What about the mathematical and analytical tools that are used to determine what in the world exists, especially on the scales of the atomic or cosmological. Are they themselves also things that exist? — Wayfarer

Abstractions do not exist independently in the world. They reflect relations between things that do exist; so they exist immanently.

If we can say "A is nothing but B", then A does not have its own identity and it supervenes on B. E.g. "A rock is nothing but molecules put together", and therefore a rock does not have its own identity. — A Christian Philosophy

But this means, that if physicalism is true, and strings are the bottom layer, then everything is "nothing but" strings - so nothing has an identity other than the strings. This makes no sense. Composite objects, such as rocks and horses, exist.

Would a horse count as an ontological object? If so, then we can still say that before horses existed, then they did not have existence. If not, then what do you consider as objects? — A Christian Philosophy

Sure, horses are ontological objects. No objects that we define as horses existed prior to some earlier specific point of time. Although we can say "horses didn't have existence prior to that point of time", it doesn't mean there's a metaphysical object "horse" that sometimes exists and sometimes doesn't.

All objects exist at points of time, irrespective of whether anyone has defined, or categorized, them. What we typically refer to as an "individual identity" is a unique category of causally-temporally connected point-in-time objects. IOW, I'm a perdurantist.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. — NOS4A2

This is supposed to be evidence of corruption!? Such evidence is admissible, per
Federal Rule of evidence 415:

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

You obviously make no attempt at objectivity, and instead just parrot whatever the defense says, and treat it as evidence of corruption.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

That seems the most plausible explanation.

It makes sense then to attribute intelligent laws to an intelligent agent or lawmaker hence my argument. — kindred

It makes sense to you because you believe God created everything. Here's a more general metaphysical perspective.

Unless one accepts an infinite series of causes, there is a first cause - that exists without explanation. This could be a God, but it could also be an initial state of material reality. There's no objective basis to exempt God from requiring an explanation while insisting a natural first cause requires one.

A natural first-cause would be comprised of the fundamental material of reality (physicists think quantum fields may be the fundamental material, but it doesn't matter to the metaphysical analysis). Natural laws would be part of the fabric of this fundamental material, and would be the ultimate ground of all laws that we see manifested.

So the question is: which is more plausible? A being of infinite complexity, with magical knowledge of everything it could do and it's consequences OR a natural state of affairs that evolves due to its internal characteristics? Each is uncaused and exists without deeper explanation. Which is the more parsimonious, and thus better, explanation?

So you think processes such as cell replication or photosynthesis come to be by pure chance? A designer would have better explanatory power here. — kindred

So you think intelligence, and knowledge just happens to exist uncaused?

To your question: entropy is a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged. One of the ways fundamental particles can be arranged is in the configuration of a self-replicating molecule. That is sufficient to start evolution. It is very low probability that this would occur by pure chance in any one suitable event, but in a vast, old, universe - it becomes likely to occur at least once. Evolution has all the explanatory power needed to explain everything that life develops into.

Without a designer matter would just remain stagnant and nothing would have happened or emerged, no life and certainly no intelligence. — kindred

Whatever gives you that silly idea? It's clear the universe evolves per laws of nature, and it's
reasonable to view these as part of the fabric of reality.

why has it produced something useful like a plant alongside the innate rock? — kindred

As I said, because it's possible - and sufficiently probable to occur at least once in a vast, old universe in which a enormous number of (individually) improbable things occur.

There are many factors which need to combine to create even the simplest life and although they could have come to be through chance to me it implies that there are intelligent rules or laws which enables such life to form. — kindred

Non-sequitur. The probability is extremely low in any specific time or place, but again- a vast, old universe provides a sufficient number of chances for it to occur at least once.

Existence is eternal therefore it’s possible that such a being could have emerged with capabilities to express his will through his creation as he sees fit. ... — kindred

Emerged from what? You claim the conditions needed for intelligence to emerge in the universe imply an intelligence behind it. So you'd have to assume the same thing for a God-like intelligence to emerge- thus an vicious, infinite regress.

Or another explanation which you might not like is that such a being has always existed and is uncreated.

Explain how this is more plausible than intelligence gradually emerging. It entails magical knowledge- knowing without a process of developing knowledge.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt. — NOS4A2

Has a judge or jury judged Willis as corrupt? The appellate court merely judged there was an "appearance of impropriety", and removed her because this could affect public confidence. Nothing about this has any bearing on the merits of the case. The only bearing this might have on another prosecutor is knowledge that the job would entail having a target on their back from members of the Trump cult and defense team.

