I see what you did there, Bartricks!

Bartricks, forgive them. They know not what they (natalists) do!

W: “1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.” — Art48

I'll take a shot at this: Reality (the world), what is it? Facts, the totality of facts. It feels important to distinguish facts from knowledge - we, knowledge-hungry beings, are dispensable to the extent that reality doesn't need us (nay to idealism) but...facts seem soooo lonely; they, in a certain sense, need us just as a man needs a woman and vice versa, notwithstanding homosexuality and bachelors/spinsters.

Wow! At this point, the only thing I can do is to bow to the immense wisdom of those high level people. As they say in an Italian comedy “with my face under their feet, without even asking them to keep still”. — Angelo Cannata

Spare me the sarcasm, please. Anyway I really don't want to get into a discussion on the problem of evil; its relevance, insofar as the OP is concerned, is limited to its implications on the empirical nature of god claims keeping in my mind that some here are of the view that metaphysical claims, god being one such, are nonempirical.

Also up for discussion is the decidedly antiscientific nature of Jesus' claim not to test the LORD! First, Jesus offers no proof; why else would he make such a big deal of faith? Second, he blocks any attempts to disprove god by banning tests aka experiments. Curious, very curious!

That’s why the problem of evil is not a metaphysical one: you cannot prove metaphysically that either good or evil exist, because they depend entirely on subjective evaluations. — Angelo Cannata

The problem of evil straddles both the world of metaphysics & the world of empiricism. Evil is defined well enough to be recognized by everyone. Also why would you question the wisdom of many theologians & non-theologians who admit that there is a problem (evil) and have devised other solutions, solutions that explain the existence of evil rather than deny evil exists?

faith — Bylaw

Which is to say Jesus couldn't/no one can prove God's existence.

Then we come to testing, the prohibition of experimentation i.e. we're not allowed to falsify the god hypothesis.

This is a double bind: No proof of & barred from any disproof of God! Looks like someone doesn't want us to think!

prayer — Bylaw

True, Wikipedia has a page on research i.e. experiments done on (the effectiveness of) prayer. So some religious claims can be tested.

The historical - cultural context of the biblical text you quoted has nothing to do with metaphysics — Angelo Cannata

I included metaphysics in the OP for good reasons. Some claim metaphysics is not open to empirical testing i.e. you can't verify/falsify them via experience and yet, we have the so-called problem of evil (divine predicates incompatible with observation).

Metaphysics, contrary to what some say, has to cohere with reality i.e. has to be subjected to empirical testing.

1. necessary contingent facts (unbounded immanence)
2. naturalism
3. empty name
4. n/a (see #3)
5. Deus, sive natura

G'nite, Smith. Zzzzz — 180 Proof

:up: Sweet dreams.

Some relevant ideas:

1. Karma (ethics), as mentioned previously deserving/undeserving is about causation, moral in this case.

2. Justice/Vengeance (Iustitia/Erinyes). Getting one's just desserts (related to karma but is specific to evil and its alleged reciprocal consequences)

3. Inverse consequences (sometimes the effect of an action is opposite of what's the norm, which is to say that what we're dealing with here is quasi/pseudo-causation; if you disagree some metaphysics is in order)

4. Reciprocity/tit for tat/quid pro quo (game theory; action = reaction, vide Newton's 3^rd law)

5. Miracles (the :halo: must break the rule/law action = reaction i.e. they must back down, make the sacrifice, compromise in a confrontation and they must refuse/not expect rewards/appreciations for their good deeds; the :naughty: if you notice don't violate the aforementioned law as we're, on the whole, wicked/twisted. Evil doesn't do miracles).

What? — javi2541997

:brow:

Philosophers: Ordinary folk think too less.
Ordinary folk: Philosophers think too much.

We never hit the sweet spot betwixt deficiency & excess now do we? We're always swinging, pendulum-like, back and forth between extremes. The aurea mediocritas isn't easy to either attain or maintain.

Let's not waste our time and get straight to the point, eh?

It's paradoxical that Cartesian radical doubt (imagine that!) leads to, suprise, surprise, absolute certainty. Isn't that like being the worst criminal makes you the best cop?

Cogito ergo sum. — René Descartes

Take that Agrippa, Pyrrho, and all skeptics!

Reminds me of Laozi! Maybe this a formula which we can apply to everything! :chin:

Perhaps we should do the right thing and offer people the choice - natalism/antinatalism - and let the chips fall where they may. Last I checked, procreation is an adult affair i.e. those who must think this through are autonomous agents, fully capable of making their own decisions. Why speak for someone who can speak for him/herself, oui? We must act, in this case, as the media do - inform (only) and let the audience make up their own minds.

Bumthick — Bartricks

:rofl:

To posters engaged in discussion with Bartricks, look up gennaion pseudos (noble lie) and pious fiction.

