I define "evidence" in the broadcast possible way: a set of facts. I do believe that no complete set of facts actually entails teleology. I acknowledge there are facts which are consistent with teleology. However, those facts are also consistent with a naturalistic interpretation. For example, a balanced ecosystem is consistent with design, however it's also consistent with natural selection.If you don't see any evidence of Teleology, maybe you believe that random accidents are capable of causing complex organizations to arise without any prior tendencies in that direction. Even Spinoza, who equated God with Nature, saw evidence of teleological power*2 in the natural world. So, acknowledging Teleology in the Cosmos does not entail accepting the Biblical account that the purpose of humanity is to serve as slaves of God*3 — Gnomon
A cosmic mind has features that suggest design too, does it not? In particular: it contains knowledge: an organized set of facts. Furthermore, the existence of knowledge suggests learning and experience. So it seems to me these arguments from design are a special pleading: select some facts, ignore others, and uncritically accept the existence of an omniscient mind existing by brute fact- an intact set of organized knowledge that just happens to exist without being designed or even developed over time.A philosophical argument for Teleology is the Watchmaker notion that a universe capable of creating creatures capable of inferring intentions from actions is evidence of an intentional designing Cosmic Mind. — Gnomon
Sounds like a rationalization, not a argument.For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. — Gnomon
Do you read my posts? You just repeated something I have disputed at least twice before. I'm happy to answer any questions you have and respond to anything you think I'm wrong about. But I'm tired of repeating myself.I don't know about Craig. but the Kalam argument and Kant's critique were both ignorant of our modern notion of a specific origin of space-time (t=0), which has motivated Atheists to think of alternatives to that first tick of the clock. — Gnomon
The fact that the (human developed - and limited by our perspectives ) science of physics doesn't have explanations available for mental activity doesn't mean it is not actually grounded in the fundamental, actual, laws of nature.But if mental life is part of reality, and I’m sure you would agree it is, and physics doesn’t explain that, then there is an explanatory gap. — Wayfarer
I put myself in the shoes of a juror, examining the evidence (testimony is evidence, btw) and it's clear that the preponderance of evidence is in Carroll's favor. My conclusion is the same as the jurors. You are the outlier. You have given no indication you've weighed the evidence- you just parrot the defense case, and complain about the absence of DNA or video evidence- which is dumb. The case should be decided on the evidence presented at trial, not the absence of evidence you'd like to see.“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say. — NOS4A2
Trump's attorney tried a trick: he introduced Martin's text messages into the evidence, but when he cross-examined her, he didn't ask her to explain what she meant by "hasn't really happened". Instead, he pulled this rabbit out of his hat on closing, asserting this "proved" the 3 women conspired on a lie about Trump.Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None. — NOS4A2
Recordings of Trump, and the allegations by other of his victims, are relevant in establishing his character.Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings. — NOS4A2
I've never seen a physicist refer to a "brute fact", but Sean Carroll proposed a cosmological model that entails a finite past (he proposes that time is associated with thermodynamics). It entails an "uncaused first cause", although (AFAIK) he didn't assign this label.When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods. — Gnomon
Teleology pervades the Aristotelian paradigm (see this). We disagree on whether or not teleology exists, so I'm not going to concede a paradigm that assumes it exists.Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile: — Gnomon
Sorry, Dr. Google, but this is not strictly correct. In his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig does not depend exclusively on the assumption the big bang is the beginning of material existence; he simply argues that the past is finite and that it is THIS that entails an uncaused first cause.In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; t — Gnomon
A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. — Gnomon
Wrong again, Dr. Google. Cosmologists have proposed a number of hypotheses that proposes causes of the "big bang" from prior states. I mentioned two above, but there are a number of others.According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, — Gnomon
This omits the basis of the notion that there was a "single incredibly dense point": General Relativity. Virtually all cosmologists recognize that GR breaks down, and becomes inapplicable somewhere around the time of the inflationary period. Most believe a quantum theory of gravity is needed to understand this.While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. — Gnomon
I've said from the beginning that a God is logically possible. My contention is that it is implausible. It seems a pretty huge assumption to make, if you wish to convince anyone. Nevertheless, if you are a theist (for whatever reason), it's reasonable to embrace a theistic metaphysics. I've read a couple of Ed Feser's books on Thomist metaphysics, and it seems coherent (although unpersuasive to non-theists).Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge. — Relativist
Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. — Gnomon
And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:
“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."
“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."