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form., — NOS4A2

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

My beliefs are based on observation of the natural world which as I’ve stated before shows signs of intelligence, design whatever you wanna call it. This to me constitutes evidence of God. — kindred

There is no evidence that entails God.

Your observations of the world are seen through the prism of your belief in God. The signs you see of intelligence are explainable by natural means. If you haven't given serious consideration to the alternative, you haven't "proven" anything - you've just rationalize what you believe.

The non god alternative is that these manifestations of intelligence occurred through dumb luck, which is not possible. — kindred

What occurs, including what comes to exist, could very well be the product of chance. We exist as a consequence of the way the world happens to be. If it is actually possible for the world to have differred, other sorts of things might have existed. How does low probability consequence imply luck? Luck generally entails a contestant happening to be the beneficiary of chance. There is no set of contestants who participated in a contest to pick a winner. You could conjecture that our existence is low probability, but that gets you nowhere- low probability things happen all the time.

If you think intelligence is something special that requires design to produce it, then how do you account for an intelligent creator to produce the design? That's why I previously pointed out that it seems much more likely that intelligence is the product of chance events in a universe of vast size and age, rather than just happening to exist in an uncaused being (a "god"). So this line of reasoning seems self-defeating.

Essence is the same as identity, metaphysically speaking. — A Christian Philosophy

It's not a synonym. I think you're saying that an identity has a unique essence. But that still leaves "essence" undefined. You later said, "a being, whose essence is to have existence". This suggests "existing" is an essence (part of an essence?).

Suppose there is a fundamental layer of reality, for example: 20-dimensional strings. Everything is composed of them, and they are not composed of anything deeper. These strings exist at all times and locations. Does this fit your paradigm of having "existence" as part of its "essence"?

Some objects lack existence. Otherwise, the following propositions would not make sense, but they do.
Before I existed, I did not exist; and after death, I might cease to exist.
Horses exist but unicorns do not.
There will be a solar eclipse during this date in the future; but the event does not exist yet. — A Christian Philosophy

Events aren't objects; they are points (or intervals) in time. By "object", I'm refering to ontological objects- things that exist. You're conflating concepts (or definitions) with "objects".

We can refer to objects in the past, present, or future. But when we refer to unicorns, we aren't refering to objects that ever have, or ever will, exist - they are merely concepts -words with no referents to anything in time or space. You again seem to be treating a definition as a thing's essence (as you did with triangles).

You said. "a rock supervenes on fundamental physical elements like matter and energy, and so the rock does not have its own identity but gets its from its fundamental physical elements. "
If physicalism is true, the same thing can be said about you and me, as you say about the rock. This suggests you're assuming physicalism is false. Is that correct? If so, then your paradigm can't be used to show some form of immaterialism is true- because that's a premise.

My view of intelligence is that it has always existed and what we observe in nature and us is just it manifesting itself. So it precedes us. — kindred

This thread is about "proving" God. I hope you can see that you're not doing that. I'm fine with people having faith-based beliefs, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it's based in reason.

In my view the universe displays signs of intelligence through its beings which would imply intrinsic intelligence embedded within it from the start, — kindred

Are you saying the "signs of intelligence" in the universe are...us?

Either way, how does that imply "intrinsic intelligence" embedded in the universe?

The gradual development of intelligent beings, somewhere in an old, vast universe seems much more plausible than an intelligence just happening to exist, uncaused and without a prior history of development.

As to his reasons or motivations for creating, they cannot be inferred without resorting to scriptures. — kindred

So...the writers of scripture (2K+ years ago) were able to figure this out, but we can't.

Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt. — NOS4A2

From the article you linked:

The court added: “We cannot conclude that the record also supports the imposition of the extreme sanction of dismissal of the indictment.”

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself. — NOS4A2

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ”

ABC needn't have caved to the lawsuit. They likely settled to try and ingratiate themselves to Trump, who has voted to go after his enemies- and threatened strip the FCC license from networks that say bad things (AKA "the truth") about him. As a free speech absolutist, you should be appalled at the power Trump is wielding to stifle speech - but I expect free speech is secondary when it comes to your idol.

Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified — NOS4A2

Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.

Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.

I find it hilarious that you Trumpists consider the semantic distinction (rape vs sexual assault) a bigger deal than the fact Trump committed the sexual assault.

my interest is not really the claims so much as the increase in institutions taking it seriously. — schopenhauer1

If RFKJr is confirmed as Secretary of HHS, we may see considerably more institutions taking silly claims seriously.

