...you realise me and S are not the same person right? I didnt say you were mischaracterising my position...
Anyway, you denied that you committing a fallacy and then just repeated the fallacy. This is the structure of you argument from ignorance:
Science doesnt know the answer, so I am perfectly justified in my belief that god did it. (Or whatever)
This is a fallacy, you are not justified in making up an answer just because science doesn't know the answer. The correct answer is “I do not know”, even though it might not be particularly satisfying.

I thought you might have more to say on the first part of my last post, it seems especially relevant given you agree that the best standard is the one that most reliably finds out what is true...could you please comment on that so I know how to proceed? Is the standard you describe the best one for finding out whats true, cuz I disagree that it is.

Science can't explain the 'order of nature' which underwrites the principles that it discovers and then utilises in order to proceed. Newton discovered that F=MA, and Einstein that E=MC2 - but neither could tell you why this should be so.

Scientific cosmology now says that the universe exploded into existence from a single point in a single instant. But there is no way of determining why, when this happened, it culminated in a stable Universe populated by intelligent beings. Even for there to be living planets, there had to be many pre-existing conditions. Science knows quite about about what happened, but it can't say why it happened, or why it culminated in an ordered universe. That leads to many debates about 'the fine-tuning argument vs the multiverse' - but all those arguments are likewise beyond the scope of science to solve.

So really all you're doing is preaching positivism. — Wayfarer

This is a fallacy, the argument from ignorance I believe. Since science doesnt know the answer, it can’t know the answer and I can insert so and so god did it. (Or whatever).
You do not get to make up an answer because you aren’t comfortable with “I dont know” as an answer. Not if you are interested in being rational/reasonable.

The epistemic standard for science is whether a belief about the physical world is justified by other beliefs about the physical world and by sense data and whether the beliefs correspond to actual states of affairs — Noah Te Stroete

That isnt the standard of science, that is a description of broad concepts within science.
The standard is the scientific method.

There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. For me personally, my spiritual beliefs have to be consistent with my other spiritual beliefs and justified by my experiences and by reports throughout human history. Then an abductive inference is made as to the source of these experiences. — Noah Te Stroete

The problem with that standard is that it is equally sufficient to justify any claim. A delusion for example, is just as valid by that standard as anything else. I can work out an hypothetical example if you find that insufficient.
Now, I am not saying what you believe is a delusion, Im not even saying what you believe spiritually isnt true, Im just saying that the standard you just described cannot be used to tell the difference between something that is true and something that isnt true or a delusion.
It isnt a very good standard to find out whats true, spiritually or otherwise.
So what do we want from our standard? What makes a standard a good standard?
I would say the best standard is the one that most reliably find out whats true. Would you agree with that?

Lol, nice to have you back.

Sufficient evidence according to the scientific method, including peer review and testability. Yes, scientists can reach unscientific conclusions, humans make mistakes, they can fail to properly apply the scientific method.
I wouldnt apply cognitive dissonance to your example because that isnt the error the dark energy believer would be making.
Science doesnt prove there is no god, thats not a falsifiable claim just like invisible unicorns and magical butt monkeys or pasta monsters. Rather, science says there is insufficient evidence. You need to understand that distinction to understand science.
Lastly, another strawman for the offering. I didnt say its ok because other humans do it, I said its a human trait not a scientist trait...therefore, incorrect to single out scientists. Also, I didnt say it had zero repercussions on scientific enterprise. You conjured both those things out of thin air.

I didnt mean that no, it was the group valuing something, a common value level (by value level I mean how much a particular thing is valued) present in individuals and in the group comprised of those specific individuals.
I still think there is some sense in which the group has that value level, but I understand what you are saying...that the process/state of holding that value level is different (the group isnt holding that value level as a result of a mental process, but rather as a matter of...not sure the word to use, basically cuz we have grouped the individuals around a certain trait/ value level ) in an individual than in a group and thats fine in general but once things get a bit more specific the distinction is important because certain references will not be accurate.

