Ok then. Like your attitude(Y)

Why should I have to disprove anything — Rich

Because you objected to them.

As for facts, seems like a whole bunch of people claim to have them but unfortunately they seem to contradict each other. — Rich

Contradict my facts

What I mean by that is that there is no difference between your mind and my mind. They are not a separate entities. — Markus

I can understand this in following ways:

1. We're all the same in the sense there's just ONE mind and each individual is just a part of that mind; just like the 6 sides of a single dice.

2. We're all the same in the sense that we, together, form another level of consciousness; just like cells in the body, though different from each other, form a single person

3. We're all the same in the sense that the brain and mind are generic to some degree. The brain architecture is similar and mental faculties such as imagination, logic, emotions, etc. are similar; just as there are ''different'' instances of the same model/version of iphones.

If it's 1 how will you prove it?

2 seems not that improbable. Look at us.

3 is lacklustre.

Not really. Just different. Anyway, there is no way to know one way or another unless humans define things in terms of putting themselves at the top of the hierarchy, as they normally do. It's good marketing. — Rich

I asked you to disprove my claim that humans are the only lifeforms capable of understanding the universe. Can you do that please.

If learning is knowledge, then all life forms do this. — Rich

Have you seen a nonhuman lifeform conducting experiments? I agree DNA encodes information but information repository has "evolved'' from DNA to human brains to books to computers. What of non-DNA encoded information?

I guess we can have a poll and see how well your facts are doing? — Rich

These are facts. Opinion polls can't affect facts.

The issue here, I believe, is that the above two facts are just your personal beliefs — Rich

My facts are:

1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge

To disprove 1 there has to be a nonhuman lifeform that has the same/greater mental faculties. Can you name one?

This forum, many others, you, me, this conversation, all books written, research done, questions asked and answered are proof of 2.

So, these aren't personal beliefs as you allege. These are hard facts and I've based my arguments on them.

How did the religious philosophers come up with a omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God when inductive knowledge could not demonstrably indicate such a God? — Brian A

I don't know. I guess power, goodness and knowledge are highly valued qualities. If an entity has the power to create universes, it seems reasonable that it has unlimited power over its creation.

Following the same line of thought, this entity would surely have complete knowledge over its creation from the atomic to the cosmic.

Goodness isn't that easy to explain. There's no necessity in it. Perhaps as a human ideal that is clearly universal in terms of benefit (even plants and animals can be benefited from morality), it's reasonable to project it onto God who we expect loves his creation and has the noblest of intentions for it.

Is there any way to rescue the cosmological argument as a reasonable indicator of God's existence (as in an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent God)? — Brian A

We need separate arguments to prove God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. We can define him as such but there are inconsistencies associated with each property:

1. Omnibenevolence: problem of evil
2. Omnipotence: the paradox of the stone
3. Omniscience: free will - omniscience problem

1. The universe has to be balanced. — Markus

Symmetry. Left-right, up-down, good-bad, etc. Agreed.

Everything must have sprung from something, and that something, I assume, is consciousness. — Markus

Nothing comes from nothing. Agreed. But why does it have to be consciousness. If the scientific account of evolution of the universe and life is accurate, mind and consciosuness comes much much later.

If you ponder about it carefully you will notice that all we are is a mere perspective that perceives and is aware — Markus

Agreed. We can interpret each individual as one perspective on the universe. Also, we can reasonably assume that our minds are more similar than different: The hardware is basically identical. The software too. The only discernible difference is that of preferences.

What tells you we are not the same mind? — Markus

Perhaps we need to precisely define what you mean by ''same''.

Great analysis.

It seems it finally boils down to a clash between morality and deterrence of capital punishment. The former is against and the latter is for the death penalty.

Assuming something true is done on the pragmatic basis that not doing so is dangerous.

A dog can be friendly but, more importantly, it can be dangerous, even life-threatening.

Assuming a dog as a threat is pragmatic because animals are unpredictable and dangerous.

Not believing in God is dangerous because if you don't you're at risk of going to hell (Pascal's wager is precisely about that).

So, assuming God exists is also pragmatic.

Yes, there are infinite possibilities that can be dangerous. What's the point though? When we plan, as we routinely do, we always include the contingent. It's not necessary to think of ALL possible events. Only those relevant, as determined by the context, need be considered.

In our case, hell is relevant because we're talking about eternal pain.

God is necessarily the first cause: "being the first cause" is analytically a predicate of the subject "God." The reason why God must be the first cause is because that is part of God's definition as it were, viz. "the first cause." — Brian A

The Kalam argument:

1. There can't be an infinite chain of causes
So,
2. There was a first cause

I agree so far.

