Creation

ICANT does. He says he has reached absolute truth. How can he possibly know a destination exists if he hasn't been there? Are moving destinations anything like moving goalposts? What about ANY facts? I'm satisfied to wait until a bridge exists before I try to cross it. A "leap of faith" my be inspiring in some situations but in most situations it's just plain stupid.

Hi ringo Everybody has an opinion about everything and prayer is no exception.Please give me what you would consider objective evidence of an answered prayer. I believe we have all the facts we need to prove the universe exists. What other facts would we need for it to be an absolute truth?But when you are talking about something that happened 13.7 billion years ago with no witnesses and all the information you have is the assumption that something took place because it fits what you believe and seems to be the best fit is not an absolute truth. Because you have no evidence.There is a huge building at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500. We call that building the White House. It is an absolute truth that building exists as I have seen it.Do you disagree that the White House's existence is an absolute truth?Your problem with absolute truth is that you nor the scientific community has any that support the BBT or any other hypothesis concerning the beginning to exist of the universe even though they know it exists. Fact you are alive. That can change in only one way you die.
Fact the universe exists. That can change with the universe ceasing to exist due to burning up with fervent heat.Your being alive is a fact. Your death would be a fact.
Existence is a fact. Non existence is not a fact because there is existence. Put your brain into gear before you speak or type. That is the definition of fact.Example: The universe exists. Dispute that. And since it turned out to be false it was not the best explanation. Misinformed, and deluded people just believed it and had faith it was the best explanation. Are you telling me that the universe existing is not a scientific fact? When you have found equivalent evidence for something as there is for the universe existing you have found the absolute truth.For something that happened 13.7 billion or more years ago that your search ends in a place math does not work and can't give any information you will never find the absolute truth for what happened, how, or why it happened. The only thing you can do is to presume certain things happened because you believe that is what happened.
So everything you have been taught or read about the beginning to exist of the universe is faith based and you have no more evidence for what you believe as I do by accepting by Faith God created the universe like He said he did.God Bless,

Hi ringo You may be closer to the truth than you realize.But there are absolute truths.The earth exists.
The sun exists.
The moon exists.
The stars exist.
The lazyboy chair I am sitting in exists.
The keyboard I am typing on exists.
The computer screen I am seeing what I type appear on exists.
The computer I am using exists.
The TV in front of me that Tulane and Louisiana are playing a football game exists.
I could name all kinds of thing that exist in the room I am in exists.Everyone of these things absolutely exist making it an absolute truth they exist I can see them, touch them, and feel them.ringo are you just being deliberately obtuse concerning absolute truth not existing? I won't finish the first part of the quote from Columbo.God Bless,

The reason there is no objective evidence is because it would be impossible to establish a clear cause-effect link between the prayer and the event. Unless you can be 100% sure that you're not hallucinating this entire conversation, you have no "absolute truth". On two separate occasions I have seen two moons in the sky at the same time, so I don't trust eyewitness testimony - even if it's my own. Of course I do, just like I disagree that two moons are an absolute truth. Existence is not a thing. It's property of things. You could be hallucinating this entire conversation. Of course it was. It was the best explanation at the time. Walking was the best form of transportation that we had until we discovered better ones. Nonsense. Newton was neither misinformed nor deluded. There's a difference between scientific fact and absolute truth. Scientific fact is the best information that we have at any given time. Absolute truth is unattainable because time keeps moving forward and we keep adding new information.

Or you might be hallucinating.