I seriously have to explain to you what science is a standard for?! Hard pass.
I cannot believe I exhibit subjective self awareness? This is the most basic, singular certainty anyone can have, it has zero need of the scientific method. Terrible example for you to use here.
I cannot believe that alien intelligence exists? Correct, not using the scientific method. Its entirely possible, thats as far as science can say at this time.
I cannot believe that blue is a nice colour? Correct, according to the scientific method blue is not a nice color, as colors being nice is a subjective fact about someones tastes. That is not what science is used for, but then I guess you dont really know that considering you indicated as much above.
I cannot believe I love my child? Again, this subjective experience you reference multiple times here (excepting the alien one, your few claims are actually all the same thing, already dispelled when I addressed the first one) is more fundamental than science, it is actually the one thing we do not need science for at all because we have something better...Descartes inarguable “I think therefore I am”.
Anyway, that was fun and all but you clearly have some things you need to brush up on before you can properly have this discussion, maybe we can pick it up after you do so.

Oi.
“Insufficient evidence to support the proposition that there is a god” is not the same as “there is no scientific proof that god exists therefore there is no god”.
I get that it can be difficult to catch certain subtle differences in word use but come on...if you cannot tell that those sentences mean different things then you are displaying a poor understanding of science and its method, and I would guess the burden of proof as well.

Your logic is not sound.
There is no scientific prove for the existence of gods - true
Therefore gods don't exist - false! The absence of proof does not prove absence. — WerMaat

That is not what I said, while you are looking up cognitive dissonance also take a look at the term “strawman”.
Pay closer attention to my first paragraph, there are distinct differences between what I said and what you characterised as my argument.

Like I said, cognitive dissonance.

According to science, the scientific method, there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that there is a god. That is to say, conclusions that there is a god are not scientific.
The two are not compatible.
Its not that complex. Just because someone believes in science and believes in god doesn't mean the two are compatible. Its called cognitive dissonance I believe.
If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god. If you have some other standard, “faith” probably, then have it but it isnt science. Thats it. Simple.
And to those discussing the open mindedness, perhaps some knows who said this (rough paraphrase) “do not have a mind so open that your brain falls out”. Also, the traits you specify scientists possess apply to the wider population. Its a human thing, not a scientist thing.

Well, I do not mean anything like the majority or powerful members of the group assigning value levels when I say the group has a certain value level, Im talking about a group who all have more or less the same value level. You are inserting context where none was needed or mentioned. The individuals have a value level, they are part of a group with other individuals with the same value level. The group has that particular value level.

You added while i responded so I will update:
I understand there is some sense that the value level isnt held collectively, as in a collective consciousness, but there is a sense in which the group can be said to have a value level as well. You said it can “only” be the individuals, but that is only in the context you later added. Anyway, I understand now. Thanks.

The level of value of the group isnt literal? What changes between an individual and a group that makes the latter no longer literal?

Right, but couldnt they be thinking about the value in the same particular way? It doesnt mean they have to be the same consciousness, only that there is more or less the same level of value being assigned by the group. I would call that something mattering to the group, what would you call it?
I do not see why it is problematic to say that something matters to a group such that we should specify the mattering is “only” done by individuals in that group. What is the utility of doing that?

Don’t they “literally” have a value that “obtains” more or less the same as the “literal” value that obtains in an individual?

How would you describe a collective value? Sure, ultimately it is composed of individuals valuing things but I wouldn’t say its “only” that, I would describe it as also being of value to a collective of individuals if they all placed the same value on it.
How would you describe that instead?

Nah, suicide is easier to stage.

