The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View

As I said, all real truth is little-t truth, observable truth, repeatable truth. That's a copout. You're claiming that anybody who doesn't confirm your claims has an ulterior motive. That in itself is just another unconfirmed claim.You don't have to be able to demonstarte your claims to everybody but it also isn't enough to demonstrate your claims to somebody. You have to be able to demonstrate your claims to a group of more-or-less randomly-chosen people and they have to come to a consensus. Think of it like jury selection.

No. A jury can only come as close as possible to objective truth.

No. Neither represents my position. I would say that if big-t Truth exists, we have no way of knowing what it is. Human perception deals only with small-t truth and small-t truths don't add up to big-t Truth.

Again, we have to distinguish between big-r Reality and small-r reality.Everybody has his own small-r reality. Small-r reality is different in the Sahara desert from what it is in New York City. Small-r reality is different for a blind person and a sighted person. If big-r Reality exists, we have no way of perceiving it. It isn't "real" in the same sense as small-r reality.

So you definitely are saying that there is an Absolute Reality.

"Large elephant" is redundant but it's also true.What you are describing definitely is an absolute reality, a reality which is "beyond" what can be observed.

Even a "small" elephant is pretty large.Size is relative and so are "truth" and "reality". There's the truth and reality that we can agree on - such as the existence of France - and then there's the "truth" and "reality" inside your head.If you can't demonstrate something as true or real, it might was well be a three-inch elephant.

You are describing something that is absolute.

There's nothing redundant about it. What you call Reality, a "reality" that includes God, is an absolute reality. But a reality that is based on a consensus of perception is an approximate reality, so it's important to make the distinction.What you call Reality is not real in any real sense. Realistically, the only thing we can ever do is approximate reality.

The trouble with simple ideas is that they're often too simple-minded. As I've been saying, a consensus of understanding is more reliable than your own simplistic ideas. Any literature should be interpreted in the context that it was intended. The nit-witted approach is to assume that the Bible was written for a 21st-century audience.There is no reason to think the Bible contains any absolute truth. Even if it did, science doesn't concern itself with absolute truth.