The Varieties of Truth

[Spurgeon]

Zarathustra:
Tell me your definition of existentialism, and I will tell you how it conflicts with Biblical Christianity.

 

[Zarathustra]

And what about religious existentialism?

I don't deny that the philosophy exists. Some people claim to be religious existentialists. That's a fact.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense.

And I'm saying that it absolutely does.

 

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra: Tell me your definition of existentialism, and I will tell you how it conflicts with Biblical Christianity.

What do I look like, an NTP?

 

[KDude]

That is all completely irrelevant.

Lol.. You need to start participating. Somehow. Every post of yours lately comes off like some kneejerk reaction and defense of some "truth" that you've yet to actually defend or even state, for that matter. It's like you disagree, but want others to make your points for you.

 

[Zarathustra]

Lol.. You need to start participating. Somehow. Every post of yours lately comes off like some kneejerk reaction and defense of some "truth" that you've yet to actually defend or even state, for that matter. It's like you disagree, but want others to make your points for you.

I don't have a problem with his style.

Frankly, I quite like it.

And the truth he constantly seems to be defending is rather obvious, no?

More importantly, though, we're getting to the point where this line of discussion should probably become a thread split.

If [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] doesn't have a problem with the present line of discussion dominating his thread as it is, then I suppose it does not matter; but I could understand why he might. In some sense, though, it's still an interesting discussion about truth. Nicodemus?

 

[Spurgeon]

Lol.. You need to start participating. Somehow. Every post of yours lately comes off like some kneejerk reaction and defense of some "truth" that you've yet to actually defend or even state, for that matter. It's like you disagree, but want others to make your points for you.

I'm not sure it's worth the time.

 

[KDude]

I'm not sure it's worth the time.

Why would you think that, if I'm asking you?

And since when do I have to twist an ENTP's arm to argue something? If there's anything that's a waste of time, it's that. I shouldn't even have to do it.

 

[Spurgeon]

Why would you think that, if I'm asking you?

And since when do I have to twist an ENTP's arm to argue something? If there's anything that's a waste of time, it's that. I shouldn't even have to do it.

Considering that I have a wife and kids, a job, and other responsibilities--This is just not very high on my list of priorities.

I wish I had more time to participate, but I simply don't.

 

[KDude]

Considering that I have a wife and kids, a job, and other responsibilities--This is just not very high on my list of priorities.

I wish I had more time to participate, but I simply don't.

Fair enough then.

 

[A window to the soul]

For something to be true, it must be in accord with reality.

It must be true regardless of circumstances, feelings, opinions, sentiment, etc.

It must be eternal and unchanging.

Perception of truth may be relative, but truth itself is not.

That's right if we were talking about the definition of truth from the dictionary, silly. Nicodemus was asking about our personal conceptions of truth, which is our connotation of the word 'truth'.

 

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra: Tell me your definition of existentialism, and I will tell you how it conflicts with Biblical Christianity.

What do I look like, an NTP?

[To Spurgeon] Lol.. You need to start participating. Somehow. Every post of yours lately comes off like some kneejerk reaction and defense of some "truth" that you've yet to actually defend or even state, for that matter. It's like you disagree, but want others to make your points for you.

I'm not sure it's worth the time.

Why would you think that, if I'm asking you?

And since when do I have to twist an ENTP's arm to argue something? If there's anything that's a waste of time, it's that. I shouldn't even have to do it.

Considering that I have a wife and kids, a job, and other responsibilities--This is just not very high on my list of priorities.

I wish I had more time to participate, but I simply don't.

Fair enough then.

And, on that note, I just want to say that I think all NTPs should be forced to study the development of Wittgenstein's thought from his earlier writings (The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) to his later writings (The Philosophical Investigations, On Certainty, et al).

 

[Mole]

Falsifiability

And what of the things that the scientific method cannot tell us?

The scientific method is a way of testing guesses to see if they are false. It's called falsifiability.

We have been able to falsify the Exodus and the Mormon history of North and Cental America, because both made claims that could be falsified by archeology.

However claims that can't be falsified, such as the existence of a benevolent God, can't be tested by the scientific method.

 

[Mole]

This is the worst mis-interpretation of Scripture I have ever seen in my life.

There are more than a thousand christian sects, each with their own interpretation of scripture. And each thinks their interpretation of scripture is right. And they think the other sects have mis-interpreted scripture.