I think the immorality of governments is informed by the immorality of its people. It always comes back to the people for me. Money in politics? Why is that a problem? Because people respond to repetitive ads and flashy posters and whatever they read on social media and the other things money can buy.
Why do our politicians lie? We want them to, the guy telling the truth makes us uncomfortable, people would rather vote for someone they hope isnt lying rather than the guy they know is telling the truth. Also, we lie. We lie all the time, to our friends when we don’t feel like going out, to our loved ones to spare their feelings, our boss when we are late or calling in sick to have a day off...spouses, children, coworkers, friends, ourselves...lies everywhere. We surprised when our politicians turn out to be liars? Guess what? The lying politicians make the same excuses and justifications we all do when we tell lies.
Why would a government be corrupt? Because its core is corrupt.
An oligarchy can’t buy a country unless its for sale, and the ignorant, distracted, gullible dummy population at large is like a great big “For Sale!” sign for anyone so inclined.

Lol, holy shit. Always amazing to me when someone is so confident and so confused.
I could have used a better word than “thought”, but it seemed precise enough considering what the word arbitrary means (not reason based, or based on whimsy) but then I didnt know you had a chip on your shoulder about defining words and some dude you got a gripe with on some other site. To answer your question, no Im not that guy. Maybe you should leave your baggage out of discussions with strangers.
Anyway, you go ahead and blah blah blah your last word here, I dont feel a pressing desire to play the phantoms in your paranoid fantasy. Good day sir!

I agree. I think this board is representative of the larger populous though. There is a cultural shift towards this sort of relativistic reality where if opinions do not outright define reality, they influence somehow. Its like people don’t see the difference between their ability to interact with reality or influence reality (moving a cup, typing words that show up in the computer screen etc) with actually changing reality itself with what you believe.
Its worrisome, because its a loose way of thinking about things that opens the door for all kinds of magical thinking. Obviously, religion is a big factor here but I also think self help gurus, cultural tropes like “your opinion can’t be wrong” or “you can do anything if you just believe in yourself” encourage this sort of unmoored view of the world. Our culture is permeated by nonsense like psychics, astrology, palm reading, conspiracy theories etc and I think its worn down peoples sensibility about reality. Even people who reject one are usually more accepting as another. I have a friend that thinks religion is bullshit fantasy but thinks numerology and your zodiac sign are important.

So to you there is no sensible way of defining poverty, not even for the purposes of conversation?
Arbitrary is different than relative, something can be relative but still make sense. Arbitrary implies no thought put in, obviously if you refuse to put any thought into it you will have something arbitrary so...put some thought into it.
Also, nobody asked you for an absolute judgement. Just a sensible one.

Well we arent specifying those measures of poverty. Obviously if someone uses the word poverty to describe something that isnt poverty, we are free to exclude their standard when having a real discussion about poverty. So, given a sensible standard of what poverty is (you can pick) what would your opinion be?

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that?

Sure, those seem like valid criticisms of incredulity. Certainly it doesnt seem like god is making much sense or being very moral but the believer will just pass the buck over to gods mysterious ways. Seems evil to us but we are not god and it all serves some greater good etc etc
Either that, or will get the metaphor/“bibles not literal” dodge.

Well, presumably god has cosmic responsibilities that necessitate actions he cannot otherwise morally justify. Thats what I suspect a religious person might say. An appeal to some greater good, like sacrificing his son (immoral) to save the souls of all mankind. (Greater good).

Thing is, we do not really know. We hardly know much at all about how such things might work and its certainly could be discovered one way or another. The universe doesnt care about our models for how it works.
The fact that we do not know doesnt mean people can just make something up in place of that knowledge. (Not that you did that).

Couldn't wholesalers mix illegal marijuana with that of their local supply chain? — Jude Joanis

Not legally, no. Obviously. As to use of illegal pot, not all illegal weed is from cartels, someone concerned about the ethics would have to be discerning.

I think your question is muddled. You arent asking about the ethics of legal marijuana, you are asking about whether it is ethical to use marijuana if that marijuana is produced through bloodshed and horror.
Is that you Tim Wood?
Most legal marijuana is grown locally, as someone pointed out you have your facts wrong. No legal weed is cartel weed. Do you think that legal pot distributors are getting their weed from cartels? No. It is tightly regulated, and where the pot comes from is traceable and must be a legal, government approved source (depending on where you are talking about, Im talking about here in Canada where it is legal across the country.)

