:up:

Sophistry!

(3) should be "we're not really thinking about the world." — RogueAI

:up: Another qualification that I failed to make. So, my thesis is improving, won't you say? With help from you all of course. Arigato gozaimus.

Oh my god! - WHAT report card? This is apologistic nonsense. Where I come from anything above 50% is considered a ‘pass’, but that’s honestly beside the point... — Possibility

Yeah, I was wondering about that, but it's not my idea. Visit the Wikipedia page on US students' grading system. Are you saying the US educational board/council/committee is spouting "apologistic (?) nonsense"? Can you explain why it's "apologisitc (?) nonsense"? Remember there's a range (0 - 59%) that's "awarded" F.

Every countably infinite subset of the continuum that has an upper bound (happiness = 10) has a least upper bound (sorrow = 0). Which would make a potential midway point (neither happiness nor sorrow) = 5. A score of 5.53 would therefore be positioned closer to happiness than to sorrow. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this... — Possibility

That's an excellent observation. 5.53 is closer to 10 than 0 (it's past the midpoint 5). However this average happiness score looks to be the median and not the mean. Half of the world's countries score less than 5.53 and you'll have to remember that most of them are highly populous nations (Asia & Africa). In terms of actual numbers that could mean two-thirds of the world i.e. approx. 5.3 billion people out of a total of 8 billion are having a hard time. Evil > Good.



1. Dualism: Hot - Cold [extrema]

2. Triadism: Hot - x - Cold. What's the x? Lukewarm/tepid? Isn't lukewarm/tepid just hot interacting with cold and reaching an equilibrium point? The lukewarm, like dissipated heat or 0 between + and - does nothing. The third state in triadism is static, inert, noble! Tepid water isn't a "force" for lack of a better term, it's, to put it colorfully, a dead battery with a potential of 0 volts!

@180 Proof clarified the matter to me in the clearest of terms.

There are two kinds of arguments for god(s).

1. Non-scientific arguments e.g. the ontological proof (vide infra).

(i) The greatest imaginable being must exist or else the greatest imaginable being isn't the greatest imaginable being.

(ii) Not the case that the greatest imaginable being is not the greatest imaginable being.

Ergo,

(iii) The greatest imaginable being exists [(i), (ii), DS]

(iv) The greatest imaginable being is God [definition]

(v) God exists [(iii), (iv) Id]

How do we challenge this argument? We have to attack the premises or the logic. This is what we call refutation and all that this can achieve is to prove the ontological argument to be unsound. We can say it hasn't been proven that God exists.

If, however, I were to claim god doesn't exist, I'd need my very own proof because refutation doesn't establish the falsity of the conclusion in re the argument that's been refuted. Atheists, in this case, need to make their case separately.

2. Scientific arguments. The problem of evil (vide infra).

(i) If God exists then there should be no evil

(ii) There is evil

Ergo,

(iii) God does not exist [(i), (ii) MT]

In such cases, the absence of evidence [the falsity of the consequent of the conditional (i)] is evidence of absence. There is no God. Atheists don't have to craft a separate argument in this scenario.

As you can see, it depends on the type of argument being made as to whether atheists need to argue their position or not.

free time left over — Metaphysician Undercover

If I do things faster, I can fit in more activities than before in the same length of time. If you look at individual items in my to-do list, time has contracted, but if I look at the whole list, time has dilated (there are more items now for the same duration).

I have a box B, and it contains only 1 item snugly. A little later, B can contain n items where n > 1, we could say B has expanded or that the items in question have shrunk.

Just curious (the question goes to anyone who can answer it), there's speed of motion e.g. 45 km/hr and Einstein's time dilation applies to motion (the faster you travel, the slower your watch ticks).

There's also speed of chemical reactions, these reactions can be sped up, for example by injecting thermal energy into the system and with the aid of catalysts. Is Einstein's theory of relativity also true for chemistry and by extension biology? Faster the rkⁿ, the slower time elapses?