You then say God is defined as this first cause.

Ok but that still doesn't prove any of the other defining features of God such as omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence or that he still exists (he could be dead by now). In short, your version of God is rather diminished.

Also, defining God as the first cause is rather tricksy. What I mean is the God-first cause relation isn't an equivalence as is asserted by defining God as the first cause. What I mean is:

1. If God exists then a first cause exists
2. If a first cause exists then God exists

1 seems reasonable but 2 is not. As you said, ''is the first cause'' is a predicate which means God has to, well, first exist before we can check whether the predicate applies or not. Not the other way round as you've done - finding the predicate (first cause) and inferring God's existence from it.

Can you prove any of this beyond your belief in them. — Sir2u

I have done so in my OP.

Briefly,

1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge

The above facts form the basis of our meaning of life. That's as objective as anyone can get. It's also a grand purpose, for those unsatisfied by the other objective purpose of life - self-preservation or simple survival.

So what is the reason you have for life? To make the universe self aware. So what did the universe do before humans came along, and what will it do after we are gone? What happens if the universe is not at all self aware, which I am sure it is not? We lose our reason to live so we won't exist anymore. — Sir2u

The universe has achieved self-awareness through us. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say self-awareness is the only thing the universe has attained, I must emphasize that self-awareness and the mental faculties that tag along are the only means to understand the universe. In that humans are unique as the only mind the universe has. Isn't it obvious then what we have to do?

Why would something as vast as the universe pick some little fucked race like us in a very tiny little piece of itself to help it be self aware. It would be like the jolly green giant sending an atom of its toenail to to find out what is in its left ear. — Sir2u

Your perspective is different. In a spatial context we are insignificant, Earth is insignificant, the Solar system is insignificant, the Milky Way is insignificant and perhaps, the universe itself is a tiny speck in a much bigger cosmos.

However, in the context of life things appear different. This is the only planet known to harbor life. In the context of mind, humans are the only ones that have one. It's a matter of the right perspective and big and small, vital and trivial, switch places.

I'm not saying the universe is not unimaginable in expanse. It is. All I'm saying is life in general and we in particular are also deserving of the same awe.

I did but you didn't accept.

Scripture clearly states that not to believe in God is to be damned in hell.

Not to be wary of a dog is to open yourself to harm.

Since something cannot cause itself. — Brian A

That's not part of the argument. What's essential to the cosmological argument is that there has to be an ''uncaused'' cause. That ''uncaused'' cause can be anything God, the universe itself.

If you insist that the universe has a cause then you'll have to explain why the chain of causation has to terminate with God.

I am hesitant to agree that this is an adequate counter-argument. For, the cyclical universe theory entails the view that there is X-amount of matter that cyclically explodes and implodes, and that matter is eternal. But it is improbable that matter is eternal; rather, it is more probable that the evolving-devolving-matter itself had a cause: viz. why something exists rather than nothing — Brian A

I only posit it to solve the infinite regress problem of the cosmological argument. I'd also like to add to the issue @Mr Bee raised.

1. Everything has a cause
2. If everything has a cause then there'a an infinite regress of causes
3. Infinite regress of causes is impossible
So,
4. It's false that everything has a cause

As you can see, 4 doesn't need us to entertain a God as an uncaused cause. Why not just conclude the universe as the uncaused cause.

I don't understand your argument about why the causal chain cannot be infinite. I don't know what you mean by the universe "traversing" the infinite. Could you explain a bit further? — Brian A

Let me give you an analogy.

It isn't possible to reach the end of an infinite line because infinite literally means ''without end''.

Say you're at a certain point on that line and now are contemplating the nature of your beginning. Is there a starting point where you began or is it infinity on both sides from the point where you're at?

If there's a beginning there's no problem. However, if you think that it's infinity on both sides of the point you're at there's a problem viz. how did you travel an infinite distance to reach the point you're at? It's impossible to travel an infinite distance and yet there you are at a particular point on the line.

Same reasoning applies to time. If the past is infinite how did you reach the present?

The causal chain if left unchecked suffers the same setback - the infinite regress. How did an infinite chain of causes ever ocur? Infinity can't have ocurred, passed or travelled by definition.

What do you think it meant? Did it have any significance you think — Wosret

I don't know. I hope it doesn't mean anything bad though. I just don't know...

Strange dream I had...

I saw meteorites flying through the air and on one rock were the letters S.B.H.A

After I woke up I googled it and lo and behold S.B.H is an acronym for Super Massive Black Hole and coincidentally there's one at Saggitarius A in the milky way, which according to reports is swallowing up asteroids.:P

:D

When you focus right down to it, every single behaviour and action from eating to love and even death can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

You're right. Everything can be reduced to survival. It's the most basic of drives and aims. Such an interpretation is scientific and thus, objective.