So, if "God" is not a mystery, that is, not inexplicable to human reason, then why all the mumbo-jumbo about "revealed truth" or "He reveals His presence through sacred scriptures or 'signs and wonders'"? Is it your belief that e.g. the Abrahamic "God" is explained (i.e. rationally known) by human reason? If so, then why is "faith" required? (Btw, maybe most of those "theists" you've mentioned are scriptural illiterates or ignorant of theology). — 180 Proof

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Xin (heart-mind). God(s) is(are) an emotional need (crutch/fetish as you said in your previous post). They/it falls under the rubric of desiderata (ignoring the late Christopher Hitchens' views on the horrors of a celestial dictatorship) rather than facta.

What do you mean by "consciousness" in this query? — 180 Proof

What do you mean by "mind"? — 180 Proof

Going Socrates on (poor) Gregory. Looks as though Gregory's casting a wide net - he's not trying to catch a particular kinda fish, any fish'll do!

To be fair, I've never personally met a theist who has said that God/gods is/are a mystery. Most (usually Christians) argue that one can come to know God personally. Deists, following neoplatonism, along with Stoics argue God can be "known" through our use of reason (i.e. reason is the way we become like the gods) — Paulm12

Apophatic theology is a legit branch in the philosophy of religion and speaks volumes in re whether god(s) are a part of the solution or part of the problem.

Of course not. "God" is the ultimate "mystery" (according to Abrahamic (& Vedic) traditions) and a "mystery" does not explain anything. "Mystery created it", "Mystery commands it" – beg cosmological and ethical questions, respectively, and therefore cannot answer them. — 180 Proof

:up:

When you put it that way, it becomes crystal clear. Attempting to solve a mystery (the universe and all in it, imcluding ourselves) with another mystery (God/s) is just plain stupid! Why compound our woes so foolishly?!

Perhaps it's part of the territory of unknowns - we can only imagine/speculate and while we get points for creativity, truth & reason take a hit.

Consciousness sans reason: Mirrors!

Reason sans consciousness: Computers!

We have to, sensu latu, put computers before mirrors and let the magic happen!

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, there's ample room in your EnFormAction for science by treating it as answers to how G*D (primum movens) created and runs the universe. Aristotle's 4 causes (material, efficient, formal, final) is just what the doctor ordered for the inclusion of science in EnFormAction.

Of course, in the absence of defeasible (or abductive) reasoning, the perennial alternative (crutch / fetish) is Woo-of-the-Gaps. — 180 Proof

As I've tried to explain in some of my older posts, people, for psychological reasons that I'm not aware of, want an answer to their questions even if they could be downright false (woo of the gaps). It isn't all that bad when you factor in the fact that, at the very least, coherence is valued (highly).

Philosophy, as I understand it, helps to exorcize woo-woo (and also, as Socrates shows, the sophistry which rationalizes woo). — 180 Proof

Mighty interesrting! Putting the cart before the horse (facts being made to fit theory).

NB: By "woo" I mean 'answers to pseudo-questions'; 'solutions to pseudo-problems'; 'speculations from pseudo-science; and other modes of magical thinking. — 180 Proof

If to answer a question one has to resort to woo then perhaps something's wrong with the question itself!

Eh, what does that get you? A dated three bedroom with termite issues the last owner got for $135,000 in 1990. We need a new "big" amount of money at this rate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Apologies, my gedanken experiment didn't take inflation into account!

Need unpacked:

1. Logical necessity: Is there anything about this universe that requires the existence of God for an explanation?

2. Emotional necessity: Safety blanket/imaginary friend, someone who'll always be there no matter what!

It's natural to ask questions and equally natural to look for reasonable answers. God is just one of the many manifestations of our curiosity (that killed the cat). Your logic is not new but that's a compliment - you see the value of ancient arguments or, at the very least, have found a means to reconstruct trains of thought that are as old as the mountains. Why reinvent the wheel?

Why are those your only choices? Maybe there's a small child in the room who's about to be greeted with a pointed weapon at his head. — Hanover

Imagination score: 10/10!

[...valorize our] curiosity. — Srap Tasmaner

...killed the cat! :scream:

Socrates...the (alleged) father of Western philosophy, curious chap, was executed by hemlock. Philosophers need to watch their step.

[O lover of Sophia] be vewy, vewy careful. — Porky the pig

Good OP title but nowhere in it do I see the promised formula. Is that our homework OP?

Ad infinitum = Ad nauseum :vomit:

Eternal $\to$ Cannot die (a disability rather than an ability).

I have no idea what you are talking about. — Bartricks

:snicker: We all have our little problems!

Gracias for posting the poll findings vis-à-vis the paranormal in the US of A.

Ponder this: With respect to belief (in the paranormal with emphasis on witches) the USA is identical twins with Saudi Arabia. However, the difference that makes the difference is that America doesn't conduct witch-hunts and behead suspected witches while Saudi Arabia does. Beliefs and behavior needn't be consistent in America but not so in Saudi Arabia.

The smaller than/the larger than the human scale we go, the more the mind gets involved; our senses, designed as they are to operate at a specific level of reality, are rendered utterly useless.