Update

In general, should people be happy or sad, given how the world is and how it works? If the world is predominantly evil, then people should be in the grips of depression most if not all the time. In case there's more good than evil, we can expect the majority to be upbeat about life.

Are people actually happy or sad? I tried to look for data
and what I found was that the average happiness score for the world is 5.53 out of a maximum of 10. If the world were a class of pupils, the average grade for the class is an F (0 - 59%). That looks bad/black.

Conclusion: There's more evil than good in the world. That explains the low mean happiness score of 5.53.

There are multiple issues with my analysis if we could call it that. As @Ansiktsburk was good enough to bring to my attention: it maybe simplistic ( :down: ) rather than simple ( :up: ).

Keep that horse running wildly my love! Let's ride the untamed horse of reality without a damned saddle, without the bridles! Jippiyajay! — EugeneW

:lol:

I think it would be better to say that instead of not thinking the people are wilfully ignorant — I love Chom-choms

bit simplistic too. — Ansiktsburk

I hear ya!

People think they want ‘happiness’ but really they mean that they want to do something ‘meaningful’. The sense of satisfaction gained from struggling, failing and overcoming (even for months/years) is far better than a dull slovenly ‘happiness’.

The journey and all that. Common phrase likely because it is true that we enjoy the act of doing something more than the actual achievement. — I like sushi

Darwinian take: only things that are good for evolutionary success (basically reproduction) would have found their into our brain reward system. Ergo, if you get a kick out of x, x is good for sex! :joke: I don't see how locking yourself up in a room for 7 consecutive days playing world of warcraft makes for a great sex life? Something went wrong as my browser keeps telling me every now and then.

Well, it seems I got the wrong end of the stick. The world is, all things said, melancholic! It's all good guys & gals. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to imply we're thinking. My premises don't permit such an inference.

Is it possible that

1. If we're depressed, then we're thinking

Mind you, people who're suffering from immediate causes such as disease, hunger, poverty, marginalization, don't count.

Hey, that means I'm right after all. The top 10 happiest countries (all European) shouldn't exist. They people of these nations should be sad as hell too.

Europeans are not thinking? The motherlode of global innovation and they're sleep walking.

Sorry for the flip-flop, building my case on the fly. It's clear enough for those with a modicum of horse sense.

What's a lack of belief?

Either God exists xor God doesn't exist.

There are just two options and we know what theists chose.

Atheism claims it didn't choose either of them which they declare as a lack of belief.

Tabula rasa interpretation

1. Blank page (lack of belief?)
2. Written on page, God exists (theism)
3. Written on page, God doesn't exist (atheism)

Can we go from 3 and/or 2 back to 1. Can we wipe the slate clean? Sounds very Zen to me.

Once upon a time, there was a wise Zen master. People traveled from far away to seek his help. In return, he would teach them and show them the way to enlightenment.

On this particular day, a scholar came to visit the master for advice. “I have come to ask you to teach me about Zen,” the scholar said.

Soon, it became obvious that the scholar was full of his own opinions and knowledge. He interrupted the master repeatedly with his own stories and failed to listen to what the master had to say. The master calmly suggested that they should have tea.

So the master poured his guest a cup. The cup was filled, yet he kept pouring until the cup overflowed onto the table, onto the floor, and finally onto the scholar’s robes. The scholar cried “Stop! The cup is full already. Can’t you see?”

“Exactly,” the Zen master replied with a smile. “You are like this cup — so full of ideas that nothing more will fit in. Come back to me with an empty cup.”

Empty your cup!

Mushin no shin (the mind without mind).

Take a PC, uninstall all apps. Erase its memory, Uninstall its OS. What are we left with?

The basic idea - uninstall your mind from your brain! :grin:

”Happiness” seems a bit too simple to describe the OP. And even if one talked about happiness, dividing it into subjective OR objective seems a bit simplistic too. We do have our own feelings and experiences, shared and polluted by the other, by all kind of puclic opinions and sentiments — Ansiktsburk

Where do you wanna start?

