Argument from truth

[Silmarien]

Yeah, I’m not really a hard determinist anymore and I’m swaying more and more to the existentialist camp, thanks in part to you actually. Of course, it may be that I simply have no choice

So, I take it you’re not a compatibilist?

Depends on the type of compatibilism, but by and large, no. I don't think it works.

Glad to hear you're in the existentialist camp now! I'm out of town for the weekend so won't be around, but I'd like to hear more!

 

[gaara4158]

Depends on the type of compatibilism, but by and large, no. I don't think it works.

Glad to hear you're in the existentialist camp now! I'm out of town for the weekend so won't be around, but I'd like to hear more!

I’ve started to entertain compatibilism as an alternative to hard determinism or libertarian free will, neither of which I can particularly espouse now, but we can talk more about that when you get back. For now, I’ll just say that my relationship with existentialism is geared toward my own mental health. I don’t think in the absence of any objective meaning or purpose we are doomed to a miserable life of longing for that which doesn’t exist. I think there’s value in the process of searching for or creating subjective meaning; I’m closely aligned with Camus in this respect.

 

[zippy2006]

I agree that they're the lowest form of humor. They can escalate too. When someone wants to hear my really dark stuff, I make them work their way up. I can desensitize so that things become less offensive. I disagree with the drug analogy though. My mildly dark jokes are just as funny to me as my super dark jokes, and my dad jokes, like the muffin joke, are just as funny as all that too.

Okay.

I wouldn't use the word "Offended" for anything other than words, no. If a man raped my imaginary daughter, I'd be angry, sure, but I don't think that drudges up the same sort of emotions as you get when, say, a black guy hears the N-Word. I don't bother distinguishing between telling jokes and saying "offensive" things though. It's just words. If someone insults me, either I know that they're wrong about what they think of me, or I know they're right. So what if they're wrong and so what if they point out something that I'm aware of?

A large part of an insult is an intentional manifestation of ill-will. If you care about the person and their opinion of you then you will be insulted. "I hate you" is always an option, but usually there is a more malevolent way to get that across!

But you could also be insulted on the basis of mere content if the truth is something that you're hiding from, which is a possibility for anyone.

Now, if someone says something about my wife, it can be different. But it depends on how my wife feels about what was said. I'm not going to be offended if someone insults my relationship with her, if it's clever I'll probably laugh, but I'll be P-O'ed if someone upsets my wife. Words don't cause me harm, but I recognize that they cause other people harm, so I can be angry if someone hurts my wife without the insult itself actually hurting me.

Okay, but it seems that you would simultaneously think your wife irrational for being insulted, no?

Since I'm such a fan of dark humor, I don't find any truths too important to undermine in the context of a joke. I won't laugh at a car crash on the side of the road with bodies strewn about, but I will tell Princess Diana jokes, as an example of what a monster I am.

Right, and some people value humor above all truth, so to speak. In my estimation that's a character flaw.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, but it seems that you would simultaneously think your wife irrational for being insulted, no?

Yep. People with hypochondria aren't actually ill, it's "all in their head" but they are actually experiencing the discomfort, so the bad feelings are real even if the reason for them isn't real.

As big a fan of cognitive psychology as I am, it isn't a very effective approach to cheering someone up. If my wife irrationally feels hurt by something, explaining logically why she shouldn't feel what she's feeling isn't going to make her feel better. It's more effective to just keep appealing to emotion, but emotions that are good. That's where a good sense of humor comes in handy. If you can get someone to crack a smile, that smile can easily snowball into a good mood. That's where behavioral psychology comes in. Smiles and laughter are conditioned responses to feeling happy, and conversely, feeling happy is a conditioned response to smiles and laughter as well.

Right, and some people value humor above all truth, so to speak. In my estimation that's a character flaw.

I would definitely say that I value humor over any kind of truth, but not all truth. I'll enjoy humor about any subject, but that doesn't mean any incident itself is always funny. That probably is a character flaw, even though I can't really figure where I'd be causing harm other than forgetting that other folks are going to be offended by some things I find funny. I did say I was a monster .

