:ok: :up:

:up:

"God" is merely a hyper-fetishized empty name. — 180 Proof

:ok:

0=0 — Tristan L

This is not a trivial truth. It's an instance of a law of thought viz. The Law Of Identity [A = A]. It's basic, I agree, but that doesn't make it trivial. In fact, Aristotle made it a point to state it explicitly lest we forget it.

Exactly. This observation has led me to the conclusion that that a genuine proof cannot consist of a chain of thoughts, for in that case, it would need the memory to be infallible. I also thought about this when writing mathematical proofs by asking: How do I know that the theorems which I proved on an earlier page and on which I now draw haven’t been tampered with by a hacker or a random glitch in my harddrive and thus rendered false? But that’s likely something for the knowledgelore (epistemology) underforum. — Tristan L

This is where The Law Of Identity, I mentioned above, comes into play. The words/concepts you employ must remain the same throughout a proof, A = A, a perfect example of which is 0 = 0. It appears that when you make an argument, time is supposed to stop at a single instant, a single moment, this moment being occupied by all the propositions in that argument. This issue of the temporal aspect of argumentation has been at the back of my mind for quite some time now. Thanks for reminding me of it. I recall having come to the conclusion that since a contradiction is defined in temporal terms:

The LNC, as stated in Aristotle’s own words: “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” — Harry Hindu

arguments do have a temporal dimension and one of the ways of offsetting this is The Law of Identity [A = A] which you think is trivial.

Negation can be a positive statement, not just a blank. If I say X is an integer and X is not even I am not saying nothing about X, I am saying it must be odd. Let E = even and O = odd.
¬E=O¬E=O which is saying X is odd, a positive statement — EnPassant

Yes, you're correct. Tristan L showed me the error of my ways. When you're dealing with a proposition and its contradiction, it's more like two propositions swapping places rather than cancelling each other out.

I think I finally understand what I was trying to get at. If you have the time, this is my take:

A proposition may be thought of as occupying "space", in my analogy blank spaces. Suppose there is one like this: (..........). I now assert that E = god exists. Proposition E now occupies the blank space like so: (God exists). If I now claim that ~E = god doesn't exist, necessarily that E can no longer be claimed for the simple reason that ~E means, literally, NOT E. Therefore, I must erase E from the blank space which then transitions from (God exists) to (..........). Back to square one. This is what I was getting at but it appears that the process doesn't end there - my mistake was thinking it does. What happens next is ~E = God doesn't exist, occupies the blank space and (..........) transforms into (God doesn't exist). If I had asserted ~E first and then E, the same process is involved, only the propositions are now switched.

The starting point of a proof or of an argument is never a contradiction. And a contradicion is never a starting point.

I have never seen an argument to start, "Peter is not Peter." Or with "Given the time allotted to finish the project, we can finish the project if and only if we can't finish the project." — god must be atheist

I'm not talking about contradictions in the context of arguments. I'm investigating the import of propositions and their negations, specifically that to state a propositions P, then to deny it, ~P, amounts to not stating P [return to the starting point].

They are different because you made several mistakes in the structuring of your original post. I pointed the mistakes out in my immediately preceding series of posts before this one. — god must be atheist

:ok: :up:

:ok:

Do you know of any prejudices that you'd like to share? — The Questioning Bookworm

For starters, Camus seems to be working on a problem that's been around for a long time, the problem of meaning as pertains of life. I feel a little uncomfortable using the word "prejudice" - it has a negative connotation that I feel doesn't apply to the existential questions that Camus was bothering with viz. "why do I exist?", "why am I here?", "what is the purpose of my life?" and so on.

Perhaps "context" is a better word. The questions I mentioned above exists within a certain setting consisting of relevant knowledge, attitude, affect, etc. and the answers to them will have to respect the boundaries so demarcated. As far as I can tell, the meaning of life sought seems to be of, quite literally, cosmic proportions - "answers" like "the purpose of my life is to be baker, a doctor, a soldier, a president, a monk, so and so forth" fail to satisfy the thirst, the hunger for meaning - they're too parochial, too provincial, too ordinary and mundane.

In a sense then the meaningless Camus talks of could be thought of as an inevitability of setting the bar too high, so high in fact that no one can meet the standards thus set. It's a poignant truth then that what we wish we were, we're not and what we are, we wish not. Isn't this just the old Camusian absurdity from a different vantage point?

I feel this is an accurate analysis of Camus' understanding of the meaning of life for if it weren't then we and he should've been wholly content with the meanings for life that are readily available to us - being parents, children, soldiers, doctors, priests, etc., all being assignable to us without even the slightest difficulty.

For both, however, I can see how knowing of concentration camps, gulags, violence against political opposition, and witnessing some of these atrocities could strengthen their views that life is meaningless and how the world or state in which someone may live would be hostile directly to its human subjects (Man's Search for Meaning?) — The Questioning Bookworm

In my humble opinion, suffering per se doesn't necessarily mean that life's meaningless. A forum member, not long ago, said something to the effect that if suffering had a purpose [by which fae wishes to convey that if it (suffering) had a "higher purpose" then it would be ok and fae would willingly bear it] then it's, in some sense, alright to suffer. Here again the issue of meaning of cosmic proportions makes an appearance. That said, it's true that once no grand meaning, that which is sought, can be found, suffering makes it worse and it's all downhill from there. However, in line with your thoughts, suffering can, all by itself, reduce/negate the meaning of life for there are times when the price, paid in tears and excruciating anguish, is just too high for even a meaning that has cosmic significance.

there is no way to know for certain if life being meaningless is 'true reality' or not. — The Questioning Bookworm

This, to me, is Camus' absurdity appearing to us in a different guise - what we think we got right - the meaninglessness of life - is depressing enough and now we have to contend with the possibility that we could be wrong. Of course if it were the case that Camus was wrong, it would imply that there's meaning ( :smile: ) but that too is beyond our most earnest efforts ( :sad: ), perhaps for the same reason that you employed in raising doubts about the veracity/certainty of Camus' original claim that life is meaningless. Thus we must resign ourselves to a fate that, at this point, is an absurdity of ridiculous proportions. Not to make light of such a serious matter but if our lives are that absurd, our purpose, the meaning of our lives, is as clear as crystal - we are Cosmic Clowns whose sole purpose is to embody absurdity.