Bingo! — Possibility

Which came first? Chicken or egg?

They did ‘badly’ according to whom? An academic standard? What does that have to do with happiness? If the highest possible score was 10 (infinite happiness) and the lowest possible score was 0 (infinite sorrow), then anything above 5 would be, ON BALANCE, more happiness than sorrow. It’s not that complicated. — Possibility

So, you would be happy to get an F (0 - 59%) on your report card? :chin: It doesn't make sense, something's off, no?

For any two distinct members of a linear continuum, there exists a third member that is strictly between these (Peirce). The third member in this case is the relative position of the thinker - closer to ‘happiness’ than to ‘sorrow’, according to your data. — Possibility

First, how is the tertium quid closer to happiness?

Second, explain how my data proves your point? I don't see it, at all!

Third, expand and elaborate on triadism, it looks interesting. Also, before you dive into an exposition, can you also touch upon dualism. Do you know anything about advaita.

I can comprehend, obviously, that dualism is about two opposing cum complemenatary entities/forces. Is that all there is to dualism? If yes, I'm a little disappointed, it seems to be missing a critical quality viz. mono no aware. :yawn:

Planes crash. — EugeneW

X: I'm not Jewish!
Y: Yeah well, nobody's perfect!

error in conceptualisation — Banno

Can you describe this error to us? I'm all ears.

I prefer eggs. They are more versatile. — I like sushi

@Possibility :point: P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L!!!

is the OP true? For you? For me? — Ansiktsburk

Either happiness is subjective or objective. No one, as per Wikipedia, wants to get hooked up to an experience machine. In other words...

It's very complicated! :sad:

Possibility does this by sidestepping the question and saying something that looks like it means something but then seems utterly incapable of offering any ‘verification’ for their pretend point … because there isn’t one.

They have probably read too much Heidegger, Foucault or Derrida. Or nothing other than one of those. — I like sushi

No, no, I'd like to do some exploring, I hope Possibility doesn't mind a little "probing" :grin: I'm not a man and neither am I woman, something in the middle (triadic).

According to this data, it doesn’t — Possibility

The max score is 10. The average is 5.53. What am I missing here? Something surely! If you had a class of students sit for a test and the average score was 5.53, that means your class did badly, oui? I was trying to put things in perspective. Perhaps you'll fare better in doing that! Give it a go.

triadic relation — Possibility

Expand and elaborate, keep in mind that we're talking about happiness and sorrow, the in-between state most likely is contentment or thereabouts. The figures that I provided were measures of happiness.

Let's work this out togther if it is at all possible.

1. Happiness
2. Sorrow
3. ?

I'll have to agree with you! You're right!

Turns out you were correct! — I like sushi

Yeah, I've figured out a way to never be wrong, or positively, to be always right! :wink:

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom — I like sushi

You can say that again! :up:

Depression is feeling extremely low for no viable reason. — I like sushi

PSR violated! Interesting! :chin:

I cannot cure our ignorance. — I like sushi

Don't underestimate your own abilities. Let the enemy do that. :grin:

“The amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good.”

This assertion is based on an assumption that ALL thinking about the world is reducible to either a positive or negative relation (of the thinker) to just one quantifiable quality of the world. — Possibility

How would you go about dealing with the world if not in terms of opposites?

This data you provided as ‘evidence’ would suggest the opposite to your premise - that our relation to the world is, on balance, more positive than negative. So, it seems you are contradicting yourself - despite your apologist-style attempt to reframe the data. — Possibility

Can you explain how an F on your paper is anything to smile about? :chin:

You need to make the case that this true. You seem to be appealing to a form of common sense - that this must be how people would feel about the world. Nevertheless I know plenty of people who have every reason to think all is hopeless and yet they are cheerful. — Tom Storm

Good call!

