You’re right: assigning human moral traits to a being whose motivations are radically inscrutable is a category error. But that cuts both ways: either benevolence means something recognisable, in which case massive preventable suffering is a problem, or benevolence means something utterly opaque, in which case saying “God is benevolent” conveys no moral information at all. You can’t keep the praise while discarding the content. — Truth Seeker

I'm not following you, but perhaps I was not clear - the human trait of benevolence is recognizable - and yes "massive preventable suffering is a problem". Of course the precise nature of the "problem" depends on a person's beliefs. If you believe in the triad, then it is a clear logical contradiction which 2000 years of theological tongue twisting has not resolved. If you are a non-believer in a benevolent deity, then it is a human made problem which we humans are very bad at resolving. But that's for a different topic.

Third, you say omnipotence and omniscience “necessarily rule out omnibenevolence. I disagree” — Truth Seeker

I was trying to re-state something you said. As far as I'm concerned, you don't even need omnipotence - omniscience alone necessarily rules out omnibenevolence - again based on the plain language meaning of the two words - to which you seemed to agree with.

Omnipotence constrained by logic is not a defect; it is definitional.

The traditional understanding of omnipotence excludes logical contradictions - no “square circles,” no “married bachelors,” and no mutually incompatible states of the world. — Truth Seeker

Funny - I recently discussed this in a different thread. There used to be a poster out here - Bartricks - who maintained that omnipotence meant that God could violate the laws of logic and create a 4 sided triangle. I cannot rule this out, but since us mere mortals are limited to 3 sided triangles I can agree to this.

Other than that - while I agree that omnipotence & omniscience necessarily rule out omni-benevolence, it seems to me that there are stronger (and simpler) arguments - based on the plain language definitions of the words.

Consider what is implied by this fanciful word omniscience. If you google the definition of omniscience you’ll get something along these lines - “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” I take this definition at face value - everything means everything - there is nothing unknown. An omniscient entity knows the exact location and status of every last atom in the universe, every sub-atomic particle, every time a particle / anti-particle pair pops in and out of existence, etc. And not only that, our hypothetical omniscient entity knows the past history of these atoms, particles, etc - AND - the omniscient entity also knows the future state of same said particles.

They know every fact.
They know what course of action is best, all things considered. — Truth Seeker

What is “best”? Assuming that such an omniscient entity exists (again assuming for the moment that the phrase “omniscient entity exists” has some actual semantic meaning) we cannot possibly fathom what might motivate such entity. It is as if an amoeba were to try to predict the winner of next year’s World Cup. The nature of such an entity is beyond our comprehension. To assign the human character trait of benevolence to such an entity makes no rational sense. At best this appears to be some sort of category error.

So there is no need to postulate multiple omniscience entities to make your point, one is sufficient.

And we haven’t even mentioned omnipotence here. Omnipotence has it’s own set the definitional contradictions.

I am convinced that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil . . . He is evil because of his many evil words and actions in the Bible. — Truth Seeker

We’re in agreement here - at least re the OT God. The Skeptics Bible is an especially useful reference tool.

In the third place, you seem to think that our "inner intuitions" are not as liable to mislead us as language is; I see no ground for supposing that. — Ludwig V

Reassuring to know I'm not alone in having that same thought.

Also I don't accept your proposal that ordinary speech is the inescapable starting point for philosophy. Human nature has inescapable features, instincts and intuitions, which go much deeper than language, and serve to guide us in decision making. The rejection of contradiction for example is a manifestation of a deeper intuition, rejecting contradiction as an impediment to the capacity to know and understand.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Humanity has come into existence in a particular place & time through a multi-billion year process of evolution. Our "inescapable features, instincts and intuitions" are baked into us - but this does not mean that these qualities can help us resolve these issues.

There was a long time poster - Bartricks? (I think) who was banned - who maintained that since God was omnipotent that meant that God was not bound by the law of non-contradiction. What a fascinating notion. So is our intuition correct? I cannot rule out the possibility that our intuition is wrong.

As another example - we have not yet grasped the "nature" (for want of a better word) of quantum physics. Are photons particles or waves? My thinking is that if people much smarter than me cannot make up their minds then we're missing something. Maybe the question is wrong and we need a whole new method of thinking that somehow re-frames the issue. What that could possibly be beats me.

As are infinite regress and other similar things known by intuition to be detrimental to the will to know — Metaphysician Undercover

Infinite regress doesn't bother me. But then again I'm not a good philosopher - to which I will not deny . . .