Not sure if troll is the right term for him, but the method for dealing with him is the same. Do not feed.
I also wouldnt say he is ignorant, just dogmatic and as someone else said perhaps narcissistic.
Most importantly, I do not think he argues in good faith, not interested in an exchange. Its all Ad Hoc, again as someone else mentioned.

Also, concerning Devon99, these kinds of retards will not go away if people continue to interact with them. I understand the impulse to rail against the offensively dense but its not worth the price. This determinism discussion can be had in its own thread, not feeding trolls goes for whatever this Devon guy is up to as well.

Im a little perplexed here as well, are you/would you objecting to something along the lines of
“Everything we know so far supports cause and effect, so unless there is a specific example showing otherwise I will accept cause and effect as an axiom.”?
Your stance seems to be that cause and effect is dubious, that we do not have very good reasons to look at things that way and should be accounting for cause and effect not being the case (sometimes) in as well. Isnt that a bit like always having to account for an invisible unicorn, cuz hey, its possible?
Or is this one of those teaching moments where you are trying to invoke self realisation rather than just state your point (sorry, couldnt think of a way of saying that without sounding a bit snarky, hopefully you see thats not how its intended)?

Try and walk through a wall. Try and lift a mountain.
When you attempt those things and fail, you are able to draw reasonable conclusions about some traits about those objects. No?

So if I understand your point correctly, you are questioning what god was up to before the advent of religion? The fact that the religions and “god” showed up together might mean that religion made god and if that is not the case then what sorts of things or what kind of existence if any god had before that?

Lol, im an honourable person, I would never try and match wits with such an unarmed opponent. Matching wits isnt what I was doing. (How could I possibly stoop low enough for it to be fair?)
Its amazing how little you actually paid attention here. I didnt say “uglier”. I was alluding to similarities in your aggressive, dogmatic behaviour towards people you are attacking for their aggressive, dogmatic behaviour.

Holy shit. Nothing gets through huh? None of that has anything to do with what I was talking about.
In addition, none of it is a new thought from you and some of it is verbatim what you have already said. What a good little Gnostic Warrior you are, forge ahead, don’t listen, double down on attacks and repeat yourself rather than address anything of substance. If you were capable of looking into a mirror, you would see more than one ugly similarity between you and what you are attacking.

I asked for one example of what you said existed. Apologies for trying to get you to put your money where your mouth was. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Its a ridiculous request to make. You could not have been serious in the asking. One example? My neighbour Larry, just had a moral discussion with him this morning and he is very religious. Satisfied?
Maybe you go into morals and religious folks flee like dogs, that could be your experience. That hasnt been my experience and Ive had moral conversations with plenty of religious folks. Google “moral debates” and you will get results 1-2 hours long involving religious people. What a laughable position for you to hold.
I have an alternate theory as to why religious folks flee your attempts at discussions based off my observations on this forum: because you talk like an asshole, and direct it at these religious people.
I understand your anger at religion, and I understand why you would extend some of that anger at the sheep of the flock but don’t make up a shortcoming about others in order to explain your own.

What I'm asking is not what's objective about life expectancy, etc.

I'm asking what's objective about "we should have x (re life expectancy, for example) as a goal." — Terrapin Station

I think he is talking about an objective standard, and not meant in the sense of mental/non mental per say. A standard created for reference, like a measuring tape.
Also, your response to the OP is pure gold. Had a good chuckle as I read through it. In my mind your voice is Alan Rickman with a deadpan delivery dripping with condescension and sarcasm.

Sure, in logic and math (maybe). Did I stumble into a discussion where it had been agreed to use only that context? My mistake, I must have missed that caveat.

Wording is important here, I didnt say “equal”.

I wasnt talking about “identity” as strictly the use in formal logic. It has more meanings than that.
Also, you do not have to abandon a pillar of logic to maintain nominalism as far as I can tell. Im not really here arguing for nominalism, just clarifying part of the discussion so it can continue.