The average happiness score is 5.53 out of a maximum of 10 (see here). That's like scoring just a little above 50% in an an exam. That's an F in academics.Fail!

This describes moral judgement, which is a particularly affected, reductionist mode of thinking - among many other ways of thinking about the world. — Possibility

How so?

Definitely planning. Minute, precise, meticulous, checked and double-checked. — Wayfarer

The West has perfected the art of planning, Nothing is left to chance! The Orient is catching on/up. We're atheists with respect to Tyche/Fortuna.

The same anti-luck spirit is to be found in (emergency) medicine.

Luck?! What's that? — Your local EP

Neither can come first — Banno

Ok, that means there's a tertium quid (a third, unknown). Do you have a theory as to what that could be?

The word "disprove" is incorrect to use here. — L'éléphant

Why? Dualism is a statement, oui? It is either true/false, ja? Disproving dualism is to show that it's false. :chin:

The old Testament reports a "father" who treats his old Testament children different than the New people. In the OT he had husbands cutting off their wives' hands and being ordered not to feel compassion. Just saying — Gregory

I don't know...I don't know. Something doesn't add up here, oui? Why would an all-loving God command heinous acts like that? Didn't those who were commanded to commit the alleged atrocities realize that God's commands were not making any sense at all? Someone should've gone "hey, look, something's not right here!"

Does this have anything to do with the notorious Milgram experiment? This was genocide akin to the Nazi mass killings of Jews 1939 - 1945. Didn't even one prison guard in the numerous concentration camps around Europe go :chin:

The Old Testament is an Iron Age Milgram experiment and God was Stanley Milgram, but for some reason, the experiment wasn't terminated when things started going sideways, people were!

Your question was lost in the rush to mediocrity. — Banno

:up:

To formulate a theory, assumptions are necessary.

To make assumptions, one needs a context (a theory).

Which came first, assumptions or theories?

Excellent question. I don't have a ready answer OP.

Atheism is not an assertion of lack of a deity. It is simply a lack of belief in it, no different than a lack of belief that my mailbox will spontaneously explode tomorrow, despite lack of hard evidence that it will not. Not sure what the official word is to describe a belief in the unreality of a god. — noAxioms

This I never/don't got/get! Would you be so kind as to explain this to me. Thanks in advance.

Three miracles:
1. Birth of Universe.
2. Birth of Life.
3. Birth of Consciousness ("in flesh", I do not tell about transcendent God here). — BohdanZ

:up: Nice!

does it? :smile: — BohdanZ

It does (to me). People are identified by their ideas; he's a theist, she's a physicalist, that guy over there is a nihilist, that girl, a realist, so on and so forth.

:chin:

no, talking about Chesterton, he wrote fiction literature, personification is a term from literature theory here, not from philosophy. — BohdanZ

We can co-opt concepts when it makes sense, oui?

The old Testament supports slavery

Is a news reporter who provides an unbiased account of Nazism a Nazi? Does the mention of eugenics in a book imply that the author advocates eugenics? :chin:

well, real people have bodies also . — BohdanZ

That's what personfication means, bodies are implicit in that concept.

Disprove? Is there proof for dualism? You don't disprove something that never itself presented proof for its existence. I don't think any of the dual philosophers had presented proof. You either reject it or accept it. — L'éléphant

Hitchens' razor!

So, you mean to say no one, no philosopher, has even attempted to prove dualism? I didn't know that was allowed in philosophy. What about René Descartes? What about David Chalmers (p-zombies, the hard problem of consciousness), Thomas Nagel (what is it like to be a bat?), etc.? What are all these guys on about?

Still, how would we disprove dualism? Proof and disproof are independent of each other or so I'm told i.e. it maybe harder to prove than disprove (all swans are white vs. Aussie black swans).

one of the design engineers who was throwing up with stress — Wayfarer

How I'd love to be him/her! That's called commitment! :cry: = :vomit: :point: :heart:

:ok:

A question: How would we be able to disprove dualism?