Can a kooky group of people be right by accident, or can they be dismissed out of hand for all the fringe stuff they are involved in? Like a broken clock, can a fringe group actually get something right, even if a majority of their interests can be thrown out as pseudo-science? — schopenhauer1

The notion that the government has been hiding the known presence of extraterrestrial beings/technology can absolutely be dismissed out of hand. The probability is infinitesimal that technically advanced, motivated aliens exist within a navigable distance from earth.

Can the true-believers get "something" right? Not sure what that might be, other than the fact that there is secrecy in the military. The general problem is that they fit everything into their belief that aliens are (or have been) here, and the government is hiding this from us.

There can be an internal explanation: the existence of the first cause is explained inherently if its existence is part of its essence. — A Christian Philosophy

To me, "essence" suggests a set of necessary and sufficient properties that uniquely identify an existing, individual object. Existence isn't a property; that would imply there are objects in the world that lack it - which is absurd. All objects in the world exist.

Perhaps you mean something else. If so, explain what you mean, and why anyone should accept such a metaphysical framework. I'm on the lookout for contrivances that are devised to rationalize a God to the exclusion of a purely natural first cause.

But that’s not what was said from people like Elizondo. He talked directly of NHI. ...

...Right but the more established the institution, the more prominent the officials willing to entertain the inquiries on UAP, the more susceptible the public will be in believing something fantastical is going on — schopenhauer1

I expect there are some members of Congress who take kooks like Elizando seriously, but focusing on national security provides common ground, and lets them play both sides.

Will these hearings get more people on the bandwagon? The hearings and reports will surely feed the true-believers. I guess that it will bring attention to the topic, so it could induce receptive people to take it more seriously..

Government officials are people too, so I think it applies even to them (perhaps a smaller percentage).

One can ignore one or two eye witnesses but not so easily a plethora of accounts. I wouldn't think aliens is the first idea people go to, unless they already happen to think aliens are a given. — Tom Storm

Aliens are a given to many people, and I suspect, others are apt to be easily convinced because they hope for (or dread) their presence.

I've encountered quite a few people, who are otherwise rational, who are apt to treat aliens as plausible explanations that should be taken seriously.

I do not believe the universe is a purposeless accidental event. — prothero

Can you make a case for your belief, or is it an article of faith?

I wondered about that, but this article says religious people are less likely to believe in UFOs than are atheists.

https://religionnews.com/2021/08/23/for-atheists-the-idea-of-aliens-seems-real-religious-people-doubt-it/ — Hanover

The survey showed that atheists were more likely than Christians to believe there was life elsewhere in the universe. That's probably because they believe God created the universe for humans.

what makes me take notice is the context- that it is being taken seriously by a major superpower. — schopenhauer1

UAP does not entail aliens; the concern is that a foreign government might be using technology beyond ours. That is potentially relevant, but that may be an excuse, since the alleged behavior often breaks the laws of physics.

The notion that aliens are here is an irrational conspiracy theory. Members of Congress are as susceptible to this as anyone (former Senator Harry Reid was a believer). Space opera science fiction is so common that it's made many of us receptive to the presence of aliens. Meanwhile, few understand why the liklihood of aliens is of vanishing low probability.

The broader question is: why do so many people embrace conspiracy theories? The answer is: poor critical thinking skills. Where there are unanswered questions, there will be wild guesses to explain them. The guess gains traction as more facts are shown to fit the guess (applying confirmation bias), and contrary facts ignored or treated as a cover-up by those in authority. A recent example is the attempted killing of Trump, which spawned pro-Trump conspiracies (the deep State, or Democrats were behind it) and anti-Trump conspiracies (it was staged to help his campaign).

If you're interested in critically analyzing any specific claims about UAE, go to the METABUNK forum. They have subforums on other conspiracy theories as well.

Thanks

How does superdeterminism differ from the Bohmiam interpretation of QM?

It would be nice to know whether or not QM is actually deterministic, but it has no bearing on the question of free will.

Randomness in mental processes does not make a will truly free. What would matter is whether or not there is a non-physical aspect to mental processes, that would set it apart from the physical universe.

The presumed absence of constraints on the origin of the world does not imply a multiplicity of possible outcomes, because there is no space of outcomes given to us. Note that I said "no space" - not an empty space and not a singleton space [consisting of a single possibility]. The latter is what you would need to make your conclusion of necessity, but assuming such a singleton space would beg the question. Assuming any space of possibilities would take you outside your original formulation, and so, the right conclusion is simply that contingency/necessity does not apply in this degenerate scenario. — SophistiCat

I disagree. I don't see any reason to call this a "degenerate scenario". Everything that exists, either exists contingently or necessarily: they are the converse of each other; there is no third option.

