There is no evidence that entails God.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
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.The non god alternative is that these manifestations of intelligence occurred through dumb luck, which is not possible. — kindred
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?).Essence is the same as identity, metaphysically speaking. — 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".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
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.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
Are you saying the "signs of intelligence" in the universe are...us?In my view the universe displays signs of intelligence through its beings which would imply intrinsic intelligence embedded within it from the start, — kindred
So...the writers of scripture (2K+ years ago) were able to figure this out, but we can't.As to his reasons or motivations for creating, they cannot be inferred without resorting to scriptures. — kindred
From the article you linked:Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt. — NOS4A2
You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself. — NOS4A2
Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified — NOS4A2
If RFKJr is confirmed as Secretary of HHS, we may see considerably more institutions taking silly claims seriously.my interest is not really the claims so much as the increase in institutions taking it seriously. — 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 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
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.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
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.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
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.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
Can you make a case for your belief, or is it an article of faith?I do not believe the universe is a purposeless accidental event. — prothero
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.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
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.what makes me take notice is the context- that it is being taken seriously by a major superpower. — schopenhauer1
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.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
That's not my reasoning.Let's see... Me buying milk today was logically necessary, because I obviously did buy milk. — SophistiCat
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.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
That's basically true, but it's based on the principle that contingency needs to be accounted for.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
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?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.
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.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
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.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
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
False dichotomy: something from nothing is logically impossible, so any alternative would be "better".a better reasoning for existence than something coming from nothing. — Benj96
Causes are one kind of explanations, but there are also constitutive explanations: the constituents of water (hydrogen and oxygen) explain water. Grounding covers both.Causes seem to be what explain things. — Clearbury
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.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
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
Rather: reason directs us toward truth. Induction doesn't necessarily fund truth, but it tends to lead in the proper direction.“Reason finds truth." — 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 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
We look for "reasons" - i.e. prepositional descriptions of the grounding of some aspects of reality, and we are successful because such groundings exist.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
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like Trump — NOS4A2
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.Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the show — BitconnectCarlos
Obviously.I don't remember you pointing that out. — 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).What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. — Gnomon
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.And hence Patel will be just this laughing stock and afterwards Americans will ask just what happened to the FBI. — ssu