However, this meaning of life doesn't go down well with most people as evidenced by people objecting to it. It seems people desire something more, which I describe as grand. The meaning of life that we desire has to be, well, awesome. See my thread.

You still have not proven that there is a purpose or meaning to any life. — Sir2u

As per the conditions set in the OP I have. The purpose of life is to understand the universe. This is objective (based on the reason that the universe is self-aware and able to comprehend itself through us) and grand.

Is this equivocation? Orange and head? I didn't understand the joke:-|

The computer and AI makes an appearance along the way from infanthood to adulthood. The mind of a single human evolves, in simplest of terms, from the concrete to the abstract. Isn't that why a 5 year old, barring the born genius, can't understand advanced math like calculus. A 5 year old is taught through repetition, taught some rules of grammar or arithmetic and then given exercises to hone their skills. They don't understand the rules. They just mechanically apply them. Isn't that like a...computer? So, modern technology can replicate the mind of a 5 year old.

The challenge is how do we replicate the adult mind that, unlike the 5 year old, can also understand above and beyond the mere application of rules.

What's the difference between
1. Mechanical application of rules
And
2. Comprehension of the logic behind these rules?

An adult mind can do both while the computer can do only 1.

Point to note is these two different mental faculties (see above 1 and 2) can only be perceived upon access to the inner workings of a person or a computer. If all we have is access to the output (human behavior, printouts, audiovisual displays) we simply can't make the distinction between a person and a computer.

That brings us to an important conclusion. An AI needn't actually be a person. All it has to do is perfectly mimic a person to pass of as one. Without access to the inner world of circuits we simply can't tell a person from a good AI.

Our common notion of causality requires the passage of time. What does it mean for something to "begin" to exist, or "have a cause" outside of time? — darthbarracuda

(Y)

Without time, the cosmological argument doesn't make sense.

A cyclical universe could be posited to counter the Kalam argument. Each point in the cycle is both the end and the beginning. Since infinite regress doesn't come into the picture, we don't need to have a first cause.

Infinity is crucial to the argument. I've always wondered why.

There are two kinds of infinity:

1. Spatial
2. Temporal

1 is not a problem. Infinite space neither helps nor hinders the argument.

2 is problematic. If there's an infinite chain of causation then the past would be infinite. The universe is travelling along a timeline and if the past were infinite, how did the universe traverse infinity to reach this point in time? Impossible.

Therefore, the chain of causation can't be infinite. We need a beginning. God is defined as this beginning of the chain of causation.

That's the crux of the argument in my view.

Anyway, the problem with this argument is that it doesn't prove the omnipotency, omnibenevolence, and omniscience of God (O-O-O God)That's an issue because the Abrahamic God is the O-O-O God.

Also, we can counter the argument by positing a cyclical universe. The beginning causes the end and the end causes the beginning (circular). We get rid of the infinity problem and God isn't needed. If you look at nature, this view isn't that outlandish - water cycle, the elliptical orbits of planets, nitrogen cycle, etc.

And most who disagree with you say you are irrational. — Sir2u

What is irrational in my OP? Can anyone specify?

So prove it is untrue. — Sir2u

The purpose of life is to live!!!

That makes no distinction between an ant, a pig, a dog, and a human. However, we know that ants, pigs, dogs, and humans differ from each other. So, shouldn't meaning of life for a human be different from that of an ant, a pig or a dog or a plant, etc? These real differences between living things not only serve to identify each species but also bear on the way these lifeforms live which includes the meaning of life.

Marc Mayer wasnt one of the main scholars in the study. Nice cherry-picking, though — Thanatos Sand

:) Sorry. Anyway, the data clumps ALL murders together. That means it doesn't distinguish murders committed under ''ordinary'' circumstances and those done in extremis (crimes of passion and psychopathy). As I said in my posts, this distinction is necessary in determining the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Please read below.

It has to be repeated again, most murders are not planned, and are motivated by events occurring immediately before the impassioned act of killing--the jealous husband murder. — Bitter Crank

Exactly, crimes of passion are different and so are psychopathy induced crimes. My point is any study of the efficacy of capital punishment must exclude these extremes. We need to judge the capital punishment deterrence for average people, who you said are at risk of ruining their lives.

As an analogy. Consider 10 people. 1 is a psychopath and 2 is passionately jealous. The death penalty is a reality in this world. 1 couldn't care less and will murder. 2 will kill in a fit of jealousy. However persons 3 through 10 will be deterred by the death penalty. It's these people (3 to 10) that need to be studied for the deterrent potency of capital punishment. Including persons 1 and 2 in the data is a mistake and most studies commit this error.

