One simple question

[Purple Rabbit]

If by this method you mean the scientific method, your method can only assess things up to a certain point, yes. So we agree it can never reach 100% accuracy. And we might agree that your and mine method not only fails at absolutely and definitely ruling out anything, it also fails at absolutely and definitely ruling in anything.

And why would something need to be 100 percent accurate in order to be valid? Would not the consistency of such a methodology play a part in comparison to others' reasoning methods or lack thereof?

Oh, I would prefer that 100% if it was feasible, because the difference between 99,99% and 100% might hold important clues and even might change all foregoing conclusions. But as I stated before, the 100% option is not possible. Indeed I agree that given the fact that we have no free access to 100% abolute truth a comparison of alternative methods should include intrinsic consistency.

I don't deal in absolutes, nor do I know of anyone or anything that operates with. in such measures. Why would I then assume that my methodologies must abide by some impossible standard? Yes, I could be wrong in every aspect, but that's the beauty of the method. It allows for self examination.

Some religious deal in absolutes for sure. And be assured that I am not demanding absoluteness of you. But given the fact that you and I cannot deal in absolutes we should be aware that our position on truth is relative and that in that sense we can claim no guarantee from our preferred method (science) itself. Only when we accept basic practical assumptions like "does it work" we can distinguish the performance of the scientific method from other methods. IOW there is no absolute benchmark on truth and the scientific method can claim none, not meaning by stating this that I presently assume you are of different opinion. However I think that "self examination" won't bring you any nearer to truth and it is not a part of the scientific method.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

In that case any methodology that uses empirical observations would be meaningless. Why exactly would that be preferential or beneficial to my understanding? Also, if I am the product of an illusion, how would I demonstrate this? We rely on certain assumptions for survival and growth stemming from our perceptions of reality. We wouldn't have gotten very far as a species if we wholeheartedly believed that we are the product of a dream and everything we do is either inconsequential or illusory.

The point is that if the mind in a jar is true but we don't have access to that truth at all, meaning that it doesn't show up in our perception of reality at all, that it would not render empirical observations meaningless because it is the only type of meaning we would be able to constitute. But I agree that we rely on assumptions.

You're right that the mind in a jar as of yet is not within reach of measurement. And indeed that is a serious problem with it just as with the god concept. But those considerations are not about ultimate truth, it is nothing but a practical consideration.

And why would ultimate truth be necessary in the limited scope of human perception? How would that even be possible?

I am not asserting that only 100% truth is enough, see the above.

Even if we are in some Matrix, the reality that we can perceive is all we can make statements about, untill shown otherwise.

I don't see issue in this. The fact that we can perceive doesn't give us any insight on how to perceive it. My question was directed at those with a supernatural belief to justify their ideology in a way that was reasonably consistent with their perceptions of reality. It's asking them, in any context, to share why they think a certain concept/deity/being/anything is real or not.

To what purpose? To find that they have some other "method" (e.g. divinely installed knowledge) does not mean that you can compare succes rates of methods in terms of truth.

This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Nor should it be in a conversation such as this. When you go for existential concepts such as ultimate truth and absolute knowledge, you're drawing a line directly between "vague" and "impossible", then walking it. It's quite futile.

That's a normative statement. IMO some if not all religious do claim absolute truth, so it already is involved into this kind of discussion.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.

Is there an ultimate answer for anything at all? Did I ask for absolute certainty?

You did ask to draw a line between true and false didn't you?