Take it as a premise that there is a first cause/foundation of existence- because that's what we're analyzing here. The context of the discussion is metaphysics- so the relevant modality is metaphysical possibility/necessity. Discussions like this often mistake conceptual possibility with metaphysical possibility. Just because I can conceive of a world grounded in a different first cause does not mean an alternative first cause is metaphysically possible.

I've proposed that it is a metaphysical axiom that contingency needs to be accounted for: X is contingent iff whatever accounts for X could possibly account for ~X. In the absence of such an account, X is metaphyically necessary. A first cause is not accounted for by anything else, therefore it cannot be contingent. This conclusion follows from my axiom

Why believe this axiom to be true? Because it's consistent with what we know about the world through physics. Events that are the product of classical physics are not contingent: causes necessitate their effects. OTOH, quantum mechanical events have a "space of possibilities" (a probability distribution), so the specific outcome is contingent (although the specific space of possibilities is necessitated by the quantum system - which evolves deterministically per a Schroedinger equation). So the laws of nature suggest the world is basically deterministic (outcomes are necessitated) with contingency present only where there is quantum indeterminacy (with a necessitated probability distribution of outcomes).

You also alluded to an "absence of constraints" applying (I assume) to a first cause. It is contrained to being whatever it was, conceptual possibilities notwithstanding.

Let's see... Me buying milk today was logically necessary, because I obviously did buy milk. — SophistiCat

That's not my reasoning.

Your buying milk was contingent iff the purchase was contingent upon something. If your purchase was the product of libertarian free will, then it was contingent upon your will making the decision.

OTOH, if determinism is true, then your choice to make the purchase was logically necessary, given your genetic makeup and history. There may be quantum indeterminism somewhere in the past that influenced your history or genetic makeup- in which case, your purchase was contingent upon the outcomes of those indeterminate events.

The first cause cannot have been contingent upon anything, because nothing is prior to it. So, whatever it actually was, it is metaphysically impossible for it to have been anything else.

But some things in the real world also have metaphysical identities or essences. Even if we suppose that the world is merely physical, which means that everything supervenes on matter and energy, then at least matter and energy have identities (i.e. as matter is not the same thing as energy, they have different identities), and thus also have essential properties. E.g. matter has the essential properties of having a mass, volume, shape, etc. So, if a thing is made of matter, then it necessarily follows that it has a mass. — A Christian Philosophy

This doesn't imply that an object has "necessary" or "contingent" as an intrinsic property. You're still just equating a definition with essence, defining matter as an object that has volume, shape, mass, etc. Either an object has those properties (in which case it is "matter") or it does not (in which case it is not "matter"). Defining a term with some set of properties doesn't entail that any objects have an individual essence. And the only role of "necessity" in this is the necessity of having the defined set of properties in order to be classified with the term.

If I understand correctly, you say that the first cause's existence is necessary, but only because there is no prior cause and not because its existence is an essential property of its identity. — A Christian Philosophy

That's basically true, but it's based on the principle that contingency needs to be accounted for.

But then, how do you explain the fact that its existence is necessary, if not inherently? If this fact is left unexplained, then it violates the PSR.

If you use the simplest definition of the PSR, that everything (both necessary and contingent) has an explanation of its existence, then there would be an infinite vicious regress of explanations. Should we prefer 1) a vicious infinite regress, in order to keep the PSR intact, 2) entirely reject the PSR because of this, or 3) redefine the PSR to exclude something foundational?

I think the latter is the most reasonable option. There can be no explanation for the foundation of existence, and (as noted) it can't be contingent. Since it's not contingent, its existence is logically necessary: it can't not exist.. (i.e. if the foundation of existence didn't exist, there would be no existence at all; which is logically impossible because we obviously exist). You are free to assume this foundation = a god, although it obviously doesn't entail a god.

You left out this part:

"Whatever the number in a second Trump term,the recent immigration surge has probably ended. Mr. Biden’s crackdown since the summer has caused net migration to drop sharply, and Mr. Trump has promised even tougher border policies when he takes office. Many would-be immigrants will be less likely to try to enter the country, knowing that their chances of success are lower."

It was politically costly for Biden to wait so long to do something about the surge, but it's not clear that we really need to do anything more draconian that what Biden put in place.

It sure would be nice if laws were changed, so that all the immigration issues could be dealt with on a more permanent basis. Expect legal challenges to executive orders (there's already lawsuits against Biden's anti-asylum policy).

Undocumented labor is one of the ways the government undermines the power of labor in the US. Tariffs plus deportation would lay the groundwork for an economic revolution. — frank

This "economic revolution" can only have negative effects during the foreseeable future, as domestic laborers will need to be paid more to pick crops, and other "menial" jobs (homebuilding, custodial work, lawn care). Also, the cost of imported products will rise, due to the tarriffs.