It is not "also prior in space", that's the point that you are not getting. The "first mile" is the one that you traverse first in time and is called "first" because of that. If, somehow your spatial existence allowed you to traverse the other mile, which was further away, first in time, then you would call that other mile the "first mile". But the nature of spatial-temporal existence does not allow you start at the furthest away mile, so the closer mile is called "first". But it is not called "first" because it is closer spatially, it is called "first" because it is closer temporally. — Metaphysician Undercover

I worded that wrongly. Do forgive the unnecessary diversion. I meant to say that as it is temporally sequenced, it is also spatially sequenced. That's all and that possibility - spatial sequence - being alive and kicking in the scenario I described and space being a more immediate experience - it's kinda in your face, or, if you prefer, sticks out like a sore thumb - and thus, space being more noticeable than time, I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring.

If this doesn't convince you think of children...which concept do you think comes to them more readily - space or time? They seem to be able to handle space easily and before time, which has to be taught to them and, from my experience with my own daughter, clocks are a mystery to children. I'll say no more. Please reconsider your position on the matter. If you still find something wrong with what I'm saying, let's just agree to disagree. Thank you.

it is always arbitrary, being created from a subjective perspective. Defining your sequence as relative to the food counter is that arbitrary subjective perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

As far as I can tell, you're conflating the notions of arbitrary with relativity. All sequences must be/are relative in the sense that we can choose an origin, the beginning, the start and that beginning, start or point of origin can be anywhere in space. Arbitrariness has a connotation - that of being false/mistaken in some sense - that isn't applicable in the context of my post.

Sure, but confusing space and time, or conflating them together does not allow you to properly apprehend "the notion of space" — Metaphysician Undercover

Where is the confusion in two trees being separated by a distance in space and two states of a fruit being separated by a duration?

That said, I do agree that if something can be contextualized in both space and time, there'll be no compulsion to consider the more difficult alternative viz. time.

I will not discuss this anymore. Thank you for your time.

I don't know how far this is true but my guesstimate is any language that becomes the lingua franca or that dominates other languages is purely a function of political/military prowess, nothing to do at all with the linguistic elements like simplicity, expressiveness, or who math-friendly or science-friendly it is, etc. Do you agree/disagree?

"It was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear on the contrary that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning." ~Albert Camus — 180 Proof

But, it has meaning insofar as living by the truth has meaning, something that Plato seems very keen to impress upon us. Plato asks us to leave the cave of of shadows and behold truth and he doesn't qualify that with any conditions that need to be satisfied in order for truth to have value. The bottom line is, for Plato and all philosophers to my knowledge, truth, in itself, has value. Truth for truth's sake and with that comes meaning, meaning given to lives lived for/by/of truth.

Camus, for certain, has arrived at a truth. I know this for the simple reason that the questions, "why am I here?", "why do I exist?" remain unanswered despite probably millennia of dedicated effort by the very best thinkers the world could muster. Life is meaningless as per current-best knowledge. This is a truth and if it is then, as I said above, living by it constitutes a meaningful life.

That life is meaningless is a truth and living by truth makes for a meaningful life, it follows, doesn't it?, that to live a meaningless life is meaningful? This is the paradox.

Fool, don't just read the essays preceding the eponymous "Myth of Sisyphus", study them. — 180 Proof

I will. Thank you very much for your valuable advice.

One defies fate (or "the gods") with the only thing one has, which cannot be taken (only given) away: integrity; thus, "we must imagine" - as Camus says, "To create is to live twice" - "Sisyphus" our avatar "happy" as he affirms what annihilates him by defying it without succumbing to "nostalgia" (i.e. fear or hope). — 180 Proof

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Lifts my spirits! Although, I feel Camus had overlooked an important fact of philosophy: truth for truth's sake and everything else that comes close to or is congruent to the meaning of that phrase. Had he factored that in, the paradox I've brought to your attention would've jumped out at him.

:up:

How do you not see that first and second are a temporal reference in this example? The "first mile" is the one prior in time to the second mile. — Metaphysician Undercover

Also prior in space. That's the point. If a particular event or phenomena can be contextualized in more than one way, there's no compulsion to think of alternatives. Space being a more immediate experience than time, if it were X that were riding his cycle on that road, X would've no need to consider the temporal aspect of his experience, space being a more familiar, a more direct, a more obvious notion.

It is temporal, because it's an ordering of who will get served first in time and second in time, and so on. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. I'll agree with you on this one - the queue-sequence is temporal with respect to the time each person in the queue gets served. But, is there a spatial sequence as well with respect to the food counter?

objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I still haven't figured out the reason for your insistence on bringing to the discussion the notions of arbitrariness and objectivity. To me, these ideas comes into play only once there's something to be objective/arbitrary about. First the notion of space needs to be apprehended and only after that does it matter whether it's objective or arbitray unless you mean to say that the arbitrariness of X's experience invalidates the very idea that he can form a concept of space. That you'll have to explain how. Thank you.

provide an argument concerning the nature of time which supports the convention, to show me that the convention is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've given it my best shot. If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will. I'll try again. By the way I'm using dates, an aspect of time you were so kind to introduce into the discussion. Here's why "before" to refer to the past is not a mistaken perspective.

Imagine today is 1 Jan 2021. The day following that is 2 Jan 2021 and the day following that is 3 Jan 2021, and so on and so forth. First things first, we have to agree on the sequence/order of the dates: basically, we have to concur that if dates are given a numerical sequence then they will be experienced in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...and so on. Said differently, the date 1 Jan 2021 comes before the date 2 Jan 2021 and that date comes before 3 Jan 2021... Are we on the same page here?

If we are then imagine now that you're living through the month of January 2021. A few days go by and you've now arrived at the date 4 Jan 2021. What date was before 4 Jan 2021? Pause a bit and go back to what we've agreed on viz. the sequence of dates and that Jan 1 2021 comes before 2 Jan 2021 and that comes before 3 Jan 2021 and this date (3 Jan 2021) comes before 4 Jan 2021. You have to answer the question "what date was before 4 Jan 2021?" with "3 Jan 2021" but 3 Jan 2021 is in the past and, as we've found out, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to 3 Jan 2021 as the date before 4 Jan 2021. The bottom line is this: given a sequence of numbers, and dates are that, you have to ask yourself "what comes before a date x?" Surely, the date x - 1, right? But, this is obvious, the date x - 1 is in the past.