I went through this all, way back. When we know that the coin is showing heads, it is incorrect to saying it is possible it is heads. When we do not know that the coin is showing heads it s correct to saying that that it is possible the coin is showing heads. Your example refers to two different times, before walking into the room, and after, so your conclusion of "at the same time" is incorrect. Before walking into the room we say it is possible, and after, we say it is actually showing heads, and we can no longer say it is possible. There is no "at the same time" indicated. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I see what you're saying, but let me echo it back to you using a slightly revised scenario.

You (MU) see me (EricH) on the street staring intently at my cell phone. The following dialogue ensures:

MU: "HI EricH! What's going on?"

EricH: "Hey MU. This is really important. I just bet my life savings on the lottery. I just know that my numbers are going to come in. See - I picked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. That's going to be the winning numbers!"

MU: "Jeez EricH, that's crazy. You know the odds are way against you."

EricH: "Yeah, MU - but it's possible, yes?"

MU: "Well yes it's possible, but you're taking a terrible risk here"

EricH: "Wait a minute, here come the numbers. One, two, three, four, five. . . . come on six . . . SIX! Yes! See MU - it's possible!"

MU: "No EricH. It is not possible"

EricH: " WTF MU? You just said 2 seconds ago that it was possible."

MU: "Yes, but now that it's actual, it's no longer possible. That would be a logical contradiction."

EricH: "Huh? That's crazy. If it ain't possible then it couldn't have happened. "

At this point MU starts into a long detailed explanation of the distinction between possibility and actuality. Meanwhile EricH edges slowly away . . .

EricH: "Hey MU, that's, umm, really interesting - maybe another time. I have to go see my financial advisor."

- - - - - - - -
So here's my take on this. Philosophy can be useful for digging below the metaphorical surface of our everyday speech & thoughts and can help us avoid logic errors and to think & talk more precisely. I've learned a lot from TPF. But when a philosophical statement contradicts the plain meaning of our everyday speech, there has to be a really good reason. And while I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't buy into it.

MU - I've said it before - it's clear that you're intelligent & highly knowledgeable, but speaking as a plain language person this strikes me as very obscure & eccentric. Just my 2 cents.

= = = = = = = ==== = = = = = = = = =

I'm afraid this doesn't address the problem, but it is a nice try. The possibility and the actuality exist in different contexts. From outside the room, it is possible and from inside the room, not. What's at stake is the P implies possibly P. That means within a single context. — Ludwig V

Yeah, I see that. If I had enough time I could likely get up to speed on this modal stuff, but I'll leave that up to you and Banno et al. :smile:

Your example refers to two different times, before walking into the room, and after, so your conclusion of "at the same time" is incorrect. Before walking into the room we say it is possible, and after, we say it is actually showing heads, and we can no longer say it is possible. There is no "at the same time" indicated. — Metaphysician Undercover

The person who flipped the coin knew it. At the same time.

This was in direct response to @Metaphysician Undercovers statement:

The possibility for something, precedes in time the actual existence of that thing. Once it is actualized, it is not longer a possibility, but an actuality. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU is using a very loose definition of the word "something" here - I take it to mean a state of affairs (e.g., a coin displaying heads at a particular place and point in time). MU is stating that it is impossible for "something" to be a possibility as well as an actuality at the same time. I am simply pointing out what appears (at least to me eyes) to be a very obvious exception.

If you need further clarity as to what "something" refers to, you'll have to go to the source: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1028434

The possibility for something, precedes in time the actual existence of that thing. Once it is actualized, it is not longer a possibility, but an actuality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Someone in the next room flips a coin. We cannot see the result. Now we ask the question - is it possible that the coin is showing heads? The answer is of course yes. Then we walk into the next room and indeed the coin is showing heads.

So while it is not necessarily so (the coin could be tails), something can be both possible and also be real/actual at the same time.

If this is supposed to be an argument for p -> ◇p (if p then possibly p), then it does not work. — SophistiCat

Not my intention. I was simply adding my voice to the litany for folks here who are trying to metaphorically knock some sense into MU's head. AFAICT MU does not do modal logic, so I was trying a different approach.

Minor quibble. As a basically plain language person, the word metaphysically seems out of place.

metaphysically possible — Banno

Hypothetically possible, theoretically possible, epistemically possible (your term) work much better - at least for me.

