If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

quote:

---

I am not sure I agree that there are things that are nether true nor false. at lease I can’t think of anything that is nether true nor false

---

Self-referential paradoxes are neither true nor false. e.g. "This sentence is false" - if it's true then it must be false, if it's false it can't be false.And I don't think that jar was talking about "subjective truths" either. Newtonian mechanics is not absolutely true. It's a very good approximation to the truth in many situations - too good to write it off as simply "false" - in fact true enough to be taught in schools.The simple binary labelling of true and false is too simple - it erases the difference between "close enough for all practical purposes" and "completely wrong". Things which aren't absolutely true don't need to be absolutely false.

quote:

---

Agreed, however, that does not mean that nothing is ‘Absolutely True’, just because not everything is ‘Absolutely True’; does it?

---

I wouldn't argue that nothing is absolutely true. In fact I would argue that the truths of logic and other formal systems ARE absolute truths.
(An extreme skeptic could argue that we can't know that for sure, because we have to rely on our own thoughts even for that).But I would argue that our knowledge of any external concrete reality is uncertain and may well be approximate or incomplete. And we can't know that it isn't. Just as Newtonian mechanics proved to be.But I wouldn't call that subjective truth. Approximate truth would be better. Newton's laws are objectively very close to the truth in many situations, and that ought to be recognised.

Ross is an old-earther. Although that hasn't stopped him making some bizarre claims based on his version of Biblical literalismEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hugh tries to show people that they can apply the scientific method to the study of Scripture

---

From what I've seen he more commonly tries to pass apologetics off as science.

quote:

---

. In interpreting Gen 1, it is important to note the "frame of reference" and the "initial conditions" of each step in the creation process. E.g. the frame of reference for Gen 1:2 ff is the earth; these are descriptions of what would have been seen by an earth-based observer, not by a heavenly observer.

---

And what is the scientific basis for the claim that this is the correct "frame of reference" ?

Of course it makes sense if you understand that Hugh Ross is starting from the position that Genesis literally describes the creation as he understands it. Hugh Ross is an astronomer, and pretty much agrees with mainstream science in that area. Thus, the choice of the "frame of reference" is based on the interpretation rather than the other way around.I think kbertsche realises this, which is why he has not answered my earlier post. Looking for excuses to interpret the data as supporting a pre-determined view is hardly scientific.

I note that apart from explaining Ross's use of the term you still don't offer any support for the claim that it is "proper" - despite NoNukes objections. Nor do you even really explain how it is such an important part of the scientific method to deserve Ross's treatment of it.Of course the proper frame of reference for interpreting both of the Creation stories and the Flood is that they are Middle Eastern myths. That's rather more important than speculations about "authorial perspective. Understanding the nature of the text, and the context in which it was written really is important. Too bad that Ross neglects that aspect.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I mentioned this above. Hugh explicitly breaks out factors that are normally included implicitly in taking and interpreting data. His formulation is non-standard, but not "wrong".

---

The question is not whether Ross's version can be said to be literally accurate. The question is whether Ross is misleading both by exaggerating the importance of the steps he adds to the usual list, and by misapplying them. Both seem to be true to me - the second obviously so.

It makes sense that Ross would argue like that. Apologetics don't have to make sense when examined with even a remotely critical eye. Unlike science which does have to stand up to close, expert scrutiny. And thus Ross is not thinking like a scientist at all.