Incidentally, I told a few Princess Di jokes at work to a female coworker. I've told her jokes with a lot darker material than that, and she loved them, so I didn't think it was risky. But she didn't laugh. I said, "What, you don't like Princess Di Jokes? Were you a fan of hers?" She said, "No... I don't like car accident jokes". Then I remembered that she had a child die in a car accident when he was twelve, and I made the connection of just why making light of Princess Di's car accident is only going to remind her of her own personal trauma. That's where a big stable of jokes comes in handy. I started throwing out clean silly humor, like from Mitch Hedberg, to dilute the bad taste in her mouth from the dark stuff.

Fish are always eating other fish. If fish could scream, the ocean would be loud. You wouldn't want to stick your head under the water, all you'd hear is "Ahhhh, [blessanddonotcurse]! I thought I looked like that rock!"

If you're a fish and you want to become a fish stick, you have to have very good posture. You can't be a slouchy fish, you'll end up a fish clump.

I'd like to go fishing and catch a fish stick. That would be convenient. Get a job working for Gordan's... Just put me in a boat with some empty boxes, and I will return them to the freezer section of your local grocer.

I have so much tarter, I don't have to dip my fish sticks in anything! That's actually pretty gross. Whenever I tell that joke, I always have to add that I'm just joking. I don't know how much tarter I actually have, but I'm sure it's an average amount. If we took a test for how much tarter everyone here has, my name would be right in the middle!

I bought some tarter control toothpaste. I still have tarter, but now it's under control.

You're probably noticing a theme here: these are all great jokes.

After a bit, she was giggling and smiling again, telling me how ridiculous I am.

 

[holo]

Well, my point all along has been that reality is interpreted indeed. And I think it was meant to be, as I have argued. Whatever more it might be than what we perceive and know of it is irrelevant to us. God knows.

When I look at the world, it doesn't at all seem like we're "supposed" to understand it. The stuff the human brain most easily understands and can make use of, is exactly the things that contributed to our evolution and success as a species. A guy with a natural fear of things that look like a snake would have a very real advantage over the guy who was really good at figuring out how atoms work. We're apparently not designed to understand the very small and very large stuff, or anything that involves more than three dimensions.

I don't do everything I want to do! I've always wanted to have super powers like the x-men or superheroes. Alas, reality wouldn't allow. I wish I could fly or teleport myself or read minds. That'd be cool. But I can't...

What I mean is that whatever you do in fact do, you do because you want to. You don't do anything you don't want to do one some level. By that I don't mean you only do things you enjoy, but you do things for a reason, to achieve something.

What is this morality you are following and why do you follow it?

There's not some law or list of rules I follow. And I don't think anybody else does either. We all have a basic idea of right and wrong, it's hardwired into us. It's not like, say, a Christian thinks murder is wrong because the ten commandments say so.

No, you can't be immoral, there is no standard to deviate from.

Well there are lots of standards out there, it's just that I don't see how any of them could be called truly objective.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Once again, our everyday commonsense intuition tells us our lives have meaning.

Our everyday commonsense intuition is often wrong. Math, science, and logic tell us this.

And what is this "our lives have meaning" business? I understand that words have meaning. To have meaning is an issue of language and semantics. Our lives are not a language, so this notion seems nonsensical.

We have to again deny a basic evidence for a less obvious thought process,

The amount of evidence you've proposed is zero. You could say that you have an argument, but evidence is not something that you can correctly claim to have.

such as naturalism and nihilism.

Why are these things less obvious? Is it just that you were raised a certain way? "The stars in the sky are our ancestors" can be obvious to one person, while "the stars in the sky are angels" can be obvious to someone else. The basic idea of science is to remove your bias, which is something that I don't see you doing.

It seems like we're here for a reason.

Do you mean cause and effect? I'd agree. Do you mean purpose? If so, does God have a purpose?

To exist and live, at least. To be happy and fulfilled.

That's what you want. What you want, and some "objective purpose which exists for you as ordained from an external source" could be entirely different things. Most commonly, it is argued by Christians that our purpose is to worship God. Was that not obvious to you?

Objectively, as Chriliman has said, we would only be dust in the wind. As a Christian, it's to know God and do his will.

You are very close to committing the appeal to consequences fallacy. Just because you find one conclusion preferable to another, doesn't make it true.

