• Can the existence of God be proved?
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    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.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    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.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    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.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Looks like Fani Willis was disqualifiedNOS4A2
    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.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    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.
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    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.
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    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..
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    Government officials are people too, so I think it applies even to them (perhaps a smaller percentage).
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    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.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    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?
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    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.
  • Epistemology of UFOs
    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.
  • Superdeterminism?


    How does superdeterminism differ from the Bohmiam interpretation of QM?
  • Superdeterminism?
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    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).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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" as a cosmological origin
    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".
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

    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.
  • In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
    The PSR is a reasonable epistemological principle (up to a point), but in terms of metaphysics, I think grounding is a more suitable term.

    Reasons are explations- semantic descriptions that carry meaning to intelligent minds. Atoms are grounded in their constituents (quarks and electrons). Of course, we can explain the nature of atoms in terms of their constituents (more or less supporting the PSR), but IMO we should draw sharper boundaries between ontology and epistemology than the PSR suggests.

    “Reason finds truth."A Christian Philosophy
    Rather: reason directs us toward truth. Induction doesn't necessarily fund truth, but it tends to lead in the proper direction.

    It is correct to think logically because reality behaves logically. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no reason to think logically.
    It is correct to look for reasons to things because reasons exist in reality. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no reason to find sufficient reasons.
    A Christian Philosophy
    This sounds like you're reifying logic; logic is semantics- it applies to propositions, not to reality. We devise propositions that describe reality, and apply logic to these propositions, but logic itself is not part of the ontological fabric of reality. The world operates per laws of nature, and because of this - we are able to draw correct (or truth-tending) inferences from observations.

    It is correct to look for reasons to things because reasons exist in reality. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no reason to find sufficient reasons.A Christian Philosophy
    We look for "reasons" - i.e. prepositional descriptions of the grounding of some aspects of reality, and we are successful because such groundings exist.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like TrumpNOS4A2
    :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
    :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
    :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
    :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

    https://www.axios.com/2019/02/03/donald-trump-private-schedules-leak-executive-time

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248/

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/11/11/how-often-has-president-trump-played-golf-since-he-took-office-infographic/
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the showBitconnectCarlos
    Oh, so you "know" this to be the case. Based on what? Mental lapses that we all see on video? We also see videos of him speaking rationally, and demonstrating a command of the facts.

    I absolutely believe Biden has had some cognitive decline, but there's no rational basis to jump to the conclusion he's incapacitated to the degree that shadowy figures are actually exercising control.

    I'm curious if you buy into other conspiracy theories, because support for them is similar to support for the "dementia Joe" narrative that the GOP pushes for political gain.
  • Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
    I don't remember you pointing that out.Gnomon
    Obviously.

    I've had to repeat myself multiple times. I'm not going to continue doing this. If you want any more responses from me, read through my responses and ask questions about what I said.
  • Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
    What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function.Gnomon
    To infer design depends on the premise that there exists a designer. As I've discussed (and you failed to respond to) the qualities a designer must have are exactly the sort of thing that are suggestive of design. So such design arguments are a special pleading, as I previously pointed out (and you ignored).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    And hence Patel will be just this laughing stock and afterwards Americans will ask just what happened to the FBI.ssu
    Even if that best case scenario comes to pass, he will be able to do a great deal of damage along the way. He threatened to release all the national security documents Trump illegally possessed, claiming that it would expose the "deep state" conspiracy against Trump (the same conspiracy that Durham investigaged, but found no evidence of). He claimed he could do this because Trump had made a blanket declassification of all the documents before leaving office. Even if it were true that Trump had done this, doing so would have violated the Espionage Act (which involves any documents pertinent to nation defense, irrespective of classification). So, Patel was either planning to break the law, or he's ignorant of it. Either possibility implies he's no qualified to have a position of authority in the DOJ. The risk is high that he'll put national security at risk if he's FBI director.
  • Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
    Thanks for the descriptions. I'll consider reading Cartwright's book.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.