Hi ringo Are you that stupid or are you deliberately being that obtuse.If anyone is hallucinating it is ringo.God Bless,

Well, some of us are not stopping our search for new observations of un-before-seen phenomena. We just want to spend our time trying to understand what caused the affects we see. We don't give a rat's ass about absolute truth. Nope, that's the only thing you can do.We can keep studying and looking at ever expanding ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. Now we are seeing just the beginning stages of the study of gravity waves. And all along the way we keep asking ourselves and each other "what kind of conditions would cause the phenomena we are observing?"There are thousands of teams of scientists around the planet using thousands of different instruments observing the Universe from the largest scales of galactic super-clusters to the smallest grains of the quantum structure of the Universe. They hold every new observation up to see if it can shed any light on a bunch of questions. Besides having some nifty new instruments we also have cutting edge technology communication systems and computer search and modelling capabilities. Building on the newest discoveries and experiments science in physics is advancing at an unprecedented rate. Filling in blanks and creating new blanks is what we do.We are not going to stop looking for answers, because your absolute truth is so boringly unsatisfying.Science and scientists are not interested in absolute truth, rather we search for unanswered questions and improving our understanding of reality. You have demonstrated that you can never understand that.So here you are, "You guys can never figure out the absolute truth and I say you should be able to tell me the absolute truth and if you can't tell me the absolute truth you are bad and I will not let you try and tell me anything else because the absolute truth is all that matters."And we are "Why are you still asking that? We keep telling you we are not interested the absolute truth. We keep saying that we are not going to look for the absolute truth. We keep telling you that your absolute truth is no help in understanding the Universe."We have discovered that we cannot use your absolute truth as a foundation for science, so don't worry, we will not be stealing any of your material when we hypothesize.Just to be absolutely clear, the absolute truth is NOT part of the scientific method.

I don't believe he is, no.The problem, ICANT, is this "absolute truth" verbiage.In your world there may be such things but in science there can not be.I concede that the Universe exists. I concede that the TV sitting in your room with you exists ... not as absolute truths but as scientific facts in which we have a very high degree of confidence. There is ample scientific evidence that both are real conglomerations of mass and energy.But even though the degree of confidence in these facts is high and very strong there is a small possibility, vanishingly small to be sure, that, as ringo points out, these are illusions of the mind. The problem is that we cannot eliminate that possibility with absolute certainty. People have been known to hallucinate and there may alway be something we don't yet know that makes this whole universe an illusion.Not very likely, but since the scenario cannot be totally eliminated with certainty science requires we keep the possibility open even as we accept that the conclusions we will operate on do not take this possibility into account. And the reason we can do that is because the preponderance of the facts are so strong vis-a-vis the small possibility of illusion for which there are very few facts we have a very high degree of confidence in the conclusions.In the philosophy of science there is no such thing as absolute truth. There are only facts and reasonable assumptions with which we have varying degrees of confidence.The universe exists. At one time, some 13.8 billion years ago the universe was of a size smaller than an atom. From that point the big bang happened. We know this as solid scientific fact. Copious evidence from observations of the universe and the workings of our two favorite physical theories which have been faithful to every test without fail, gives us a mighty strong confidence level of the efficacy of this fact.How the universe got into this condensed condition, what happened prior to this condition, we do not know, yet. We have no facts, no theories, no reason to suppose anything, yet.Note in the above analysis that the "illusion" scenario has at least some small very weak evidence to it. People hallucinate, are mislead by their own cognitive functions. There are some controversial speculations backed by some controversial math treatments within our two favorite theories that this whole thing may be but illusion. There is evidence, small and weak as it may be.What there is no evidence for, none at all, is the speculation that some god popped the universe into existence or had anything at all to do with anything in this universe. There is no reason, even vanishingly small, to entertain the notion. No level of confidence need be assessed. It does not enter the picture in anyway. If some evidence is found, and verified, this may change. Until then, god is out.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Hi ringo So you have no parameters that would make it true or false so you have nothing to base an opinion on. I am not drinking nor am I using any hallucinating drugs so I am not hallucinating. There are 181 moons in our solar system so what? So the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 does not exist and the 181 moons in our solar system does not exist because you disagree that two moons are an absolute truth.You are deliberately being obtuse. Existence is a state of being in which the universe and everything in it exists. Just because you are in a chaotic stupor does not mean that every body else is hallucinating. Just because something is the best explanation at the time presented does not mean it is the best explanation.You are still being deliberately obtuse. Then why was he wrong? 1. Fact" a thing that is indisputably the case. Google search fact definition.
2. Fact: something that has actual existence Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
3. Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true. FACT | Meaning & Definition for UK English | Lexico.com
4. Fact: something known to have happened or to exist. FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
5. Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comScientific definition.
6. Fact: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. Fact - Wikipedia
7. Scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) Scientific fact - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.comSo according to #7 a scientific fact is not a fact but is a tentative fact.1. Tentative:not certain or fixed; provisional.So a scientific fact has no certain or fixed; provisional making it no better than a hypothesis. So I will agree with you that there is a difference between a fact and a scientific fact as they have defined scientific fact as not being a fact but as a tentative fact (could be true or could be false).I will make note of that in any future posts.You see I learned something today.God Bless,