I also expect him to fulfill his promises of making a new world, eradicating evil, suffering, and death.

Why would he eradicate suffering and death if he purposely made them and designed them with intricate detail? I don't understand the point of that.

I personally don't find convincing the "invent one for yourself" idea. If I invented one, I'd know it's fake. I wouldn't want to live for a fantasy.

Then don't invent one.

Well, if there is an ultimate purpose,

Do you imply that there could be a purpose which overrides a "lesser" purpose?

then it'll have to come from a sentient being with a will.

Because...?

Purpose is given only by such a being.

Because why?

That being would have to be ultimate.

Meaning what, exactly?

Now we already know that without God there is no such meaning.

Very close to appealing to consequences fallacy!

Materialism and naturalism don't give it to us. We have to resort to making up purposes for ourselves, which isn't objective by definition.

From, say, a murderer's perspective, evidence presented in court would be something he doesn't like. Does the fact that he doesn't like the evidence make the evidence false?

Some basic purposes we have that everyone should be able to discern os to take care of yourself and of others. To know people, to do something (good hopefully) with your life.

Those are good things.

 

[Sapiens]

I can see why it seems saddening. It used to bother me too until I let go of the idea there there HAS to be an objective purpose.

I can't make up a purpose, but just like with morality, I found that even without faith in a god, the sense of purpose is still there. There are lots of things that give my life meaning. The meaning will be there, people are just afraid it'll disappear if they can't point to a supernatural source for it.

Of course, but I would assume that if there were some sort of objective purpose (like everybody being saved) it's mighty strange that it's not at all obvious to everybody what it is. Instead, we have all sorts of religions and philosophies.

What I find tragic is if there IS some ultimate purpose, because in that case the fact is that almost all of us are missing it.

Check out this video. It's short and it's directly related to what we are saying.

It seems you confuse knowing morality and purpose with morality and purpose existing. Why do we discern them? Without God, they wouldn't exist. You have to conclude they are faulty perceptions. But then again why would you do that? We will discuss the moral argument later.

People are lost. That is why Christians share the good news of Jesus Christ. God is making it known. Nature also reveals who God is. Like the argument I presented here.

Because of this tragedy, it is very important and morally binding for Christians to share the hope that is in them.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know what the ultimate "right" way to see things is. I mean, is it more right to see the world in light of what we know about quantum physics, rather than the older theories?

But it appears self evident to me that there are wise and unwise, or helpful and unhelpful ways of seeing things. For instance, the more I realize that everybody is just as human as I am, the more positive my relation to, and impact on, the world seems to be. The better I understand myself and others, the more wisely I can react to things. Simple things like understanding that my kid didn't break something because he's a brat, but because someone upset him.

I'm not sure what you mean by if there's no ought there's no truth. The truth is what it is. We can know it in degrees. IME the constant nagging of should only gets in the way of dealing with what IS. I'm not saying I don't try to make things better, but the idea that things should be like this or that only frustrates me.

I'm not the best at articulating these ideas and I know they can sound crazy, so I hope you'll give the benefit of doubt and ask me to clarify what I mean so I don't come across as some immoral nihilist or something

Well, I mean reality demands to be known properly. That is the concept of truth. We are compelled to know things for what they really are. We should seek truth. There is an intellectual duty. When someone is mistaken or lying, they are deviating from this and we know it.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know what the ultimate "right" way to see things is. I mean, is it more right to see the world in light of what we know about quantum physics, rather than the older theories?

But it appears self evident to me that there are wise and unwise, or helpful and unhelpful ways of seeing things. For instance, the more I realize that everybody is just as human as I am, the more positive my relation to, and impact on, the world seems to be. The better I understand myself and others, the more wisely I can react to things. Simple things like understanding that my kid didn't break something because he's a brat, but because someone upset him.

I'm not sure what you mean by if there's no ought there's no truth. The truth is what it is. We can know it in degrees. IME the constant nagging of should only gets in the way of dealing with what IS. I'm not saying I don't try to make things better, but the idea that things should be like this or that only frustrates me.

