Xray

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'? Wrong question. Think about it some more and get back to me. I have thought about it and think you have evaded answering my question.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

And that proves there are an infinite number of meanings one can arbitrarily assign to any term — so long as one makes that assignment explicit to others when communicating with them. The linguistic sign "Limes" = [any term one arbitrarily designates], so long as one makes explicitly clear to others the right side of the equal sign. "Correct context", as you used that phrase, simply means that one assigns a meaning to a term (i.e., the right side of the equal sign) that the majority of other language users assigns to it. There is no inherently correct or incorrect context for a linguistic sign. By correct use I did not mean "inherently" correct (indeed there is no such thing), but what is called 'correctness' here is the result of a social convention. Just as it is e. g. 'correct' to write the first person singular in English with the capital letter "I".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection. You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”. I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here? Why would it need a god to get it here? Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause. If you argue on the basis of a causality chain, then god must have a 'cause' too.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection. You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”. I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here? Why would it need a god to get it here?

Quote from the article "Jesus and Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both" ? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/comment-page-1/ ITA. It's s really about premises. For how can one at the same time be of the opinion that "no supernatural dimension exists" (Rand's stance), but then regard Jesus as God's son and believe in the resurrection of the flesh?? From the same article: Which would be patchworking; in fact that's what people do very often. They cherrypick what suits them and disregard what doesn't fit into their philosophical 'quilt'. But imo orthodox Objectivists would reject this because it goes against what Rand said about Objectvism being an "all or nothing" philosophy: http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html NB pointed out that this encourages dogmatism.

How is this relevant to whether or not people understand the meaning of terms? Understanding the meaning of terms is the precondition for evaluating whether or not a linguistic sign is used in the correct context.

Is suppose hardly anyone posts on Darren's site anymore and the 'lack of audience' is frustrating him.

My point was that Rand's statement "No supernatural dimension exists" can neither be verified nor falsified. It is therefore impossble to determine whether Rand was correct or not. A statement like "no supernatural dimension exists" is incompatible with a belief in a supernatural power God and his son. Again, there is no way to verifiy or falsify whether or not a God exists. Here is an interesting article on the subject: Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/comment-page-1/

Yes. Both could be false. But doesn't, in formal contradiction, one assertion have to be true?

I think it is very limited because people will think of someone who does this as just plain crazy.

The DNA argument is not "worthless" because it supports the eyewitness's testimony.

Great link! Thanks for sharing, Stephen.

"We Erred Rand": Do you think of logic as irrelevant to epistemology? Good God, no. But I do think of epistemology as irrelevant to logic. And the discussion thus far has been about logic, not epistemology. Actually the opposite had been the case before you jumped in with formal logic in an issue where it was is not needed. As I wrote in my prior post, terms like "contradiction" and "incompatibility" are not exclusively reserved for formal logic; they are also used in countless other contexts without causing any misunderstanding in communication. In criminal cases for example, evidentiary findings can contradict a suspect's version of events. Defense laywers would have field day day in court if the prosecution could only build a case against their clients if they formally conradicted themselves. Example for demonstration purposes: Let's say defendant D has stolen a motorbike; an eyewitness has even seen him with the vehicle. D says he had been at a different location at the time. But then additional evidence is discovered: his DNA is found on the mororbike. This evidence contradicts D's version even further. Do you really believe that the defense counsel is going to be successful in court if he tells the prosecution: "But you don't have a case agaist my client because he never formally contradicted himsellf!"

The word "limes" refers to what exactly then? You can assign any meaning you want to it. Of course I can personally assign 'any meaning' to any term, but in using language you would get a complete communication breakdown if (random example) you'd decide to assign the meaning 'umbrella' to the term 'lime'. "It's going to rain. I'll need a lime." The arbitriness in assigning is therefore quite limited. The debate has not been about formal logic. Instead it was about the incompatibility of a faith in a supernatural power with Rand's stance on this issue. That's what it was about. Terms like "contradiction" and "incompatibility" are not exclusively used in formal logic, but in countless other situations as well.

"We Erred Rand": Do you think of logic as irrelevant to epistemology?

The word "limes" refers to what exactly then?

I would put it this way: What is regarded as fact can turn out to be false. But in that case, the alleged fact was never a fact. Example: suppose in a criminal case, the police regarded it as fact for quite some time that a certain 'person of interest' had an airtight alibi. But later it turned out that a good friend had given this person a false alibi. The alleged 'fact' had never been a fact.

Decoding anagrams can be quite useful too. Just sayin'. 'Xyra'

How so? I would think one would need to know if something were true before attempting to compare it to another thing (which should also be true) before evaluating their compatibility. For example, if I were going to compare apples and oranges and mistakenly used a lemon instead of an orange, would the resulting compatibility determination be correct? Maybe there’s some O’ist philosophical gymnastics that can be proposed to support your point, but being relatively new here, I can’t think of any. I'm not an Objectivist, nor am I arguing from an Objectivist point of view here. As for the 'truth' issue, I doubt this will get us very far in this debate because before long we will reach the realm of pure belief, with no empirical facts to back it up. But I have the feeling that this issue is still very important to you, so I'll give it a try; I suggest a step by step approach "A statement is true if it corresponds to fact". Could we agree on this as a common ground for the discussion? I'll await your reply before continuing.

Would you explain why the statements: Jim: "The capital of Romania is Budapest." John: "The capital of Romania is Sofia." are not mutually exclusive? In criminal cases, one uses the term "contradictory statements" as well, but this does not necessarily mean that one of them must be true. They can all be false, for example when guilty suspects change elements of their 'story' several times.

ITA. Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth. If for example Jim says that the capital of Romania is Budapest, but John says it is Sofia, their statetments are incompatible because they contradict each other. The next step is whether it can be determined whose statement is correct. In the above example, both have got it wrong.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity. You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation. I merely pointed out a fact: mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity. Whether a Christian individual views them as integral to the type of Christinaity he/she practises is a matter of personal preference. People can be members of a church for many different reasons. So the question I would ask you is: what universal practices do you accept as integral to your preferred variant of Christianity?

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

My focus here was on whether Objectivism and Christianity are compatible (not whether their premises are (in)correct). They are incompatible because the statement 'No supernatural dimension exists' leaves no room for the idea of a supernatural being and his son. Discussing whether Rand was correct is another issue. Since there is no proof either way, epistemologically speaking, agnosticism is the only position which avoids the fallacy of claiming knowledge of something which cannot be known. As for ethics - since there is no scintilla of evidence indicating that a god exists, deriving a code of ethics from a 'god's will' would be an epistemological fallacy.