personal truth

[Immanuel Can]

Multiple perspectives demonstrate a god's contingency on the various stories and beliefs of cultures and individuals across periods of time.

No, "perspectives" are not capable of "demonstrating." That's not what a "perspective" means, and not what one can do.

And the existence of many wrong answers does not logically imply the non-existence of a right one. So even if there are an infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2=, that does not imply there's a problem with the answer 4. No number of false answers to "What is the capital of Uganda?" mean that the capital city of Uganda is not Kampala. It does nothing to say, "Well, people have thought it was Addis," or "My cousin Phil told me it was Harare." There will still be a right answer, and neither Addis nor Harare will be it.

Likewise no number of false statements or beliefs people have held about God implies there is, or can be, no right answer about the existence or nature of God.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm asking for your view, not mine.

Okay, so you're not going to tell me what you mean by "linguistics." So I guess I don't know how to answer, because I don't know what the question even means.

So there's your final answer.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm asking for your view, not mine.

Okay, so you're not going to tell me what you mean by "linguistics." So I guess I don't know how to answer, because I don't know what the question even means.

So there's your final answer.

I'm asking you in the context of your previous usage of the term "language." Again, you had written, "The term 'negate,' when we use it in reference to language, is a figurative term, drawing on maths only as a metaphor"

So I'm asking you, with respect to that sentence, to confirm whether you consider mathematics a language, however you're using the term in that sentence.

If you have no idea what you had in mind with the term "language," then okay.

[Immanuel Can]

So I'm asking you, with respect to that sentence, to confirm whether you consider mathematics a language, however you're using the term in that sentence.

With respect to MY usage? I've answered that already. "No."

I've also acknowledged that the usage of the term "language" is flexible, and not worth a fight.

[Lacewing]

Likewise no number of false statements or beliefs people have held about God implies there is, or can be, no right answer about the existence or nature of God.

Other than the notion of a god, would you believe a claim or idea with a lengthy history of false beliefs and stories, which has also not shown consistent or verifiable results?

[Terrapin Station]

So I'm asking you, with respect to that sentence, to confirm whether you consider mathematics a language, however you're using the term in that sentence.

With respect to MY usage? I've answered that already. "No."

Ah, thanks. I didn't see you simply say "No" anywhere.

Just out of curiosity are you a realist and/or platonist on mathematics?

[Immanuel Can]

Just out of curiosity are you a realist and/or platonist on mathematics?

Not a Platonist. I think numbers have an adjectival relation to the empirical world, not that they are fixtures of some realm of ideal forms.

[Immanuel Can]

...would you believe a claim or idea with a lengthy history of false beliefs and stories, which has also not shown consistent or verifiable results?

The number of stories would be irrelevant. As I suggested, various people's wrong answers don't count against the existence of a right answer. 2+2 still = 4.

"...has not shown consistent or verifiable results," you say... Well, I can't "verify" that Napoleon was exiled to Elba, or that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and I have no idea what "verification" would be in either case, since I wasn't alive in either time, but I do believe those things happened.

[Lacewing]

...would you believe a claim or idea with a lengthy history of false beliefs and stories, which has also not shown consistent or verifiable results?

The number of stories would be irrelevant. As I suggested, various people's wrong answers don't count against the existence of a right answer. 2+2 still = 4.

"...has not shown consistent or verifiable results," you say... Well, I can't "verify" that Napoleon was exiled to Elba, or that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and I have no idea what "verification" would be in either case, since I wasn't alive in either time, but I do believe those things happened.

Good for you. Keep the faith if that's what works for you.

[Immanuel Can]

...would you believe a claim or idea with a lengthy history of false beliefs and stories, which has also not shown consistent or verifiable results?

The number of stories would be irrelevant. As I suggested, various people's wrong answers don't count against the existence of a right answer. 2+2 still = 4.

"...has not shown consistent or verifiable results," you say... Well, I can't "verify" that Napoleon was exiled to Elba, or that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and I have no idea what "verification" would be in either case, since I wasn't alive in either time, but I do believe those things happened.

Good for you. Keep the faith if that's what works for you.

Well, let's see. You say, "...consistent and verifiable results..." What would such "results" look like?

I mean, what test would you be running, so you would know you are or aren't getting such "results"?

[Lacewing]

Well, let's see. You say, "...consistent and verifiable results..." What would such "results" look like?

I mean, what test would you be running, so you would know you are or aren't getting such "results"?

What consistent and verifiable results are good enough for YOU? You're the one who evidently thinks you see something worth believing in.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, let's see. You say, "...consistent and verifiable results..." What would such "results" look like?

I mean, what test would you be running, so you would know you are or aren't getting such "results"?

What consistent and verifiable results are good enough for YOU? You're the one who evidently thinks you see something worth believing in.

Well, I don't know what you meant -- or expected -- by way of "consistent and verifiable." Only you can tell me that.

[Lacewing]

Well, let's see. You say, "...consistent and verifiable results..." What would such "results" look like?

I mean, what test would you be running, so you would know you are or aren't getting such "results"?

What consistent and verifiable results are good enough for YOU? You're the one who evidently thinks you see something worth believing in.

Well, I don't know what you meant -- or expected -- by way of "consistent and verifiable." Only you can tell me that.

Do you know what those words mean? Do you assess whether results are consistent and verifiable before you decide whether to believe in something? Or are you solely focused on self-serving ego-stories -- no proof needed?

[Terrapin Station]

Just out of curiosity are you a realist and/or platonist on mathematics?

Not a Platonist. I think numbers have an adjectival relation to the empirical world, not that they are fixtures of some realm of ideal forms.

"Adjectival" but not language-oriented?

[Immanuel Can]

What consistent and verifiable results are good enough for YOU? You're the one who evidently thinks you see something worth believing in.

Well, I don't know what you meant -- or expected -- by way of "consistent and verifiable." Only you can tell me that.

Do you know what those words mean?

I do. But they are appropriate especially to laboratory methods and those sorts of empirical tests. As I suggested, they are of very limited utility in some kinds of questions and issues...like historical confirmation, for example.

In any case, I don't think it's likely that your objection to God is that he refuses to submit to laboratory methods. So you must be thinking of something more general. And I'm just asking what the requisite evidence would look like, if you had seen it.