I'm not the best at articulating these ideas and I know they can sound crazy, so I hope you'll give the benefit of doubt and ask me to clarify what I mean so I don't come across as some immoral nihilist or something

We should see reality as it is. The most accurate and explanatory theory in light of known facts will be preferred. I am no scientist though.

 

[Sapiens]

If only a few know it doesn't make it less true, but it makes it seem less likely that someone (God) intended for everybody to know about it.

I see you and I basically have the same purpose in life, knowing truth and seeking good. I'm no longer convinced of the Christian worldview, but the things I'm learning from (secular) Buddhism seem to be true, self evident even. It seems like Stoicism also teaches true and useful things, but I'm haven't studied it much yet.

Well I don't believe in sin anymore, and I don't see sufficient reasons to believe in salvation as something metaphysical. But there is definitely freedom and peace to be had in this lifetime, which is the only time I know to be real.

We'll discuss this more in depth when we do the moral argument discussion. If you want to participate in it. I will try to remain focused on the current thread topic. Thanks for your answer though.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes I meant it was implicit.
When you say that world isn't perfect, the question is what would be perfect. Do you mean like heaven? Will the world ever become prefect?

There's a koan: everything is perfect and everything can get better. What that means, I think, is that everything is perfect in the sense that it couldn't have been any better. Since everything that exists now is the direct result of everything that has happened before, it couldn't have been "better" than it is. For today to have been different, yesterday would've had to have been something it wasn't. It's pointless to say the past should've been different, it doesn't get us anywhere useful. So it is perfect in the sense that it couldn't have been better. But we can still make tomorrow better than today. See what I mean?

Not sure I'm wording things in an intelligible manner, I slept like 1 hours last night. But again, that's perfect

I don't believe there's some "ultimate" or "objective" meaning to or existence, no. That's just our grand egos trying to take up a lot of space in the universe. Nothing will matter when the universe collapses on itself, but lots of things matter to us, today, and I think that's a beautiful thing. Like finding a pretty flower in a mud puddle.

I don't see why we should kill anyone. We are significant, just not objectively.

I don't think my children are objectively more valuable than somebody else's. But they're still the most valuable thing in the universe to me. And I think that's fine.

Of course I do. Human and animal life is valuable to me. I wish for happiness for everyone.

I too would like to see the world different, or better if you will. But I don't know how I could say how the world OUGHT to be. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, free beer for everyone and no hangovers, no inclination to be selfish, literally anything. But I think that in order to change reality, we must first have a grip on what reality IS.

I, too, am very glad you did. If it works for you, go for it. And I'm extremely thankful that I get to find meaning and peace and hope even though I think there's no God or purpose to our existence.

Not at all, I just see that even though our existence is pointless, the world isn't filled only with suffering.

Buddhism

Maybe not in the end, but it matters now, and, as they say, now is all we have.

Please do! Yes, I have a sense of right and wrong.

P1. I mean we know certain things ought to be different, like no one dying of hunger, no one lacking access to clean water, no illnesses, no natural disasters, no war, no rape, etc. Yeah, a radical change in humanity's moral character is needed. Heaven is coming. It is a restoration of the world.

P2. That sounds like determinism. If we can change the future, then the present could've been changed in the past. So maybe we made wrong choices in the past. It's important we learn from our mistakes. And it isn't perfect now if we could've done better before.

//

If you say some things are valuable or good in the sense that it's only your personal subjective opinion, then I cannot disagree with you. But if you claim it's more than that, as I believe you probably do, then you are very unjustified. If only your opinion, I can't really value what you say. But I'll keep some juice for later. It seems you and Gaara want to affirm objective reality or subjective reality only when it suits you. If there is no objective purpose, why no believe that and act accordingly. It is incomprehensible for me to play make believe with ourselves. It's sounds more like you recognize objective reality but don't want to admit it. No one can consistently live while holding to nihilism, even if that is not what you say you mean. You might want to clarify that. Otherwise, how are you not simply deceiving yourself?

//

P8&9. I agree we need to know what reality is first. That is why I disagree when you say we don't need God. You will be using self deception if you take that way. It's not because it works for me that I'm Christian. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want the truth. I believe in Christianity because I think it is the correct worldview to hold, and that for a plethora of reasons, one of which my argument here.