Just so you know, you're perfectly correct in saying that the future is before the past. Every event must first be in the future, second become the present and only after that, third, drift away into the past.

Notice the difference between our two points of view. You're talking about the sequence in which we experience the three natural divisions of time viz. past, present, and future. It's correct as far as I can tell that the future comes before the present. My point is that you order the events that will occur - those that are in the future - by assigning them ordinal numbers such as first, second, third, and so on. If ordered thus, it's obvious that you'll experience the said events in the sequence first, second, third, and so on. Allowing that these events are experienced, let them flow through the present into the past and suppose that you're now at the fourth event. At this point ask yourself, "what event occurred before this moment, this moment when I'm experiencing the fourth event?" Obviously, the answer is the third event which we know is in the past. In short, it's ok to refer to the past with the word "before".

And that's all she wrote.

No, I'm saying that past days have actual existence, as events which have actually occurred in the past, while future days have no actual existence, having not yet occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

:ok:

So future days ought not be put into a sequence with past days. Because of this fundamental difference between them, they need to be categorized separately. — Metaphysician Undercover

You mean to say that calendars are bogus? People seem to plan events with calendars and excepting the odd contingency, their plans seem fairly well executed. I don't see how that's possible if the future weren't sequenced as you seem to be claiming.

Too, your point was the future becomes the past. You'll have to explain to me how things changed so radically between the two that they're, as per your claims, no longer comparable in any sense of that word. To my reckoning, the sequence in which events occurred in the future must be preserved in the past and they are, right? :chin:

OK, I'll try to stay on track, but the mind wanders. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wander some more. Tell me what you find.

Maybe that "he" is the English default for person. He, mankind, men — Bitter Crank

I still feel that's not it but this will suffice for the moment. Thank you. :up: Another word for "human" is "man" and it shows up elsewhere too e.g. "mankind". It's not too much of a stretch then to infer that "he" is, in the sense above and in the sense used to refer to God, gender-neutral or a unisex pronoun. Actually, it makes complete sense now doesn't it? Man is synonymous with human and the appropriate pronoun for man is he...all the pieces come together and a picture takes shape...God is not exactly a he or a she, not a man or woman, but he is human, more accurately, a perfection of what it is to be human: knowledgeable (all-knowing), loving (all-loving), and, capable of translating his love and knowledge into real deeds of incalculable value (all-powerful).

less and less inflected, so it became simplified — Bitter Crank

KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! :lol: While simplicity is a good thing as the worldwide appeal of the English language evinces, of course this only if English is actually simple, I think it comes at the cost of losing some linguistic/semantic nuances e.g. gender which I suppose the English language doesn't care much about. Anything further you might want to add?

From this statement, it seems like you are asserting that the concept of human dominion over creation is somehow incompatible with an omnibenevolent God. — Daniel Ramli

More or less, yes. I'm fairly certain, by and large convinced, that inequality in any way, shape, or form is immoral. In saying this I haven't strayed off course from our intuition on the matter, the intuition best exemplified by the words "all men are created equal" enshrined in the American Constitution. My view on equality is but an extrapolation of the spirit of this statement and becomes "all creatures are created equal". Last I checked, "all men are created equal" remains unjustified and is to be treated as a self-evident which to me is a big disappointment because something as morally important as equality has been stated sans proof.

At this juncture a point of clarification is needed. The sentence, "all men are equal" or the sentence "all creatures are equal" doesn't mean that there are no differences among men and among creatures; surely there are differences - among humans skin color, facial features, height, etc. vary and a similar point can be made if one includes other creatures. What these sentences mean is that we should/ought to treat/consider all men as equals and all creatures as equals i.e. in a sense, the equality, is, quite literally, pulled out of thin air but for a morally worthy purpose.

In my own small way I'll attempt to justify, give a proof of, why we should/ought to treat both that all men are equals and that all creatures are equals here. The reason why we should/ought to treat/consider all men as equals and all creatures as equals is that if this were not done then that's just another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with inequality. If that's the case and given that inequality is relative in the sense a particular creature can be both inferior and superior, the status hanging on the who/what that creature is being compared to, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we might find ourselves on the wrong side of an inequality [we could be inferior to another creature, an alien perhaps] and if, god forbid, this happens, we would have no convincing argument to demand our freedom or to make a plea for better treatment.

Scout (the family dog) — Daniel Ramli

To understand my point, I suggest you imagine a being superior to us and we are its pets just as Scout (the family dog) is ours. If you accept inequality prepare to be treated unequally.

humanity is the favored creation because God places the highest worth in us. — Daniel Ramli

Let's take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. God, for certain, is superior, in every respect conceivable, to us. Surely then, by your logic, we're lesser beings and God can treat us in any way fae likes - treat us like dirt for instance, very similar to how we're treating other creatures on the planet. After all you claim that there's nothing wrong with favoring one being over another which basically boils down to this: inequality is acceptable. God surely favors himself above all else; he must for he is, by definition, greater/better/superior in all respects than/to humans. Perhaps, all this evil we see around us is just god favoring himself over humans then. Problem solved!

Therefore gods does not do his job right as a parent thus he tolerates evil — god must be atheist

I think you've misunderstood the analogy. When I refer to God as a parent, I mean only in the sense of faer love - all encompassing - for faer children - all the creatures in the universe. From that all-loving, omnibenevolence, follows god's unwillingness to intervene in the affairs of the world and hence the evil - moral and natural - we see in it. Au contraire, God has fulfilled his role as a parent quite well, not just quite well but actually to perfection. Equality is an essential part of morality and God's upholding that in spirit and in letter.

Yes there are reasons for such conventions, they describe the way things appear to us. But sometimes they are based in common misunderstanding. We say that the sun comes up, and the sun goes down, but really the earth is spinning around and around. So the convention, is a convenient description of how things appear to us, but it is based in a misunderstanding. The convention has us saying something other than what the reality of the situation is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the tidbit about the misconception regarding the sun going "up" and "down". It'll be useful to me at some point I'm sure. However, as a point of clarification, the use of the word "before" with regard to time isn't a "mistaken perspective". This doesn't mean I don't accept that all things have to be in future before they're in the past. Just think back to a time when you had the pleasure of attending a series of events - remember to numerically sequence them (dates will do fine) - and ask yourself "what happened before <event>?" You'll see that the answer will be in terms of the numerical sequence even if they're in the past.

