From: Peter Olcott on
Yeah that was a stretch, depending upon one's point of view,
and the true nature of reality.

"jbriggs444" <jbriggs444(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d284a56d-daae-41dd-ad88-b1fc64f6569a(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 10:50 am, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com>
wrote:
> "troll" <trolid...(a)go.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f30197f1-cd4e-417b-b696-60f427a9c3a4(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness
> > has no real meaning at all. Entropy and information
> > has a clear definition in physics and mathematics, but
> > goodness is just a nice sounding word and no one
> > can ever agree on what it actually means.
>
> Good is merely one side of the continuum of better and
> worse. That is ALL there is to it.

[Not really disagreeing with you here, except with the
assertion that
that's _ALL_ there is to it]

It's not a one dimensional continuum. What's "good" for you
may not
be "good" for me. What's good for the both of us may not be
good for
the society in which we are both members. What's "good" in
one
circumstance may not be "good" in another circumstance.
What I think
is good for me may not match what you think is good for me
and may not
match what's really good for me. Short term good, long term
good,
good done by the policy versus good done by the act which
conforms to
the policy. There are oh so many ways to spin things.

Still, just because one can quibble that it's really
complicated
doesn't mean that it can't also be quite simple.

Hugging your mom is a good thing.
Eating too many french fries is a bad thing.

Don't get so hung up searching for the ultimate meaning of
"good" or
"true" that you can't tell when "the traffic light is green"
becomes
true. You might never get home from work.

Don't think that just because the dividing lines can't be
precisely
defined and clearly drawn that all categories are
meaningless. The
real world is shades of gray. But it's also sometimes black
and
white. Or red and green.


From: ben6993 on
On Apr 16, 9:34 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

> ... etc
> It only takes one observation to prove them false, but no
> finite number of observations can prove them true.
> ... etc

Aha, yes. Thank you.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on
On 16/04/2010 13:41, Ludovicus wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:18 am, troll<trolid...(a)go.com> wrote:
>> What is truth?
>
> If Christ was unable to answer when
> Pilate questioned him, how you dare
> to inquire that?

JC wasn't all that bright.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Les Cargill on
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> On 16/04/2010 13:41, Ludovicus wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 7:18 am, troll<trolid...(a)go.com> wrote:
>>> What is truth?
>>
>> If Christ was unable to answer when
>> Pilate questioned him, how you dare
>> to inquire that?
>
> JC wasn't all that bright.
>

He didn't have to be. He was a legacy.

> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

--
Les Cargill
From: Peter Olcott on
You presume too much from what he actually said. Failing to
answer does not logically entail the lack of capacity to
answer.

In any case it is a good question and does deserve an
answer.

"Ludovicus" <luiroto(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16e608cb-4e78-430f-bfca-584e07d871a2(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 7:18 am, troll <trolid...(a)go.com> wrote:
>What is truth?

If Christ was unable to answer when
Pilate questioned him, how you dare
to inquire that?