, okay. Whatever you said is beyond me. Are you equating scientifically true to absolutely true?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
They say "massive" when they mean "big". They say "awesome" when they mean "good". They say "absolutely" when they mean "yes".
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Percy,
Thank you for your continued interest in our conversation; Sorry for the delay in my response.
Percy writes: Are you equating scientifically true to absolutely true? 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 physics Scientific methodologies are built on the foundations of Absolute Truth; however, they are not the same thing. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
TRTjr01 writes: I can't find that last part anywhere in the link you provided. 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 physics The closest I got to it was right at the end: In metaphysics, the absolute "that which is absolute" is from 1809.
Metaphysics is not the same as physics. So, could you specifically refer to where you got physics from that link you provided?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
JRTjr01 writes: Scientific methodologies are built on the foundations of Absolute Truth; however, they are not the same thing. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Percy,
Great hearing from you again.
Percy writes: 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. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024