Yes, let's say that anything which is going to come to be in the past, must first be in the future, as a possibility, before it comes to be in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

it cannot be given a definite temporal order. — Metaphysician Undercover

:chin:

Today is 10/11/2020. The following dates are in the future: 11/11/2020; 12/11/2020; 13/11/2020. Are you saying you don't know what the date will be tomorrow? :chin:

The sequence is not the same. — Metaphysician Undercover

A sequence is numerical. Every point of time in the future is sequenced i.e. ordered in terms of which ones you will encounter first, second, third and so on. Say you've experienced a series of events in a certain order. Once these have been experienced, does their order - the sequence - change in the sense that the first, second, third, so on swap positions on the timeline? To illustrate, in the year 1999, the Y2K bug was in 2000, and 9/11 was in 2001, both in the future. Right now, it's 2020, two decades have passed. Is there any confusion regarding when the Y2K bug was projected to occur and when 9/11 took place? Are you sure that "the sequence is not the same"?

There is no such thing as "the temporal sequence of events". — Metaphysician Undercover

What are clocks, calendars, diaries, etc?

Let's not get bogged down in this, what I feel, is just a minor issue. Let's agree to disagree.

What I'm interested in is your theory of time. You said a couple of things - especially the part where you said that there has to be a future for there to be a past - that were very thought-provoking. I'd like to hear more of it if that's ok with you.

I don't how much sense this makes but I'm, in a sense, deeply disturbed by how dogs can't scratch every itch they experience. They mostly use their hind legs, sometimes their front paws, and their teeth to scratch but there are certain zones - directly over their spines close to their hind quarters , the area where the tail attaches to the body, inside their ears, and probably other places I can't think of right now - that are simply going to itch without any possibility of relief.

Primates, especially humans, are a different story. I remember my back itching so much one day and not being able to get the nails on my hand to the spot. I simply went to my sister's room and used one of her back-scratchers - you know those longish things with claws at the end. Another time, there were no back-scracthers near at hand so, I simply bent down, loosened my collar and asked a friend to scracth my itchy back.

To study and understand minds, does it require a cooperative effort (this is ongoing I believe) or do we need to design and build a specific tool for it (this I have no idea about)? Both perhaps?

it is not so easy to get to the happy side of it all that you believe that Camus reached — Jack Cummins

I'm unaware of the reasoning that led up to Camus' statement, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy". Camus didn't claim that Sisyphus is happy but that we must imagine that he is. As one poster had the kindness to inform me, Camus treated instances of meaningful lives as wishful thinking or thereabouts. Perhaps, Camus' investigations came full circle, he had a dim view of wishful thinking, left it in search of the truth, found Sisyphus at it with the rock on the hill, realized the truth of it, and returned to where he began - to wishfully, thoughtfully imagine Sisyphus happy even if Sisyphus wasn't, couldn't be, happy. This perhaps is the punchline of the joke, the height of the absurdity of it all - to return to that which one once spurned with scorn. Reminds me of a love story.

The world of fiction, reading or writing it, can itself be a form of escape or analysis. But in a way, perhaps it can be liberating, free from the tyranny of logic. — Jack Cummins

I don't know if logic is tyrannical or anything like that. If it is then it would be a point of view that's against the grain. Perhaps it is, in some sense, like an autocratic system, demanding absolute loyalty and complete submission to it on pain of injury or death. Reminds me of the word "Islam" which means submission but I fear this amounts to a misunderstanding of what logic really is - a system, if it were a conscious entity, that's alive to its own limitations and demands that no more be said than can be said, no more be thought than can be thought, no more be written than can be written and no more be done than can be done and all of the above applies to itself. This must amount to something in my humble opinion. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What better guards than those that guard themselves?

A distinction without a difference — TheMadFool

I am not the one who refers to illusions in those texts. [u[They are by Camus[/u]. From the Introduction to The Myth of Sisyphus. Anyway, you centre your objection to Camus on the distinction between illusory and real. If you do not want to use those words you will have to use others to distinguish what is only in your head from what exists outside it — David Mo

You speak as if you're coming at this issue from a standpoint that's not predicated, according to you, on Camus' real-illusion distinction.

Then you suggest that I should do something that's different viz. "you will have to use others to distinguish what is only in your head from what exists outside" but that's precisely what Camus' real-illusion distinction is.

In other words, you've made a distinction but there's no difference between what you claim are distinct. A distinction without a difference.

When the bible was written (primarily by men I am told) the predominant pronoun would have been masculine, not because the deity is masculine but because the writers were. — Book273

This doesn't add up. Historians were mostly men and yet histories have been written about women, perhaps queens and princesses mainly, nonetheless women and they didn't use "he" or "him" to refer to these women. I suspect the authors of the Bible were convinced that god was/is a male and thus chose the masculine pronoun over the feminine one.

gender of the divine — Book273

I don't know how much evidence there is to support the claim that women and men differ in attitude, values, etc. but if it's right on the money that women and men don't think alike, wouldn't it go a long way in understanding our world if we could get wind of god's gender?

God knows what I said about the matter at hand; I don't remember. Hopefully it was nice — Bitter Crank

You said something important! Damn my memory! It had to do with the masculine pronoun "he" and the word for god - "father" - not implying that god is male.

It's not the "correct" adjective, it's merely the current adjective. "Beauty" certainly can be ascribed to males in an entirely masculine way, and "handsome" can be applied to a very attractive woman. — Bitter Crank

It's, let's just say, rare to call a man beautiful and a woman handsome. This practice is falling out of use to my reckoning. Thanks though!

The universe is awesome (in its formal meaning). Beautiful, sure, but not in a sexed way. It is fearsome, too. Ineffable. Manly or womanly are just too small terms to bother with. — Bitter Crank

Most perceptive. I'm just trying to build a theory out of general trends, practices, attitudes, and points of view. I'm sure you must've come across people saying how beautiful scientific equations are. I'm running with that sentiment in this thread.