I understand your perspective. There are biological, psychological, etc. differences that invalidate the ''all men are equal'' principle. My bad. I didn't mean it that way. By ''all men are equal'' and ''fairness'' I'm referring to equal opportunity and equal access to legal services. A murderer has a right to a competent counsel just as the victim has.

As for you monetary angle that it's more cost-effective to execute a psychopath I think morality is beyond money calculus. The spirit of society loses something invaluable in endorsing capital punishment - the collective empathy, so to speak. So, while we may save money, we lose our souls.

Thanks for the data. I don't think capital punishment is completely pointless. It does have deterrent effect but only for the average ''normal'' person who stands to lose big. The passionate murderer and the psychopath are exceptional cases that mustn't be included in any study of the impact of the death penalty.

In the article you linked me to:

"We certainly can’t say there is a deterrent. We can’t say there is not either," said Marc Mauer, the executive director of The Sentencing Project, adding that the lack of evidence was itself worth considering.

LOL, oh well, paint me convinced — PeterPants

:)

You had to ask.

Del

Who knows, maybe it is!!! — Sir2u

If it's a finger it's either a mistake or deliberate.

It can't be a mistake because the rest of the painting is done in meticulous detail and anatomically correct.

So, it has to be deliberate.

Now, why would the painter paint an extra digit?

I like the idea of incorporating a humane principle into our understanding of justice. — Brian

I think it's necessary because if not there's no difference between vengeance and justice. The former is morally suspect.

The studies aren't biased. — Thanatos Sand

Can you give me a link

But that is as individuals, not as a race. — Sir2u

I don't see a problem there. The world, more or less, has/had set environmental, political, social, health goals (UN, WHO, etc). When they are/were achieved new goals are/will be set.

As a race we would first have to agree on the meaning of life for it to be changed, and that is not going to happen your way. — Sir2u

Why? I'll base the meaning of life on sound reasoning. Either people accept or not. If they accept it won't be because of me but because they see the logic in my arguments. If they don't they'd be irrational.

If we accept that the meaning to life is to live it, then everyone will always agree and there will never be any reason to change it no matter what happens. — Sir2u

But the purpose of life being to live is a tautology.

Studies have shown that capital punishment is no significant deterrent for murder. — Thanatos Sand

This is a conundrum that needs an explanation. Capital punishment is instituted because it's reasonable. If a person's work output is dependent on his losing his/her job, the work will be of higher quality. The death penalty is simply an extension of this logic. However, the death penalty doesn't deter crime, perhaps evidenced by rising murder rates.

How do we explain this? It could be as @Bitter Crank said, murder is either a crime of passion (temporary insanity) or psychopathic (complete insanity). If this is the case then the studies you mention could be biased because they didn't weigh in this crucial factor.

First, many murders are committed in a fit of more or less insane anger, jealousy, or rage. The person is not thinking straight at the time. The second reason is that criminals who kill in cold blood are not very susceptible to the threat of execution. They may operate in such a way that arrest is fairly unlikely, they may be 'protected', or maybe they are just a bit delusional.

The same applies to prison terms. The people who are deterred from crime are people who are basically honest and/or are very afraid of being imprisoned (it would ruin their lives). Members of a criminal subculture may not consider a prison term to be that much of a penalty. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

Yes, sometimes passion gets the better of reason. However, I think from a deterrent angle, the more public the execution the more effective the death penalty is.

With her middle finger? — Sir2u

How else can we snap our fingers?

Perhaps there's another non-moral reason for capital punishment. Punishment must be
1. Just (3 principles in the OP)
2. Corrective (should reform the criminal)
3. Deterrent (prevention is better than cure)

Capital punishment fails to meet criteria 1 and 2 but it "seems" to fit 3. Only ''seems'' because prevention can be better achieved by educating society on morality and the values of peace, friendship, life, etc.

That raises the question ''should a justice system also involve teaching morality?'' I think this is a prickly issue because religion comes into the picture and that's something against the precept of separating religion and the state. And does it work anyway?

That is contradictory to your OP. — Sir2u

No it's not. I should've been clearer. Think of how we function in our everyday lives. We set goals. If we achieve them we set new goals. It's the same thing with the meaning of life.

That is not her finger.
It is treat that she is trying to tempt the dog with. — Sir2u

:-} it's a fine interpretation. I didn't think of that.

It looks like she's snapping her fingers to get the dog's attention AND why does the ''treat'' look like a finger? And she's not looking at the dog