The issue is if, when you judge that p is true, you can also judge that it is possible that p is true. I think that this is dishonesty and contradiction because "it is possible that p is true" contradicts "p is true". This is because "p is true" means that it is not possible that p is false, whereas "it is possible that p is true" means that it is possible that p is false. Therefore contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

If it is possible that p is true, then this means that either p is true or p is false. So this gives us (p or ~p). But we have asserted that p is true. Therefore (p or ~p) is also true.

As a plain language person I get a kick out of these discussions. You and Banno et al are obviously very smart/knowledgeable people. That said, I cannot figure out what you are saying.

P1. We know shit.
P2 We do not know shit.
P3 It is possible to know shit.
P4 It is not possible to know shit — Metaphysician Undercover

If we know shit at time t, then clearly at some time prior to time t it must have been possible to know said shit - otherwise there's no way we could know said shit at time t. This is the plain language interpretation.

So I'm trying to figure out how P1 would not automatically imply P3 at time t. Are you saying that prior to time t we were somehow able to figure out the shit, but that at time t the situation has changed and we whatever means/mechanism we used to determine the shit prior to t is no longer applicable - and thus P1 no longer automatically implies P3?

Or (more likely) I am totally not getting what you're saying.

BTW -- If possible - a plain language response please. :smile:

Bishop Whalon make a pretty obvious point: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671

"If God does exist, then that is not God. All existing things are relative to one another in various degrees. It is actually impossible to imagine a universe in which there is, say, only one hydrogen atom. That unique thing has to have someone else imagining it. Existence requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation."

A world where all sentient beings are equally omniscient and omnipotent would contain no involuntary suffering, no vulnerability, and no inequality, since each being could prevent harm to itself and others. — Truth Seeker

Under the previous assumptions/definitions, there could be multiple omniscient beings, but what would happen if two omnipotent sentient beings wanted to prevent harm on different ways? Doesn't seem logically possible unless you also assume that such beings will always agree on everything (maybe so if omniscient). But that additional assumption would have all sorts of implications - e.g., lack of free will. Yes/no?

[re-posting this from another thread]

As with any technology, AI can be used to benefit people or to harm them. From my perspective, the biggest dangers from AI are the abilities to create new ways of killing people.

I consider it likely that scientists all across the world (either with direct or tacit support of their governments) are already engaged in research to create new and more deadly bio-weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, China, Israel, Russia, etc.

At the risk of being a fear monger, AI itself will not destroy humanity. Humanity will use AI to self-destruct.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about this.

As with any technology, AI can be used to benefit people or to harm them. From my perspective, the biggest dangers from AI are the abilities to create new ways of killing people.

I consider it likely that scientists all across the world (either with direct or tacit support of their governments) are engaged in research to create new and more deadly bio-weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, China, Israel, Russia, etc.

At the risk of being a fear monger, AI itself will not destroy humanity. Humanity will use AI to self-destruct.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about this.

This topic has been the subject of numerous science fiction books and movies - most recently the book Mickey 7 - which was made into the movie Mickey 17

At the risk of prolonging a side discussion - while they could be derived from Mosaic Law, the 7 rules are not in the Bible. They were invented by Talmudic scholars. WIkipedia says this might have occurred sometime in second century C.E.

Books like Genesis and Jonah present a more universalistic picture, — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not an expert in interpreting the bible, but I'd disagree with this. The plain language of Genesis makes it clear that Israel belongs to the Jews for all eternity. Here's from Genesis 13:

14. And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:.

15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.

The later books add the proviso that the Jews must also follow all the laws.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have a different take on this - which I consider as a side comment. Apologies if you are already familiar with it, but if you want to understand what the bible is actually saying, I suggest the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I recently finished the OT and am now plowing through the NT (up to Romans).

It is clear (at least it is clear to me) that the god of the OT is not the Christian God. The OT God is very specifically the god of the Jewish People (AKA the children of Israel, AKA the 12 tribes, etc). As long as the children of Israel follow all the laws - as laid out in Exodus, Deuteronomy. Numbers, & Leviticus - they are entitled to the land of Israel. The OT God holds all other groups of people to be outsiders - Jews are not even allowed to marry non-Jews. The OT God even assists the Children of Israel in committing genocide (think Jericho).

So when you say

God is perfectly good — Bob Ross

or

5. It is unjust to directly intentionally kill an innocent person (viz., it is wrong to murder); — Bob Ross

you are making this judgement from outside the OT. Now this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do - as long as we are aware of what we're doing. But the OT god is not perfectly good. The OT gets angry and changes his mind - not the expected behavior of a perfect entity.