 

[holo]

Check out this video.

Can't see it :/

It seems you confuse knowing morality and purpose with morality and purpose existing. Why do we discern them? Without God, they wouldn't exist. You have to conclude they are faulty perceptions. But then again why would you do that?

Why should I conclude they are real? We have a lot of conceptions that are faulty, or at least lacking.

People are lost. That is why Christians share the good news of Jesus Christ. God is making it known. Nature also reveals who God is. Like the argument I presented here.

I don't see good evidence of the Christian god in nature though.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes I meant it was implicit.
When you say that world isn't perfect, the question is what would be perfect. Do you mean like heaven? Will the world ever become prefect?

There's a koan: everything is perfect and everything can get better. What that means, I think, is that everything is perfect in the sense that it couldn't have been any better. Since everything that exists now is the direct result of everything that has happened before, it couldn't have been "better" than it is. For today to have been different, yesterday would've had to have been something it wasn't. It's pointless to say the past should've been different, it doesn't get us anywhere useful. So it is perfect in the sense that it couldn't have been better. But we can still make tomorrow better than today. See what I mean?

Not sure I'm wording things in an intelligible manner, I slept like 1 hours last night. But again, that's perfect

I don't believe there's some "ultimate" or "objective" meaning to or existence, no. That's just our grand egos trying to take up a lot of space in the universe. Nothing will matter when the universe collapses on itself, but lots of things matter to us, today, and I think that's a beautiful thing. Like finding a pretty flower in a mud puddle.

I don't see why we should kill anyone. We are significant, just not objectively.

I don't think my children are objectively more valuable than somebody else's. But they're still the most valuable thing in the universe to me. And I think that's fine.

Of course I do. Human and animal life is valuable to me. I wish for happiness for everyone.

I too would like to see the world different, or better if you will. But I don't know how I could say how the world OUGHT to be. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, free beer for everyone and no hangovers, no inclination to be selfish, literally anything. But I think that in order to change reality, we must first have a grip on what reality IS.

I, too, am very glad you did. If it works for you, go for it. And I'm extremely thankful that I get to find meaning and peace and hope even though I think there's no God or purpose to our existence.

Not at all, I just see that even though our existence is pointless, the world isn't filled only with suffering.

Buddhism

Maybe not in the end, but it matters now, and, as they say, now is all we have.

Please do! Yes, I have a sense of right and wrong.

Lol for Buddhism

 

[holo]

Well, I mean reality demands to be known properly. That is the concept of truth. We are compelled to know things for what they really are. We should seek truth. There is an intellectual duty. When someone is mistaken or lying, they are deviating from this and we know it.

I agree that there is value in seeking truth, and we are driven to figure out how things work. But that says something about us, not about reality itself. It's a drive we have, not some "calling" from reality itself, right?

 

[Sapiens]

Can't see it :/

Why should I conclude they are real? We have a lot of conceptions that are faulty, or at least lacking.

I don't see good evidence of the Christian god in nature though.

Sorry! Here:

 

[holo]

P1. I mean we know certain things ought to be different, like no one dying of hunger, no one lacking access to clean water, no illnesses, no natural disasters, no war, no rape, etc.

The notion of "ought" implies some sort of objective morality, which I don't see evidence for, apart from the fact that it feels like it's objective and outside of ourselves. I think it's more constructive to think in terms of can rather than ought.

P2. That sounds like determinism. If we can change the future, then the present could've been changed in the past. So maybe we made wrong choices in the past. It's important we learn from our mistakes. And it isn't perfect now if we could've done better before.

From what I understand of how the world works, yes I'm a determinist. By that I mean that everything is caused by something else, and when you have condition A + condition B, you will always get result C. The present is how it is because of the past. So it couldn't be different than it is. Cause and effect, basically. Free will means we could make choices without being influenced by anything, that there are decisions based on literally nothing.

If yesterday were to be different, then the day before yesterday would have had to be different, and the day before that etc etc. Today is the only possible outcome of yesterday.

If you say some things are valuable or good in the sense that it's only your personal subjective opinion, then I cannot disagree with you. But if you claim it's more than that, as I believe you probably do, then you are very unjustified. If only your opinion, I can't really value what you say.

