IMMATERIAL = NO GOD

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

POOBAH (past)
I have no idea what "truth" is.

CARTER
Poobah, I understand that you love to hide yourself in the deep chasm of
feigned ignorance, but you very well do know what truth is - at least, you
can understand how I am using the term.

It's like saying, "I have no idea what ideas are."

POOBAH
We'll stop right there because everything else is variation on a theme.

Jason, I was trying to be light-hearted, but if you want to be
mind-numbingly pedantic, let's go for it.

Yes, when I refuse to use the "definition" you have in your head, it is
because I am trying to draw you out to actually define what it is you are
talking about, even if I have a fairly good idea what you mean. That's
because you usually have only an ill-formed definition, and if you actually
stated it, you and everyone else would realize how useless it is. To your
credit, you are usually too clever to play that game. I reference everyone
to your refusal to define what you mean by God or objective morality.

The problem, as always, Jason, is that you are using words in your mind that
have several imprecise definitions, and you are slipping between definitions
and getting them confused. You are compounding it this time by trying to use
formal rules on informal definitions. Essentially you are confusing "truth"
with "accuracy." My statement was an accurate one, not a "truthful" one, in
no small part because it is not a formal statement, so none of the rest of
your logic applies. See if you can understand the difference. Statements
made about the real world may be accurate, they may be precise, they may be
well-correlated to experience, they may be highly probable, but they are not
true. That's because "truth" - in logic (read formal systems) - has a very
precise meaning, and since you're "trying" to use logic here, you must be
using that meaning, and if you're not, you'd better define what you do mean.

Since you've been trying to use "logic" to prove your point, I assume you
are trying to prove a "logical" definition of "truth." Can the existence of
"truth" be proven within a formal system? Do you even know what "truth"
means in a formal system?

I will say nothing more on this subject Jason until you've answered these
questions (you can leave off 5). It's to show me (and everyone else) that
you actually understand the subject:
1) What is the definition of "truth" - meaning a true statement - in a
formal system?
2) Does this definition have any meaning outside of a formal system?
3) What is the definition of truth that you are using and/or trying to
prove?
4) What does Goedel's theorem imply for attempting to pin down "truth" in a
formal system?
5) What does this say for your idiotic attempts to show that truth exists by
use of a formal system?

It all boils down to St. Paul's statement in Titus - I'm paraphrasing - "A
Cretan said, 'All Cretans are liars'"

Or another way: This statement is false.

That's the problem you will always run into with "truth" in a formal system.

And if you're outside of a formal system, asking whether something is "true"
is like asking whether a horse is fruminous.

Pure nonsense

It's not surprising that you're confused here; given that you're still
fighting scientific battles that have been over for a hundred-fifty years, I
should be pleased you're fighting logical battles that have only been over
for sixty.

I'll just come out and say it - Goedel showed that "truth" cannot be
encompassed within a formal system - meaning logic - (or more precisely - in
any formal system there will be well-formed statements whose truth cannot be
determined), and so Jason your attempts to prove "truth" by logic are doomed
to failure before you start. I use "truth" in quotes above in any event
because truth in a formal system means something quite different from what
Jason intends.


>POOBAH (past)

>Everyone's

>world isn't the duality that your

>Babylonian-Judeo-Christian-Platonic-Aristolean-Medieval worldview would

make

>it out to be.

CARTER
Well, actually, everyone's world is my worldview if it is true, regardless
of belief. So this doesn't say anything but "other people have different
opinions."
Great, I already knew that.

POOBAH
That of course is the problem, Jason, and that which scares us skeptics the
most. You & your ilk are convinced you are right, and since you are, you
want to shove it down everyone else's throats.

How about instead of this sophistry, we tackle a subject related to errancy?
B.

• Previous message: IMMATERIAL = NO GOD
• Next message: IMMATERIAL = NO GOD
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]