As long as I'm here, here are two other fun links from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

A list of all God's killings
A list of ALL the commandments on both the OT & NT

Just remind me again why Einstein said he doesn't believe that God plays dice? — Wayfarer

I'm sure that there are better ways of putting this, but the short answer is that Einstein said this because he believed that there was some underlying mechanism that would (in some manner) eliminate the uncertainty from the uncertainty principle. To the best of our current scientific knowledge, Einstein was mistaken in this belief.

As an aside (and apologies if I'm telling you something you already know) Einstein did not have any conventional religious beliefs. He was sort of a Spinoza-ist.

I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that - after seeing the photos of those trans-men and/or meeting them in person - any significant number of folks would want trans-men using women's bathrooms. As far as I'm concerned? People should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity - but that's just my opinion.

Are we really concerned about where people relieve themselves? Or are we really discussing whether the process of transitioning actually changes a woman into a man? — frank

I may be mis-understanding him, but Harry seems to be very concerned. I'm not.

So you feel that these people should be using the women's bathroom:

How about trans-men? Is it OK for trans-men to use the men's bathroom or must they use the women's bathroom?

I was searching for any context where 2+2 might be equal to something other than 4, any reason to not accept 2+2=4 as an absolute truth. — noAxioms

If you have 2 apples in one hand and 2 apples in your other hand you are holding 4 apples. If you have 2 apples in one hand and 2 oranges in the other hand you are holding 4 pieces of fruit. Etc

But once you say 2+2=4 you are now in into the realm of mathematics where different rules apply and 2+2=4 is not an absolute truth. Rather, 2+2=4 is only true within specific mathematical systems - most commonly Peano Arithmetic - where you start of with certain axioms and rules and then you can derive 2+2=4.

I don't pretend to understand them, but there are other mathematical frameworks where 2+2 is not necessarily 4 - e.g Modular Arithmetic and Abstract Algebra..

This discussion reminds me of this:
[url] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)[/url]
In particular you might want to check out the section “ Law of the excluded fourth (in WHERE clauses)”

But the idea of ‘universes, plural’ in any other sense, I think is completely meaningless - as it’s obviously not an empirical hypothesis, in the sense of not being able to be refuted empirically, so it must be metaphysical, but without any connection to what the term was devised to mean. — Wayfarer

In the past 100 years our knowledge of the universe has expanded by orders of magnitude. I find the notion of a multiverse intriguing - but I'm just an armchair physicist. However, much smarter people than I think it's worth looking into.

https://www.thescienceblog.net/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-the-theory-of-the-multiverse/

https://organicallyhuman.com/googles-quantum-multiverse-exists/

How do you determine what is best for other people that you have never met? Who gets to determine what is best for everyone? — Harry Hindu

Call me delusion. but I think the following things are pretty darn good for people that I have never met:

- having access to quality health care
- knowing that you will always have a roof over your head no matter how poor you are
- knowing that you will never go hungry,
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having the wrong religious or political beliefs
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having a tattoo
- etc

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people.

in America holocaust deniers are allowed to distribute their literature with little to no censorship, and as a result their ideas just aren’t taken seriously.

Unfortunately this is not accurate. https://forward.com/culture/705403/kanye-west-joe-rogan-darryl-cooper-elon-musk-antisemitism-bonanza/

Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. — Brendan Golledge

Talk about getting things ass-backwards. Leftists are trying (in their own inept way) to compensate for centuries of discrimination against women and minorities - imposed by the predecessors of MAGA.

They talk about saving the environment, and then burn electric cars. — Brendan Golledge

Who is this "they"? Millions of Americans are genuinely angry at Musk for destroying essential government programs that they rely on. A few disgruntled people are doing stupid shit. Leftists are still buying electric cars - just not Teslas.

Etc

I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order. I think "law" could be thought of as "consistent authority. It seems to me that MAGA are still waiting for other people (like Trump) to tell them what to do or to fix things, but at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it. — Brendan Golledge

Talk about getting things ass-backwards. MAGA is totally about power - about obeisance to Trump. Virtually everyone Republican who has disagreed with Trump has been ejected from the party - Cheney, Barr, etc

The fact that seemingly intelligent people (like yourself) buy into this upside down view of reality is a tragedy.