I don't really have anything other than my opinion. I don't believe in God, so what God wants is meaningless to me. I don't know how I could reliably figure out what God's will is.

It seems you and Gaara want to affirm objective reality or subjective reality only when it suits you. If there is no objective purpose, why no believe that and act accordingly.

I do believe and act accordingly

But like I said before, just because I don't see evidence of some objective purpose, doesn't mean I don't have purpose in my life. For all I know God is evil and the purpose is to send us all to hell, but I can't base a worldview on assumptions like that.

It is incomprehensible for me to play make believe with ourselves. It's sounds more like you recognize objective reality but don't want to admit it. No one can consistently live while holding to nihilism, even if that is not what you say you mean. You might want to clarify that. Otherwise, how are you not simply deceiving yourself?

I can't truly know I'm not being deceived. I really can't prove anything. I'm 100% sure that I'm not the only person who's conscious, but I can't know it or prove it.

P8&9. I agree we need to know what reality is first. That is why I disagree when you say we don't need God. You will be using self deception if you take that way. It's not because it works for me that I'm Christian. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want the truth. I believe in Christianity because I think it is the correct worldview to hold, and that for a plethora of reasons, one of which my argument here.

I too seek to know the truth, and that's why I lost faith in God. It's of course possible I will change my mind about that in the future, but when I examined my reasons for believing, they didn't hold up.

 

[holo]

Sorry! Here:

I've heard some good stuff from Craig, but this was frankly disappointing. He assumes that without belief in "ultimate purpose", life becomes meaningless, yet here I am, an unbeliever with a life full of meaning. Yes, I believe we will all die and nothing will "ultimately" matter, but I don't understand how a smart guy like Craig figures can conclude that means nothing means anything to anyone now. It's kind of like saying there's no point in having fun today, because that fun won't last forever so you might as well kill yourself.

Also, what's the deal with implying that people who don't believe in objective morality will turn into shoplifters? It's simply not true. If anything, my sense of moral obligation has only gotten stronger after losing faith.

Since I have no fear of punishment in the afterlife, and no hope of reward in the afterlife, my focus, my search for meaning and morality, and my desire to change the world for the better, is in the here and now.

I think he's got it exactly backwards - if death is NOT the end, then it's life NOW that's essentially meaningless. It's just a precursor for eternity, it has no real value in and of itself. And morality too just becomes a question of reward and punishment in the afterlife, rather than doing the right thing because it's, well, the right thing.

 

[zippy2006]

I am going to respond to the part you edited out according to my memory of it. If you have a sort of perfect self-esteem, transparency, and humility then I suppose you wouldn't be offended by what others say, but for most of us that isn't the case, especially when it comes to loved ones.

Yep. People with hypochondria aren't actually ill, it's "all in their head" but they are actually experiencing the discomfort, so the bad feelings are real even if the reason for them isn't real.

As big a fan of cognitive psychology as I am, it isn't a very effective approach to cheering someone up. If my wife irrationally feels hurt by something, explaining logically why she shouldn't feel what she's feeling isn't going to make her feel better. It's more effective to just keep appealing to emotion, but emotions that are good. That's where a good sense of humor comes in handy. If you can get someone to crack a smile, that smile can easily snowball into a good mood. That's where behavioral psychology comes in. Smiles and laughter are conditioned responses to feeling happy, and conversely, feeling happy is a conditioned response to smiles and laughter as well.

Okay sure, that makes sense.

I would definitely say that I value humor over any kind of truth, but not all truth. I'll enjoy humor about any subject, but that doesn't mean any incident itself is always funny. That probably is a character flaw, even though I can't really figure where I'd be causing harm other than forgetting that other folks are going to be offended by some things I find funny. I did say I was a monster .

I wouldn't say that such a person necessarily causes harm, but rather that they make an idol of humor to the detriment of higher things. Thus it is something like an intellectual error.

But I value humor very highly, perhaps because I also value humility highly. I just don't give it free reign over every kind of truth. There are some things I won't laugh at and some ideas that I won't entertain, even if they are few and far between.