As for the "fearsome" bit, it muddies the waters - how could someone being decapitated or having faer chest crushed in a vehicular accident be beautiful? Yet, scientists and mathematicians insist that the equations that describe these very events down to the tiniest detail are beautiful. It's like a man condemned to the electric chair being enamored by the physics of electricity. Is there something off about this? Mind if you look into it and see if you can make sense of it?

Men may just be more visually oriented than women -- the male gaze, and all that. Camille Paglia pointed out that middle class/upper class women have long had access to arts education -- which they have made use of -- without producing a whole lot of great works. — Bitter Crank

Sad to hear that! Perhaps what they couldn't achieve with their minds, women did with their bodies. This also seems to hint at something which, at this moment, I can't seem to figure out.

J. B. Phillips wrote a book in 1952 by the title of "Your God is Too Small": too limited, too anthropomorphized, too domesticated. He asked believers to think bigger. — Bitter Crank

I watched a video interview of Richard Feynman the physicist and he too made a similar point, describing how vast the universe is, how insignificantly small earth is, and the claim that god chose earth out of a countless billion other worlds to bring his message of love and whatnot to was, quote, "...to provincial."

does not "translate". It "means".

If you are omnibenevolent, you are incapable of seeing, creating, or tolerating suffering. This is the meaning of the word, not the interpretation of its meaning.

You are resorting to the old "interpretation" tactic of philosophy of Christians and of other religionists, in which you claim that what you see and hear is not what you see and hear but something else, which is in fact different from what you see and hear. — god must be atheist

There's that compulsion thing going on between "omnibenvolent" and "incapable of seeing, creating, or tolerating suffering" which doesn't gibe with omnipotence (nothing can compel an omnipotent being) and free will (again, nothing can compel a being that has free will).

I haven't said anything that hasn't be assumed by the OP. In short, I'm playing the game by the OP's rules.

No problem. To each his own. Thank you

:lol:

I wonder if the whole "the universe is beautiful" deal isn't itself an accident, one that followed the accident of male-domination of aesthetics. It's 7 AM, there's thick fog clinging to the blacktop, moderate snow, the road is slick with ice and meltwater, vehicles speeding by at 100 mph or thereabouts...krraaash...baaanng...krrruuncch..."mutliple vehicle collision on the grand trunk road. all emergency personnel report to station"

For instance, the Germanic legend of Barlaam and Josephat turns out to be a retelling of the life of the Buddha. — Wayfarer

I'll have to make a note of that. Thanks.

But the point of all this is that, just because religious mythology isn't literally true, that doesn't make it simple fantasy. — Wayfarer

Correctamundo!

I personally have re-assessed 'classical' Christian philosophy, mainly as a reaction against the two-bit anti-religious polemics of the likes of Hitchens. — Wayfarer

A positive effect as far as I can tell. I like Hitchens. :smile: He seems forthright and if religious apologists find him to be a tough nut to crack then either they aren't genuine or it'll motivate them in re what areas of their worldview they have to work on. It seems you experienced the latter from your encounter with Hitchens.

There is no paradox — David Mo

Plato's myth of the cavern is a myth-poetic metaphor. It should not be interpreted literally. (tale or legend) Plato wants to explain his concept of reality with this myth. He believes that the world we see through the senses is not real but a bad copy of reality (like shadows). True reality is a world of forms or ideas that exists on a different plane. Man can only reach it if he gets rid of the world that we see through the senses and thinks only through reason. That is why true reality is not made of colours, sounds, passions, material pleasures or pain, but is that which can be expressed in like-mathematical terms. That is the one that makes sense, the other one does not. — David Mo

As I said, I'm taking Plato's help only to show that, in philosophy, truth is valuable and living by it is meaningful. Camus claims, and as it turns out rightly so, that one such truth is life is meaningless but, as I already mentioned above, living by that truth, Camus', is meaningful in Platonic terms. This is the paradox.

If you do not want to use those words you will have to use others to distinguish what is only in your head from what exists outside it. — David Mo

That sounds like the same thing! A distinction without a difference.

I take the help of Plato only to make the case that all philosophers (makes me want to start a new branch of philosophy) without exception are of the view that truth, whatever it is (Camus' meaningless life included), and, most germane to our discussion, living by it (again, Camus' meaningless life as part of it) is, in that and by that only, meaningful.

If god is omnipotent then nothing can compel him to act in a certain way, not even his nature and that includes his omnibenevolence. Ergo, omnibenevolence doesn't necessarily translate into a desire to end evil.

Another matter is god's omniscience. Could it interfere with his omnibenevolence? I've heard that the wise prefer to live in seclusion, and prefer not to interfere in the affairs of ordinary folk. Wisdom leading to a strict no interference policy. Does it add up?

@Harry Hindu

Try to say “5 is odd” and “six is even” at the same moment. — Tristan L

:up: It seems you've serendipitously discovered a law of thought viz. One moment, one thought!

It means being true by the laws of logic and thereby true in a very strong, very necessary way. — Tristan L

And that's the reason why you refer to it as "trivially" true? Something's off.

Actually, the two are equivalent, and I think that you mean the Distributive Law rather than de Morgan (please correct me if I’m wrong):

(E ∨ 0=0) ∧ ¬E ≣ (E ∧ ¬E) ∨ (0=0 ∧ ¬E) ≣ (0=0 ∧ ¬E) ≣ ¬E

I belive that your second intance of the OR-operator should be an instance of the AND-operator. — Tristan L

Yes! Sorry, my brain was probably out on a break that day. :grin:

Well, it certainly isn’t old-fashioned or outmoded for me :smile: — Tristan L

That's probably because you can trace your line back to a King or a Queen, a Duchess, a Count. My descendants, for certain, won't be happy to see my portrait hanging on their family tree. :grin:

But aren’t all lineages equally old, namely billions of years? (I’m splitting hairs on purpose here.) But purposeful over-exact interpretation aside, the African nations that you have in mind don’t include the Khoisan, right — Tristan L

Yes, split hairs and ruin my day. I was working under the assumption that most on the forum are the generation X cohort with very little time on their hands to read up on Khoisans, Bantu, Mansa Musa, etc.