 

[Zarathustra]

Getting Somewhere

The scientific method is a way of testing guesses to see if they are false. It's called falsifiability.

We have been able to falsify the Exodus and the Mormon history of North and Cental America, because both made claims that could be falsified by archeology.

However claims that can't be falsified, such as the existence of a benevolent God, can't be tested by the scientific method.

Yes, I know this.

My question was: what of all the things that are not falsifiable?

 

[A window to the soul]

I am so confused! /:

Ok, fair enough. It was a bit of an exaggeration.

But you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. There are so many problems with your interpretation, I honestly don't know where to begin.

I think you like to argue. (So do I.)

Keirkegaard was a Christian by any typical, Protestant, credal standard of the label. He believed Jesus was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc.. What more do you want from the guy? To reflect every single facet of the world contained in the Bible, as you see it? Is that what Christianity is? Since when? And why?

I'm tending to agree with you. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus. And not through a perfect interpretation of the Bible. Forgive me if I've gone off topic. I'm completely lost.

And am I going to hell because I like Apple Pie then? Because unfortunately, Jesus didn't give me any rules about it. And it's not something mentioned in Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Jedediah begat Zephariah, instead of Apple Pie. And now I'm an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Amen.

Gosh, no!

That is all completely irrelevant.

What are you arguing about, lol?

And, on that note, I just want to say that I think all NTPs should be forced to study the development of Wittgenstein's thought from his earlier writings (The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) to his later writings (The Philosophical Investigations, On Certainty, et al).

LoLz!

 

[Zarathustra]

LoLz!

 

[Mole]

Yes, I know all this.

My question was: what of all the questions that are unfalsifiable?

Well, my guess is that unfalsifiable claims are ones that do not allow evidence to be gathered.

String Theory does not allow evidence to be gathered, and so is unfalsifiable, even though String Theory elegantly unites Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Also experiences that are unrepeatable also seem to me to be unfalsifiable. For to gather evidence, everyone needs to be able to gather the same evidence. For instance to gather evidence of the size and charge of the electron, all of us need to gather the same evidence and apply the same reason to the evidence. So personal annecdotal experiences, not available to everyone, seem to me to be unfalsifiable.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, my guess is that unfalsifiable claims are ones that do not allow evidence to be gathered.

String Theory does not allow evidence to be gathered, and so is unfalsifiable, even though String Theory elegantly unites Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Also experiences that are unrepeatable also seem to me to be unfalsifiable. For to gather evidence, everyone needs to be able to gather the same evidence. For instance to gather evidence of the size and charge of the electron, all of us need to gather the same evidence and apply the same reason to the evidence. So personal annecdotal experiences, not available to everyone, seem to me to be unfalsifiable.

Yes, those are both examples (one specific, one general) of things that would seem to fall into the realm of unfalsifiability. I think there are many more, too. You mentioned the one about whether there is a benevolent God. The benevolence wouldn't seem to necessarily be required, but all kinds of cosmological questions would seem to fall outside the realm of falsifiability.

Still, though (and I say this with all respect, as I appreciate that you're finally seeming to engage with me openly and honestly): you have not answered my question. While the scientific method would seem to be able to help us better understand the issues that are falsifiable, what about the ones that are not?

I ask because my impression has been that you do not regard these questions with much respect or importance.

And this has always been an issue for me with your perspective on things.

 

[Mole]

Piety and Taboo

Yes, those are both examples (one specific, one general) of things that would seem to fall into the realm of unfalsifiability. I think there are many more, too. You mentioned the one about whether there is a benevolent God. The benevolence wouldn't seem to necessarily be required, but all kinds of cosmological questions would seem to fall outside the realm of falsifiability.

Still, though (and I say this with all respect, as I appreciate that you're finally seeming to engage with me openly and honestly): you have not answered my question. While the scientific method would seem to be able to help us better understand the issues that are falsifiable, what about the ones that are not?

I ask because my impression has been that you do not regard these questions with much respect or importance.

And this has always been an issue for me with your perspective on things.

My last taboo was piety. And so I am inclined to revel in my impiety.

So I am impius towards MBTI and naturally towards faith.

I do understand my impiety is a scandal for the pius. And that breaking the last taboo disconcerts believers and perhaps even caused disgust and anger.

But I love my freedom from piety - I can dance where I like - an impius imp, free, free at last.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^Victor~

You make the most beautiful Möbii.