Incidentally, I told a few Princess Di jokes at work to a female coworker. I've told her jokes with a lot darker material than that, and she loved them, so I didn't think it was risky. But she didn't laugh. I said, "What, you don't like Princess Di Jokes? Were you a fan of hers?" She said, "No... I don't like car accident jokes". Then I remembered that she had a child die in a car accident when he was twelve, and I made the connection of just why making light of Princess Di's car accident is only going to remind her of her own personal trauma. That's where a big stable of jokes comes in handy. I started throwing out clean silly humor, like from Mitch Hedberg, to dilute the bad taste in her mouth from the dark stuff.

Fish are always eating other fish. If fish could scream, the ocean would be loud. You wouldn't want to stick your head under the water, all you'd hear is "Ahhhh, [blessanddonotcurse]! I thought I looked like that rock!"

If you're a fish and you want to become a fish stick, you have to have very good posture. You can't be a slouchy fish, you'll end up a fish clump.

I'd like to go fishing and catch a fish stick. That would be convenient. Get a job working for Gordan's... Just put me in a boat with some empty boxes, and I will return them to the freezer section of your local grocer.

I have so much tarter, I don't have to dip my fish sticks in anything! That's actually pretty gross. Whenever I tell that joke, I always have to add that I'm just joking. I don't know how much tarter I actually have, but I'm sure it's an average amount. If we took a test for how much tarter everyone here has, my name would be right in the middle!

I bought some tarter control toothpaste. I still have tarter, but now it's under control.

You're probably noticing a theme here: these are all great jokes.

After a bit, she was giggling and smiling again, telling me how ridiculous I am.

Lol, that's great! I very much enjoy that kind of playful humor.

I don't have a lot of set jokes. I am more improvisational, informal, and playful. Curb your Enthusiasm is a show I find particularly funny. I also like Colbert, and perhaps my favorite piece was his interview with Eminem.

 

[Moral Orel]

I wouldn't say that such a person necessarily causes harm, but rather that they make an idol of humor to the detriment of higher things. Thus it is something like an intellectual error.

But I value humor very highly, perhaps because I also value humility highly. I just don't give it free reign over every kind of truth. There are some things I won't laugh at and some ideas that I won't entertain, even if they are few and far between.

So what are "higher things" and how can jokes be a detriment to them? Say for instance, rape jokes. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Topics being too dark?

Lol, that's great! I very much enjoy that kind of playful humor.

I don't have a lot of set jokes. I am more improvisational, informal, and playful. Curb your Enthusiasm is a show I find particularly funny.

That kind of humor is great too, I'm always trying to find some angle to make a joke out of everyday conversation too. The trouble with that, is you need a person to feed you material to riff on. If someone is grumpy, you don't want to do that because they'll likely think you're teasing them. Or if they're really grumpy, they just aren't feeding you material because they aren't talking much, if at all. Having a nice arsenal of set jokes is handy for those types of situations because you can just pull them out of thin air.

I used to know a lot more jokes than I do now. I used to be able to recall entire five-minute bits from stand up acts almost verbatim. I still remember as a kid doing Bob Newhart's monologue from hosting SNL. But now in my late thirties my memory is starting to fade. Back in my twenties I used to play a game called, "That Reminds Me of a Joke!" where people would give me a topic, and I would tell them a joke about it. Not genres of jokes, like blonde jokes or Polish jokes, mind you. I mean like, think of a noun other than a proper name. I can still kind of do it for a while, but I never used to get stumped before.

I never watched Curb Your Enthusiasm, I didn't have HBO when it was on. I loved Seinfeld, which Larry David helped create though. I've been loving Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee too. It's a lot of interesting conversations about the craft of comedy, but told by comedians having a conversation on a fun day out, so it's still a laugh riot.

 

[devolved]

You're right, I do use them interchangeably. Ultimately, God knows all truths. So while we may discover some over time, they were already in existence before our discovery. Either there is or isn't a penny under your desk. I don't see the problem. The idea is not to cause something to be true but to know it. God can cause some things to be true though because there are contingent truths, as I said.

I'm just curious. Do you think that God knows all Truth through experience, or mere observation. For example, would God really know what it's like to rape someone in the experiential sense?