For me, a science-believing platonist, I see things as follows: The ultimate “spark” of the mind, the mind itself, is abstract and thus immaterial, but when in the temporal world, it needs a body to reckon (compute) and process info in a similar way that a mathematician with very little memory needs pencil and paper to do proofs, or an office worker needs a computer. So I think that while the real ID (thisness, heccaeity) is abstract, much of what we think is part of us, such as our inclinations, memories, and smartness, are bodily to a big part, and part of these are in the genes. That’s why I think that forebear-lines are weighty. — Tristan L

You've made so many assumptions there to fill all the containers in a cargo ship. :joke:

No. Biblical literalism is not hard to understand. It's taking 'the Bible' as the literal 'word of God', dictated by Him and transcribed by men, describing factual events in realistic detail. Then there's the less absolutist version of trying to show that science 'proves' divine cause or intervention, such as you see in Intelligent Design arguments — Wayfarer

Has anyone, to your knowledge, tried to interpret the Bible as metaphorical and then discovered that the metaphors contained in the Bible correspond to actual truths/facts about the world? For instance, outlandish it may sound, the six days of creation could, with a little bit of imagination and the right creative spark, be mapped onto the scientific theory of the 13.8 billion years ago Big Bang. Is there anyone who undertook such a project?

Materialism, meanwhile, wants to argue that science 'proves' that there is 'almost certainly' no God (Dawkins' words). That's why they often seize on fundamentalism to support their arguments. But they're both missing the point; whatever G*d is, is forever out of scope for empirical proof. Which leads to 'oh well, you mean it's believing something without evidence.' Again misses the point; to the believer, the Universe itself is evidence. But that is not an empirical claim. — Wayfarer

I suppose it's not a matter of choosing a side in the god debate and nor is it a matter of unifying the opposing camps. What we need is an altogether new and fresh perspective on the issue. I wonder what that would look like?

Suffice to say, I think it's perfectly sound for an Alvin Plantinga to say that what we know of the Universe provides a rational warrant for belief in God; but I also think it's rational not to believe it. Science is not going to able to adjuticate that. — Wayfarer

Thus we must adjust to the darkness since no light is near at hand.

I think a lot of what is written and said about G*d is really more about Father Christmas. It's not grounded in an adequate conception of what is being affirmed or denied. — Wayfarer

After all...we are dealing with the ineffable.

I don't see a paradox here, as long as paradox means an impossibility to believe both at the same time and in the same respect — god must be atheist

Camus' meaninglessness is Platonic meaningfulness. If you don't see a paradox there, that in itself maybe another paradox.

Plato thinks the real world is a world of perfect, everlasting, ideals — god must be atheist

My bad. Plato, herein, stands for the ubiquitous philosophical ideal that truth trumps everything else and that truth per se, by extension true reality, in and of itself, is valuable, ergo meaningful.

Camus does not deny the existence of ideals, as he makes no claim about reality (other than that it's impossible to learn). — god must be atheist

Why then all this fuss about absurdity? Is it mere opinion?
If it is then what are the answers to the questions, "why do I exist?", "why am I here?" and so on.

Plato makes no suggestion that anyone has ever gone to and came back from the real world to our shadow world; he offers no transportational methods how to explore the world of ideals. He beleives we can discover and explore that world, but it's a theoretical beleif, without any physical supporting evidence. — god must be atheist

Plato's failure to come up with all the goods must be weighed against the difficulty level of the task. However, it seems irrelevant to my point which is that the parable of Plato's cave evinces a deep desire in philosophers to value truth whatever form or shape it might take and that to me smacks of the conviction among philosophers that truth itself is meaningful.

If something has no supportive evidence to its credit that makes it available to belief that it exists, then that thing is a dogma/heuristic/superstion and has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. Therefore making claims abou that world's specfics is an insane hoax. — god must be atheist

Why do you think truth has value and knowing it and living by it has value, constitutes a meaningful life?

Not at all, but "first" and "second" are not parts of a spatial concept. Nor do they have any spatial reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

The first mile was tough - the road was terrible, and it rained. We got our break on the second mile - the road was smooth, sunshine and fresh mountain air.

A queue takes time to form, and the first person there (temporally) is the first in the queue. Otherwise you have a mob showing up at exactly twelve, each person insisting on having the first spot. That is not a queue. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, if you want to go at it this way, what happens when more than one person arrive to join the queue at exactly the same moment. There's an ordering but it can't be temporal.

But arbitrariness is consequential to demonstrating that your assignment of "first" and "second" is faulty.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Once something is arbitrary, there really can't be a fault in it unless you insist on being objective. Spatial objectivity in the sense you seem to be interested in is impossible for positions in space as spatial positions are relative/arbitrary.

That this is the conventional way of describing these things does not mean that it is not a mistaken way. To be understood I speak according to convention, but I do not necessarily agree that the conventions which I follow for the sake of being understood, provide a correct description. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have my doubts regarding the matter of referring to the past with "before" but the fact is, at least I think it is, conventions come to be usually when there are good reasons for them. Granted some conventions are completely arbitrary e.g. handshaking instead of a namaste but others, usually those that need some rationale to be accepted, are not.

Let's go over it together to see if we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Why did you say that the future comes before the past? To me, the answer to that question is simple: The future has to first become the present and only then, second, can it become the past. So far so good.

Imagine that, on this day 10/11/2020, the two of us plan two events: event 1 on 11/11/2020 and event 2 on 12/11/2020. As of now, these two events are in the future and not in the past meaning you're right about the future coming before the past. There's no doubt that event 1 on 11/11/2020 will be experienced first and that event 2 on 12/11/2020 will be experienced second. Right? Say, three days go by and our plans for the events have taken place. We've arrived at the date 13/11/2020, the two events we planned are now in the past. We already know that event 1 took place before event 2 and that was the precisely the same sequence they were in when they were in the future. How will you answer the question, "what event happened before event 2 on 12/11/2020?" Surely, there's no valid answer other than "event 1 on 11/11/2020". But event 1 is in the past. In short, "before" can refer to the past.

This point of this small exercise is to show you that my use of the word "before" is specific to the temporal sequence of events and that your use of the word "before" is about the three divisions of time viz. past, present and future.

There might have been a point in time, at which time there was future but no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

My thinking is slightly different. Sticking to your bewildering theory, it can't be that we've experienced an infinite future through many moments of presents because infinity can't be completed. Ergo, the past has to be finite i.e. time has to have a beginning since we could've experienced only a finite amount of the future.