you could be hallucinating your sobriety. don't be an idiot, obviously from the context of his writing he meant two of Earth's moon. pot, kettle.

Hi Tanypteryx Sorry to hear that. If you never find the absolute truth you will never get any factual information. So why waste the resources and time trying to find something you are not even looking forWould it not be better to spent the resources and time trying to solve the problems of the world in which we live. Like the food problem, medical problems, diseases that kill and cripple people? Just a thought.God Bless,

Well, I'm happy to report that you are completely incorrect about that, but you still don't get this simple concept. Absolute truth is religious mumbojumbo, absolute truth is not part of the scientific method, absolute truth has never been part of the scientific method, and absolute truth will never be part of the scientific method.The scientific method since it was first defined as a methodical way to study and understand things has been a highly successful way to gain knowledge. If you think you can convince science and scientists to change how they do science and report the results, don't hold your breath. Was this a question or a statement? I never waste resources. Nope. You can do whatever you want with your resources.There are enough resources to do science and solve human issues. You guys aren't successfully doing either one.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

If one of us could be hallucinating, it could be you. I'm deliberately not swallowing your nonsense without questioning it. Do you have an honest response?

When there is no evidence, the default position is false - i.e unless there is evidence pointing to a cause-effect relationship between prayer and _______, we can not conclude that prayer is effective. Mental illness is another possibility. The person who is hallucinating is the last one to be qualified to determine whether he is hallucinating or not. So what? Only one is visible to the naked eye. I said I SAW two at once. You're being illiterate. Read what I wrote. Existence is a property of things that exist. That's what I'm telling you. You don't seem to be fooling anybody on this forum except Phat. Of course it does. It's the best explanation until if and when a better one comes along. The Empire State Building was the tallest building until a taller one was built. He wasn't "wrong" per se. His understanding was incomplete because he didn't have the information that was found later. Dictionary definitions are for schoolboys. Correct. There's nothing there about it being "indisputable" or absolute. Correct. So why do you keep disputing that? Who said it was "better" than a hypothesis? Why should it be?

You guys! Here is how I see this argument: Once upon a time, a wayward son left the nest. He went to college and studied hard, learning the newest information about science and about making an impact on the world around him. His "Dad" was a religious man who had gotten saved years before and who lived his life on one principle: Genesis 1:1. The dad was rather sheltered from the latest educational insights and updates on science, though he did attempt to study it from time to time. The son and his classmates kinda mocked the old man for even attempting to understand science or the scientific method. Deep down, the Dad was a bit of a frustrated scientist himself...he wondered what he could have done with Genesis 1 plus an education. His whole motive and heart were to convince the son and his classmates that there was only one important absolute truth: Genesis 1. The son responded: The son may not have realized that his Dad was only saying that no matter what he learned from science, including the very technology that helped him battle cancer, one absolute truth remained. The son disagreed. The Father really did respect the science that his son and friends were learning, but he felt the need to remind them as often as possible that Genesis 1 was a necessary absolute truth, no matter how much other knowledge they learned. The son was thankful that he was alive and breathing, but he attributed that to science and human achievement.Get it? Keep studying, son.All that "Dad" means is that absolute truth can be a part of the faith of the scientist without interfering with his method of study. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.