There are additional downsides to Trump's "Operation Wetback 2.0". Every person who is deported is one less consumer in the U.S., so it will generally reduce demand for products (lower GDP). It will also result in less social security and income taxes being paid (undocumented workers pay into social security, but never get to collect).

Further adding to the misery will be the effect of retaliatory tarriffs on US exports. If Trump follows through on his threats to violate the USMCA, it will make other countries less apt to negotiate deals with us.

On the bright side, if we stay the course, and accept the suffering, it will all settle out in 10-20 years.

necessity also applies to things with essential properties. E.g. "3 sides" is an essential property of a triangle. Thus, if a thing is a triangle, it logically or necessarily follows that it has 3 sides. Therefore, we can call essential properties "necessary properties". — A Christian Philosophy

Triangles are abstractions, and don't exist in the real world. Rather, objects exist that have 3-sides. What you're calling "essential properties" is simply the definition we've assigned to the word "triangle". A word necessarily having its definition is just semantics, not metaphysical essentialism.

Would this mean that this type of first cause exists without a reason, and thus would violate the PSR? Whereas my first cause, the being whose existence is an essential property, has a sufficient reason to exist: it is an internal reason, that is, its existence is explained logically or inherently. — A Christian Philosophy

No internal reason is needed for a first cause to exist necessarily. A first cause cannot exist contingently, because it is logically impossible for it to be contingent upon anything*. So there's no need for the (ad hoc) contrivance of treating a term in logic as an ontological property.

----------------
*Y is contingent iff there exists an X that accounts for Y, and it is metaphysically possible for X to account for ~Y.

Potential is a characteristic of things. You seem to be reifying it, suggesting it exists independently. That seems unwarranted.

a better reasoning for existence than something coming from nothing. — Benj96

False dichotomy: something from nothing is logically impossible, so any alternative would be "better".

:up: :up:

Grounds and explanations intersect: if X grounds Y, then we can explain X with Y. In terms of causation: a cause grounds it's effect.

Causes seem to be what explain things. — Clearbury

Causes are one kind of explanations, but there are also constitutive explanations: the constituents of water (hydrogen and oxygen) explain water. Grounding covers both.

My issue is that explanations are communications. The universe evolves irrespective of whether anyone is around to explain it. Explanations are superfluous (except inasmuch as they influence people). When we provide a causal explanation, we are refering to things out in the world. The explanations themselves are within or between minds. "X causes Y" accounts for the existence of Y. Calling this an "explanation" is an inter-mind thing that adds nothing to the ontological relation between the cause and efffect.

I think you're right. I'll add this about the majority of Republicans in Congress: they embraced Trump in order to enhance their own power (better a Republican President than a Democratic one). The question is: how far will they bend toward Trump's will, in order to effect the policies THEY hope for.

The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of this First Cause is grounded by logical necessity (reason type 1 in the OP) because to deny the existence of a thing with necessary existence is a contradiction. Then this First Cause also serves to explain the existence of everything else as their cause, direct or indirect. This summary should serve to explain why there is anything at all. — A Christian Philosophy

Why think "necessary" is an ontological (de re) property of any being? The concept of "necessary" applies to logic: e.g. in a valid deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. I'm aware that Alvan Plantinga has proposed that God has de re necessity, but it seems to me a contrivance.

I suggest that any first cause (including a natural one) would exist necessarily: it exists autonomously, and without a cause that could account for its contingent existence.

I am not sure I quite see that an explanation is a proposition.
I'm not a fan of 'grounding' as it is not clear to me that it's a good alternative to explanation.

For example, let's say I decide to order a pizza because I'm hungry. I am the cause of my decision. But I could also say that my decision was grounded in my hunger, as that was why i made the decision. — Clearbury

OK, set aside "proposition". My point is you're describing something in a series of sentences. The sentences are ABOUT something going on in the world, they are not the thing itself.

Grounding refers to the thing itself.

I'm not a fan of using "facts" to refer to existences, but I am a fan of using "grounding" instead of "explanation" because explanations are propositions, not existences. In that vein, "autonomous" seems appropriate, although "substantive" is weird.

Princeton philosopher, Shamik Dasgupta, uses the term "autonomous facts" to refer to the bedrock, you guys are discussing. All other facts, are "substantive facts".

He also recasts the PSR in terms of grounding:

PSR: For every substantive fact Y there are some facts, the Xs, such that (i) the Xs ground Y and (ii) each one of the Xs is autonomous.