The mind can go where the body can't; there seem to be risks though as often truth becomes a casualty or is knocked off its pedestal by coherence.

Dialectical monism. — 180 Proof

Archived for future reference! Danke!

My understanding, and how it was taught to me, was always that you treat others as you would like to be treated - in other words, to be consulted - to be asked what you like and to have your individual preferences respected. — Tom Storm

:fire: :clap: The scales now drop from my eyes, but I see there's more work that needs doing. Please continue.

:ok:

Such an important step and the rule is left unmentioned. Odd!

In sophistry that's the plan, but in philosophy it's
Fool —>—>—> Lesser Fool. " :flower: " — 180 Proof

Yeah! I wanna run something I've been mulling over for the past few weeks by you.

It's about the yin-yang dualistic model of reality. The classical example of duality is, to my reckoning, the light-dark pair.

Suppose now I bring math into the picture: I could construct a light scale as such: 0 - 10 with 0 being complete darkness and 10 being maximum luminosity. Notice what happens next. Darkness is just 0 light and I can discard it and say it's all light. We could do the same thing to light using a darkness scale: 0 (max light) - 10 (total darkness).

What sayest thou?

Knowability principle: p $\to$ ◇Kp where the epistemic operator K = know

Non-O: There's an unknown truth = p & ~Kp

Substituting (p & ~Kp) in the knowability princple, we get:

(p & ~Kp) $\to$ ◇K(p &~Kp)

Now, foe Fitch's argument to work, the following hasta be true:

◇K(p &~Kp) $\to$ K(p & ~Kp). None of the rules used by Fitch in the SEP article allow this move. Also, intuitively, it looks/feels wrong.

Agent Smith is poking at us. He is much more intelligent than he seems. — jgill

:chin:

My pensées on the matter (the value od human life).

1. Life, in and of itself, is valuable. It stands out from the vast cold & dead universe. Life is rare: only 1 planet in our adorable solar system.

2. Are we valuable to life? True we seem to be agents of extinction - we're on Thanatos' payroll. Yet, we seem to appreciate the great web of life, we're in the process of sussing out its secrets and we seem to want to keep Earth's ecology in one piece. We're life's best chance at surviving catastrophes, big and small, fast and slow. We're, to that extent, valuable.

I think my argument from overpopulation for antinatalism can be refuted with math.

Suppose there are only 2 cells (x, y) reproducing via mitosis. If the lifespan of a cell is t seconds and lineage x divides every m seconds and lineage y divides every n seconds such that m $\neq$ n. I'm sure a mathematician @jgill can work out what the values of t, m, n should be such that the total population of cells remain constant throughout. There's gotta be a formula at the very least.

Progress in Philosophy, all said and done, is (traditionally) measured epistemologically: Ignoramus $\to$ Sage. Clearly if we use this metric, philosophical progress hasta be viewed from the standpoint of science (philosophy's offspring). If not, it becomes quite clear that philosophy is stuck, it hasn't made even an inch of progress since it began a coupla thousand years ago.

Ergo, we need to rethink what philosophical progress is. The low hanging fruit is ideas (sensu amplo). The number of philosophical ideas have ballooned from a handful to so many that the set of a philosophical polymaths is the null set.

From your personal stash. Side effects include confusion and disorientation. Explains a lot. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Perhaps! :snicker:

We must assume that the fetus has a soul and that abortion is nothing less than murder. Err on the side of caution, oui monsieur? I dunno what came over Descartes who records show conducted vivisection on dogs! :scream: :groan: Clearly, he, despite his reputation, wasn't a (true) skeptic.

3 follows from 1 and 2. If you can't see that we can't continue this — Bartricks

:snicker:

Evolution's prime directive is survival, not (reason-supported) truth, but @Bartricks, (reason-based) truth is what keeps one alive unless...you're circumlocutously arguing for antinatalism. To cut to the chase, evolution requires the belief that there are real reasons (to believe/do things) to be backed up with real reasons (to believe/do things). Otherwise, we would be dead as Dodos! :snicker:

Yeah, it takes two to Tango. Why should only one party take all the flak, the shit?

When faced with the unknown one is forced to approach it from a threat-opportunity standpoint with threat, the reduction/elimination/avoidance of it being priority #1. As they say, safety first! Opportunity while it may exist has also to be assumed absent, treated as an illusion. A mashup/combo of pessimism-hedonism will save you from Algos/Thanatos.

As is obvious, the skeptic has an important responsibility to fulfill - he provides a public service by sowing the seeds of doubt. Is it? Is it not? Is it both? Is it neither? Nobody knows/can ever know. Uncertainty is the key to ethics! If you're in the dark as to whether karma is real, whether God or hell exists, prudentia (one of the 4 cardinal virtues) would like a good advisor suggest that for own sake we assume God/karma/hell/heaven are real. That turns us into good people even if for ignoble reasons (fear/earning karmic points) only.

Apaṇṇaka (safe bet).