If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

No I do not. I asked you:

quote:

---

Are you saying that you discern real Bigfeet from phony Bigfeet by dictionary definition? If so, how?

---

How do you COMPARE reality with the dictionary definition?

i suppose that technically brad Pitt could be a virtual reality creation from the labs of Hollywood...and Santa may well be an actual old guy somewhere...though i doubt the elves.

But you wrote it and NoNukes didn't.

Yes. But quite obviously you are nowhere near addressing that issue with the current series of posts. You are instead charging down a blind alley leading nowhere. No. Ringo is actually asking you to rebut the idea that what you view as reality is illusion. You are responding by reporting your observations which are obtained from your senses and thus are subject to illusion. Regardless of how silly ringo is being, your arguments don't work. There are likely no arguments that will work.

In the movie S1m0ne, Al Pacino creates a digital movie star and then he can't convince anybody that she isn't real. The technology may not be quite there yet but it does underline the fact that people are easy to fool about "reality".

Dear Dr. Adequate,Thank you for commenting on my post.Actually NoNukes said: I simply pared it down; that is why I did not quote him on it.However, thank you, again, for your comment; hope you enjoy the discussion.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Thank you for your continued interest in our discussion.When I stated: I was referring to your statements in Post #577 and #608; where you ask me to tell you the difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit; you tell me you want me to be specific and add that you want details. Then (in Post #610), when I start my explanation, you make yet another self-contradictory statement: Which is why I said it was: I apologize, I mistakenly though you would get the reference without me having to spell it out like this.Now, once again I ask: if you’re interested in my Explaining the difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit; being specific and in detail, I would suggest you start off by studying the definitions of the words listed below, because when I use these words I am using those definitions. Because this is the only way I am going to be able to spell out, in any detail, how I distinguish between a man in Bigfoot suits and Bigfoot itself.If you are not interested in a ‘specific’ and ‘detailed’ explanation of how I tell the difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit than I, again, ask the question Why did you ask in the first place?God Bless,
JRTjr

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

So how does a dictionary definition of "true" help you distinguish between a man in a Bigfoot suit and a real Bigfoot? Even if you understand the meaning of "true" to the greatest possible depth of human understanding, how does that help you distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot?What you need to define is not the meaning of "true" or even the meaning of "Bigfoot". After all, a dictionary is likely to tell you that a Bigfoot is a creature that may or may not be real.What you need to define is what kind of EVIDENCE would distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot.Evidence is as close to "real" or as "true" as anything you're going to find. Definitions are only a shadow of reality.

Dear NoNukes,Great hearing from you again. Tell me about it; I look from horizon to horizon and don’t see If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature anywhere around.However, it seems that Ringo likes chasing rabbits; and no one else was continuing the conversation around my statements in post #40. Actually, if you go back to his replies to my comments; he is telling me I am wrong (with no explanation as to why I am wrong or evidence to show that I am wrong) and then tells me that the onus is on me to ‘prove’ I am right.The actual ‘burden of proof’ is on him; but sshhh, don’t tell him that. Ya, I know, but I love marry-go-rounds; I’m just waiting to see how long it takes him to get dizzy and fall off. ;; -}}}Actually, I continue this discussion with Ringo for three reasons. First:I hope that at some point Ringo will understand that the position he is holding to can only be maintained as long as he rejects all logic; which includes reason, evidence, and proof.I know, not likely to happen, but one can dream. Right?Second:It helps me to think about and re-asses my assumptions, and logic. Is what I just said logical? Factual? Evidentiary?You have helped me with this, in the past, by correct something I said; just as now, I have gone over again (in my mind) what I have said and am responding to you.So, again, Thank you for your comments. Third:When others read Ringo’s posts and my responses, I hope they will get something from them.Thanks for your input,
JRTjrP.s. If you want to discuss the topic at hand If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature; I’d love to hear your thoughts.

​

As a matter of fact, I recently came across an interesting YouTube Video that deals, indirectly, with this vary topic.

​

If you’re interest, please, watch it and tell me what you think.

Dear Percy,Thank you for weighing in on this subject. This off-shoot discussion actually started with my statements in post #40. Thank you Percy, for your help.I am actually trying to get Ringo past the first hurdle of the ‘Scientific Method1’; that is, I’m trying to establish a ‘proper frame of reference’ so that we are not talking passed each other.If we can settle on a ‘common set of definitions’ we can finally move on to actually working on the question at hand. Alas, it seam he is unwilling to even agree with me on that one thing.Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

And completely changed its meaning.

I don't think your characterization is correct. The scientific method completely avoids the question of whether our measurements, observations, and even our existence are real or fictitious. The assumption is that what we observe is real (absent questions of viewpoint and physical illusions) and that we are real. Ringo is actually asking what I believe is an unanswerable question.

But JRTjr01 thinks he has the answer and I'm trying to get him to tell us how he got it.

Dear Ringo,Hope this post finds you well. I already explained how, in post # 609:and post #615:God Bless,
JRTjr