If there is meaning in a life that is lived with congruency to the 'true reality' Plato is referring to, how would we know? — The Questioning Bookworm

True reality - the real McCoy - is, in and of itself, meaningful - that's what, I infer, is the message in the parable of Plato's cave. As for the matter of "how would we know?" that's a topic of its own in epistemology; insofar as it matters to this discussion I think it impacts both Plato and Camus with mixed results - for Plato the difficulty/impossibility of knowledge of the real/true reality deals a severe blow to his search for the same and for Camus this epistemological roadblock is a blessing in disguise because there's a chance, no matter how slim, that he could be mistaken about life being meaningless.

Prejudices of Philosophers — The Questioning Bookworm

I don't know whether we can describe the philosophical quest for truth that occupies the lives of all philosophers as prejudiced. First, the desire for truth seems to be, quite literally, universal in both prevalence and appeal. Second, the notion of prejudice itself hangs on truth - when one is prejudiced, one fails to see the truth - and so, to call Plato, who values the truth, prejudiced would be like calling a through and through patriot a traitor.

Camus, on the other hand, despite the fact that he too valued the truth, could've been prejudiced because he went a step further and announced the discovery of a truth, the truth that life is meaningless. In doing that he first has to have the answer to "how would we know?" and that, we all know, remains a controversial topic in philosophy and second, Camus has to prove that none of his personal biases interfered in his investigations, and that, everyone knows, is another nigh impossible task. By the way, do you have any opinions on what kinds of prejudices might've affected Camus?

I think Camus's 'true reality' would be to acknowledge that there are paradoxes in nature as well as from our relationship between our desire/impulse for clarity and the universe, therefore, meaningless. — The Questioning Bookworm

There are two perspectives here:

1. Plato's contention that truth, true reality, has a value of its own irrespective of what that truth or true reality is. Isn't that why he wants us to leave the cave? To find out the truth and come face to face with true reality? In short, true reality is, whatever it is, meaningful.


2. Camus' conclusion that life is meaningless. This is a truth, true reality, insofar as Camus is concerned.

Combining their views, Camus' truth, his assessment of true reality, is that life is meaningless but this, if it is a truth, if it is true reality, according to Plato has a value despite what it says and is in that sense meaningful. To get to the point, the Camusian truth that life is meaningless is Platonically what a meaningful life is. :chin:

How do we know if there is meaning or not? That is such a bold claim for any philosopher or any thinker, and it is merely a view on either side — The Questioning Bookworm

You'll have to help me out on that score.

how does anyone know if there is meaning or not? — The Questioning Bookworm

My take on this is that no one can, more accurately, no one has, answered the questions, "why do I exist?", "why am I here?" That there are no answers to this question is the basis for Camus' claim that life is meaningless.

A consideration not an answer (because I do not know the answer). Plato's concern with the reality of the natural world as he understood it, Camus's with a moral world as he understood it. In short, two subjects independent of each other. Yes? (And your OP the kind we'd all benefit from having more of - ty!) — tim wood

:up: I've tried to find a common denominator between Plato and Camus in the best way I can.

reflecting on some of the worst truths — Jack Cummins

This is what I suppose Camus would've liked us to do; after all, what could be worse than life being meaningless to a creature that seems almost purpose-built to seek meaning? He probably didn't recommend a descent into despair, despondency, and depression because, if memory serves, he said, "We must imagine Sisyphus happy" and now that I think of it, one possible reason for Sisyphus being happy is that Sisyphus knows the truth! Sisyphus has escaped Plato's cave.

But science doesn't present perfect and eternal truths. It is, by its nature, self-correcting and incomplete. — Kenosha Kid

Then, it should, for that reason, accommodate religion. I mean if science is all about tentative theories, and it is, these theories and the claims based on those theories are liable to change, not only change in the sense that an essence is retained with minor modifications but actually overturned, turned on its head as it were. Do you know the Phlogiston theory? It's fate should serve as a reminder to scientists that their theories can be (some have been) totally disproved. This means we need to be very cautious about drawing conclusions from the mere occurrence of a contradiction between science and other stuff like religion.

Empiricism. Scientific models are primarily tools for generating hypotheses -- predictions of specific experimental outcomes which may be tested and retested in a lab. Typically a model will assume the existence of an external reality that is the cause of such phenomena, but really you can replace this with whatever you like, including, as you say, God. For instance, if we assume that God causes every motion, then science is good at predicting what motions God will cause. If we assume that there is no external reality, only hallucinatory impressions for instance, then science is good at predicting hallucinations. The same model will work as well. That is the limit to which it can be considered 'right'; everything else is a belief. — Kenosha Kid

Please read above. If I must say anything at this point, it's that science, by its own admission, is tentatively right which is another way of saying it could be completely wrong. I suppose my argument hangs on that, even if small, nonetheless non-zero, possibility.

Yes. Although the God hypothesis we suppose to be compatible with science would not have any criteria by which to assess. Those who believe the Bible to be a perfectly accurate, eternally true, literal description of historical facts, do have criteria: is it consistent with scripture? And that's when things get heated. — Kenosha Kid

:ok:

Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time. — Possibility

It implies an existing awareness of time for me. Consider me as an omniscient narrator, a literary device I'm sure you're familiar with.

Then, the matter is settled, cut-and-dried, as they say, for you. You've already used the logos-mythos paradigm on the issue and labeled Christianity as a mythology. Good for you.
— TheMadFool

This is following the supposed rejection of a literal, historical interpretation of perfect and eternal truth. The pseudo-historical aspects thus yielded would constitute a mythology, yes. — Kenosha Kid

Shouldn't the same logic apply to science, the part that goes "...rejection of [a literal, historical interpretation of] perfect and eternal truth"? I mean, if you're going to challenge the "perfect and eternal truth" of religion, does it seem reasonable to claim "perfect and eternal truth" yourself? If you say "no", then how do you know you're right? You won't say "yes", right?

Yes, but like I said, the religious are not only defending the God hypothesis; they are defending specific historical narratives that *are* falsified by science.

Galileo did not uncover that God did not exist; he merely concluded that the Earth orbited the Sun. By your argument, the church should have been happy to know God's universe better, but they weren't because, above and beyond the God hypothesis, church dogma placed the Earth at the centre of the universe. — Kenosha Kid

Ok but, again, can science claim rights to anything that's "perfect and eternal truth"? No! So, how does science know it's right?

