Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[Foster Zygote]

The existence or non-existence of god(s) has no significance here.

As I've just pointed out elsewhere, it is of great significance. It is the difference between true and false.

I do agree, there is no proof either way. I ignore the question. Not relevant in my world view. But the stories and the traditions DO have some force to them whether true or not. This force is real.

Concluding that gods are constructs of human imagination does not preclude one from taking an interest in the psychology behind such constructions.

 

[lemurien]

As I've just pointed out elsewhere, it is of great significance. It is the difference between true and false.


Concluding that gods are constructs of human imagination does not preclude one from taking an interest in the psychology behind such constructions.

How could I argue with you! I agree fully.
It is just that your 'true/false' is irrelevant to the majority of the human kind.
They go on living paying absolutely no attention to you or your truth.
What has great significance to you means nothing to them.

And you are right, the psychology behind all this is fascinating.

 

[falkowsi]

It is just that your 'true/false' is irrelevant to the majority of the human kind.

That's because there are no truths. There are only patterns of things that have worked before, and our assumption they'll work again. This has worked often enough that we managed to survive.

 

[lemurien]

Well put. I liked the word 'assumption' in this context as well as the idea that our basic subroutines and routines are products of genetic and memetic evolution.
We managed to survive because they made us the fittest.

 

[Robin]

That's because there are no truths.

Is that true?

 

[lemurien]

Is that true?

no but who cares, nobody can tell the difference

 

[falkowsi]

Is that true?

Absolutely true ? No, of course not. It depends on the same patterns as all the other things we colloquially call 'true'.

 

[lemurien]

Absolutely true ? No, of course not. It depends on the same patterns as all the other things we colloquially call 'true'.

Word meanings are context dependent. They also change with Capitalization.
'I am telling you the truth' vs. 'the Truth has been revealed to me'.

AA Milne, the father of Christopher Robin, was a master of Capitalisation.
Having read his books it is Very Difficult not to smile when reading something Seriously Profound.

 

[Dancing David]

That's because there are no truths. There are only patterns of things that have worked before, and our assumption they'll work again. This has worked often enough that we managed to survive.

Yeah, all thoughts are not inherently true or false, so just predict reality better than others

 

[Robin]

Husband: Where are my running shoes?
Wife: Your running shoes are in the laundry.
Husband goes to the laundry and finds the running shoes.

Why is the wife's statement not true?

 

[Dancing David]

I probably would refer to the 'laudry room', as opposed to the 'laundry', so it would be very dd for me to find my shoes in the laundry as opposed to teh laudry room.

Words are context dependant, thier utility is idiomatic and self referential. A tree is no more a 'tree' than an 'arbol', they are not true but labels of reference.

 

[Robin]

I probably would refer to the 'laudry room', as opposed to the 'laundry', so it would be very dd for me to find my shoes in the laundry as opposed to teh laudry room.

But the wife is not talking to you, she is talking to her husband and using a sufficiently specific reference to allow him to identify the room.

Words are context dependant, thier utility is idiomatic and self referential.

Indeed, but the wife is speaking in a particular context, she makes no claim for the non-contextual truth of her statement. Her statement is true in context. Out of context it is simply inapplicable.

A tree is no more a 'tree' than an 'arbol', they are not true but labels of reference.

Yes, words are not true and are labels of reference. But I am not asking about individual words I am asking why the sentence as a whole is not true.

So the terms "running shoes" and "laundry" are labels of reference. But the statement makes a verifiable claim which is in fact verifiable.

So again - why is it not true?

 

[lemurien]

what difference does it make, the guy got his shoes and went running...

 

[zooterkin]

Husband: Where are my running shoes?
Wife: Your running shoes are in the laundry.
Husband goes to the laundry and finds the running shoes.

Why is the wife's statement not true?

He was wearing the running shoes?

 

[Sideroxylon]

He may have found his shoes on his way to the laundry.

 

[Slimething]

Husband: Where are my running shoes?
Wife: Your running shoes are in the laundry.
Husband goes to the laundry and finds the running shoes.

Why is the wife's statement not true?

All I can come up with is that the shoes aren't running. Unless, of course, they're in the washing machine and the dye is seeping out of them. Is that it?

 

[devnull]

Oooh, I know this one! Its because when the guy goes to the restaurant and orders seagull, he realises that what his mate was feeding him on the island when they were shipwrecked was not in fact seagull but the other passengers.

 

[Robin]

All I can come up with is that the shoes aren't running. Unless, of course, they're in the washing machine and the dye is seeping out of them. Is that it?

Everyone is treating it like a riddle.

For context, Falkowski said there are no truths. I gave an example of what I regarded as a true statement. If Falkowski is right then it cannot be a true statement. I asked why it was not true.

 

[Akhenaten]

I liked devnull's answer better. Does this mean I get an 'F' for philosophy?

 

[zooterkin]

Everyone is treating it like a riddle.

For context, Falkowski said there are no truths. I gave an example of what I regarded as a true statement. If Falkowski is right then it cannot be a true statement. I asked why it was not true.

Ah, ok; that would have clearer if you'd quoted the point that you were replying to.