I still think that the only thing that's for sure is that something exists without cause in some mysterious fashion. It could be that impersonal laws of physics exist without cause. Or it could be that the laws themselves came from a being whose existence has no cause. Or reality could be circular (like somebody goes back in time to start the big bang). Or it could be some other option which we can not comprehend. — Brendan Golledge

To your list I would add the possibility that the universe has always existed and always will. But my personal choice is the last. I would phrase a bit differently tho: We have no idea what the f**k is going on - and may never will.

I can't find a specific quote, but my understanding is that Singer only supports infanticide in cases where the infant is severely disabled - e.g. spina bifida or anencephaly.

This position has encountered vocal opposition from the disabled community.

Arabs were undoubtedly in the land in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would just question the "indigenous" labeling. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah - now I get it. I wasn't sure how to phrase this. The history of this region is immensely complicated with many different threads (as with most history) - but there was a large number of people who had deep family and cultural roots in the geographic area that was called Palestine - these roots went back many hundreds of years. These people eventually called themselves Palestinians. So what phrase do you use to call these folks? I'm up for suggestions.

The word "Arab" is a generic term that refers to an ethnic identity and has nothing to do with a particular geographic location.

https://teachmideast.org/arab-middle-eastern-and-muslim-whats-the-difference/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_identity
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Arab

Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. — DifferentiatingEgg

I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. Yes there were some who espoused that, but these were fringe elements and had no real impact on events. We know from both internal correspondence and public statements that statehood was always the goal - and using "homeland" was a cover.

In any case, the indigenous Arab population (i.e. the Palestinians) were under no such illusions. The local population always opposed Jewish immigration even before Zionism was a thing. By WWI the anti-Zionism movement was highly organized (and sometimes violent) . The post WWI riots of 1920, 29, & 33 - the 36-39 revolt, etc, etc? Clearly these were not directed against an organization that was trying to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together.

As far as Chomsky goes I am in large agreement with his positions on world events, but he got this one wrong.

Perhaps you are familiar with this already, but here is some excellent material about pre-WWI events.

All that said, I have no doubt that this will not change your mind. I give you the last word.

get it from Zionist philosophers, not a 7 man swiss committee making propositions on land, — DifferentiatingEgg

There were over 200 delegates at the First Zionist Conference and the program waw adopted unanamously.

you'll notice none of the names I mentioned are even on that committee. — DifferentiatingEgg

Quite true - especially considering that Chomsky was born in 1928 - 30 years after these events. But even apart from this obvious goof on your part, these people were all wa-a-a-y outside the mainstream Zionist movement. I don't have the time or energy to bring you up to speed - but I'll leave it that the end goal of mainstream Zionism from the very start was colonization - the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't know where you get this notion, but it has no relationship with reality. Of course history is very complicated - and there were numerous variants of Zionism, but here is the basic outlines of the first Zionist Congress in 1897:

"The program set out the goals of the Zionist movement as follows:[5]

Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law.[6]
To achieve this goal, the Congress envisages the following means:

1. The expedient promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine.
2. The organization and bringing together of all Jews through local and general events, according to the laws of the various countries.
3. The strengthening of Jewish feeling and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps for obtaining the governmental approval which is necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose."

I’ve been following this thread with a combination of amusement and astonishment (with a bit of dread thrown in for good measure :roll: ). The technical details of the philosophical discussions are above my pay grade but the poems are astonishing. I don’t know if this is possible but I have a suggestion. Could you configure two different AIs to defend two different religions - say Christianity vs Islam - and have them engage in a debate over which is the true religion? Would be interesting/entertaining if one AI convinced the other that their choice of religion is correct.

We're just repeating ourselves here. I've given you 2 clear definitions and use cases of the words "true" & "false". You seemingly acknowledge what I'm saying then you go back and repeat your previous talking points.

So to repeat myself: "What is" is not true. "What is" is not truth. "What is" is not "the Truth". Etc. "What is" simply is. It is our sentences describing "what is" that are true or false.

If true refers to the property of sentences and propositions, isn't a true sentence "what is" while a false sentence is "what is not"? — Philosophim

Again - no! You keep equating our sentences with "what is". True sentences describe "what is" - they are not equivalent to "what is".

My challenge for you is to see if you can come up with a context of truth that doesn't contain 'what is' at its base, — Philosophim

Notice that you used the word "contain" - this is yet another poetic metaphor. A true sentence does not contain "what is" - it describes "what is".

Anyway, I'll give you the last word.