The phrase "scientific orthodoxy" or "scientific consensus" makes sense. I've never heard of "scientific heresy" and would describe any scientist employing it as histrionic at best. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. I think I got a bit carried away there. Pardon the brain fart.

I meant 'falsifiable' in precisely the same sense it is meant in meeting the criterion of scientific hypothesis. If we next have to undermine the basis of the falsifiability criterion, one can bypass most of this conversation entirely and just have one of those threads that pop up from time to time stating that science doesn't work, etc, in which case religion presumably has nothing to worry about. — Kenosha Kid

Falsifiable..."meeting the criterion of scientific hypothesis"? Of course but take the religious perspective for a second and many scientific claims are false. :chin:

Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time.

I know I’m being nit-picky, but I think awareness of time is a function of interoception. For a human to be unaccustomed to thinking of time as distinct from space, they would need to have been unconscious for most of their life, I would think. — Possibility

No problem. I'll get back to you later!

If X knows the green fruits will be good to eat in a few days, and that his supplies will last him roughly the same length of time, then doesn’t he already have a concept of time? — Possibility

It would mean that. However, consider the possibility that the ripe fruits were on one tree and the unripe ones on another. He could've gotten the idea that the red ones are tastier than the green ones from that and since the variable space hasn't been controlled for, there's nothing to stop X from inferring the ripening of fruits was a non-spatial phenomenon.

As for the knowledge that X's supplies will last a few days, again, space becomes a confounding factor - is it the different loci he occupies the cause of his hunger? As long as there's change in space, X will lack the motivation to think about time.

I think it's more of a qualitative shift from logos to mythos, but yeah, that's the fate of all religions it seems. Nonetheless, while I wholeheartedly refute that Christianity is the foundation of science, it is the historical keystone of our moral superstructure. I think it will always be the most relevant mythology. — Kenosha Kid

Then, the matter is settled, cut-and-dried, as they say, for you. You've already used the logos-mythos paradigm on the issue and labeled Christianity as a mythology. Good for you.

Sure. But then it is the creationist that presupposes, not the scientist. — Kenosha Kid

Well, I mentioned Laplace, a, if not the, paradigmatic case of science and its proponents. Even the great Newton of France said no more than "I didn't need that (god) hypothesis". It falls short, noticeably, from asserting "the god hypothesis is false". It says a lot in my world. Perhaps you might want to look into it at your leisure. You just might pick up something on your truth scanner.

And yet historically the opposite is true. Even the new atheist movement was driven by the intolerance of religious zealots toward e.g. teaching science in science classrooms, or an insistence on teaching non-science *as science*. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps, but look at from a best-case scenario viewpoint. If the religious believed that god created the universe, they have no reason at all to level criticism against science; after all, the raison d'etre of science is to understand the universe (creation).

Perhaps it is the tacit understanding that we will never know everything, that the God hypothesis, while having no scientific relevance, will never be falsified, which makes science disinterested in religion, while creationists who believe in the concept of blasphemy do have cause for upset when evidence contrary to *specific* creationist narratives is discovered. — Kenosha Kid

You're looking at from the standpoint of authority I believe. Religion has authority and thus so-called entities like blasphemy and heresy. Science has the same motivations [the phrase "scientific heresy" makes complete sense], if not the power to translate these motivations into laws like the ones we have in religion against blasphemy and heresy. Reminds me of Animal Farm by Goerge Orwell - fine, the animals at the farm got rid of the humans, however, the pigs that replaced them were no better.

Because that's the difference between what you're describing and what has typically occurred. You're describing a generic, non-detailed creationism that can absorb any scientific discovery and claim it for a god. What we actually have is specific creationist myths that are falsifiable even when the underlying motif -- the God hypothesis -- is not. — Kenosha Kid

Falsifiable? I recall reading a book once that basically said that propositions don't exist in isolation and that they form a complex structure much like a network or a web with each proposition connected, existentially, to others. The bottom line, is "creationist myths [that] are falsifiable" must exist in a framework of other assumptions, assumptions that may not be, you know, strong enough to provide sufficient support for the claim. Personally, I haven't tried it myself but I'm fairly certain that the trail of assumptions for the claims of science won't end in "happy place" if you know what I mean.

Some individual scientists have, because science does not close its doors to the religious, and the religious see natural law as the will of God. Speaking as a lapsed physicist, I can vouch that this is an atypical view of what science is about in my experience. — Kenosha Kid

I see but surely, you can sense how reasonable the sentiment is. If god created the universe then, necessarily, all in it - matter, energy, the laws that govern them - are god's doing.

Yes, it's a hugely circular argument. If both X and ~X are support the same argument, the argument can be dismissed as not meaningful — Kenosha Kid

It's more of of hypothesis/theory issue to me. If a hypothesis that accomodates both a certain proposition and its contradiction then that hypothesis is useless not scientific. This, however, seems to be biased point of view - looking at religion from a scientific lens.

What would happen if we did the reverse? If we bring a religious perspective to science, there's no problem at all for the simple reason that science is in the business of deciphering the laws of nature, laws that god created. It appears then that, in this respect at least, the dissatisfied party is science - science is accusing religion of being non-scientific. Religion, on the other hand, can be said to be applauding the work of scientists in their efforts to understand god's laws.

Too, @Wayfarer made a mention of Pierre Simone Laplace's reply to Napoleon's question, "where is god in all this?" which was "I had no need for this hypothesis". Notice Laplace didn't say, "that hypothesis (god) is false", he simply asserted that god was/is unnecessary to the entreprise of discovering and mathematically describing the laws of nature. :chin: You can take it from there.

del

I think so. People have found wisdom in the stories of the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, without insisting on a literalist, historical interpretation that must be treated as perfectly and eternally true. To quote Monty Python, there's little to quarrel with Mr Christ about. The contention has historically arisen when science has discovered facts contrary to literalist interpretations of the Old Testament — Kenosha Kid

Indeed, but how long until, how many words can we remove from Hamlet, Hamlet stops being Hamlet? How many? The literal truth of the Bible is now dead and buried. What's next? The miracles? Then? Jesus' historicity? I sense, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding, a slow but steady progression of the Bible from fact to fiction.