This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right. — NOS4A2
You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. — NOS4A2
You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise. — NOS4A2
It explains more about reality than does anything else, and in a way that is directed toward truth. I grant that it doesn't explain mental life.physics does not 'explain reality — Wayfarer
That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity.Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. — Gnomon
Jeez, I've explained this twice before to you. An initial state doesn't mean "popping into existence". Popping into existence implies there is something (existence) into which it could pop, and that there was an earlier state at which it did not exist. "Initial state" means exactly what it says: there is no earlier time at which it didn't exist.So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago — Gnomon
Right. It should make sense to no one. An initial state does not mean "something from nothing". We discussed this, and you seemed to agree.the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists... — Gnomon
As I said, the "singularity" is mathematical, not ontological. It means it is beyond the predictive power of general relativity. That's precisely why earlier times are unknowns. At no time have I claimed the big bang represents the beginning of existence. It's possible that the initial state was around that time, but that's pure guesswork. It's also irrelevant to my position....dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? — Gnomon
Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"?Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words — Gnomon
An initial state is not an event. Events occur in time: there is a time prior to the event.Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. — Gnomon
Yep, that's what cosmological arguments purport to do, but they convince no one because they depend on ad hoc metaphysical assumptions, including the plausibility of an unembodied mind, and that it contains magical knowledge (e.g. knowledge of a design plan.The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely. — Gnomon
It's an outdated paradigm. The nature of reality is better explained by modern physics.In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity: — Gnomon
Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge.Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain — Gnomon
My belief is based on reasoning from conceptual analysis, in the manner of most metaphysicians.As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact.
— Relativist
Is that "belief" based on reasoning from evidence, or just accepted for no particular reason, other than to allow "brute fact" to arbitrarily take the place of transcendental pre-time (eternity/infinity) and intentional causation? :chin: — Gnomon
"Self caused" seems unintelligible. It is UNcaused.If the First Cause is "not contingent", that means it is self-existent or self-caused, yes? — Gnomon
Yes, a first cause is consistent with a "creator god" -- but it doesn't entail a creator God.So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity.
I doubt it. I didn't arrive at it this way, and Hawking was a poor philosopher.Is your "natural state of affairs" the same natural laws that Hawking assumed existed eternally before space-time Nature even began with a Bang? — Gnomon
I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state.Are you saying that your deterministic First Cause possessed the power of Determination, including the laws of nature? — Gnomon
As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent".Or are you saying that the cause of this complex world is a Brute Accident? Fortuna was the Roman goddess of dumb Luck. If so, she has been on a statistically impossible streak of Gambler's Luck for 14B years. — Gnomon
Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you. — NOS4A2
ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. — NOS4A2
No, the most important crime was sexual assault, which is criminal. The fact that the statute of limitations had expired doesn't erase the fact that he committed the crime. It's true that the guilt finding was based on the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The implication: at minimum, this establishes that it's more likely than not that he committed the crime.Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal.
Repeating Canon's ruling a million times doesn't make it either authoritative or binding, or relevant to his guilt. You love to obsess on red herrings.You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. — NOS4A2
He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.There is no law against contesting an election. — NOS4A2
The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife. Trump also lied when he publicly denied ever having met Carroll.What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault? — NOS4A2
The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism. — NOS4A2
So...you don't care if Trump engaged in fraud. I didn't think you did, but wanted you to admit it. You used to care a bit, when you denied that Trump lied (knowingly told a falsehood). Now that I backed you into a corner, you don't care at all (ROFLMAO!)I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. — NOS4A2
The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism.
The repository includes court filings by the prosecution, the defence, and court rulings.Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore. — NOS4A2
You're reaching. One lone district judge claimed an AG cannot appoint a special counsel, a judge who's pro-Trump rulings have been overturned on appeal on multiple occasions. Appellate Courts (in OTHER districts) have ruled that AGs indeed have the authority. AGs have been appointing special counsels for decades, so Garland was clearly not acting in a rogue manner.He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime. — NOS4A2
Thanks for proving my point that Trumpists are unaware of the facts. In the unlikely event you are interested in exploring the facts, here's good starting points:What crime did Trump commit again?
An actual jury is forced to review all the evidence. Few (if any) Trump voters actually considered the evidence against Trump. NOS4A2 is a good example of this: he avoids considering the evidence against Trump, and just regurgitates what the criminal himself says about the prosecutions.But NOS4A2 right. The American people had all the evidence in front of them and they didn't care about it. Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman. — RogueAI
As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact.Do you have a better idea --- sans intention --- to explain the existence of our spacetime universe, gradually being deconstructed by Entropy, yet populated by highly-evolved beings who question their origins? — Gnomon
Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. Why think this unknown state of affairs is a mind and that it acts intentionally? Labelling it "mind" suggests it has some minimum set of properties common to all minds what are these?How do you account for your "world-causing mind" having the ability to design a complex universe that will produce life over the course of billions of years? Did it acquire knowledge by trial and error, and reasoning?
— Relativist
The default religious answer is Omniscience. But I don't pontificate beyond the bare facts of an inexplicable beginning. Everything else is amateur speculation. And your guess is as good as mine. But, of course, I prefer mine. — Gnomon
Your "enformy" is based on the false premise that entropy is a measure of disorder. From the paper I linked:The development of complexity over time is consistent with statistical thermodynamics. See this.
— Relativist
I agree. But only if you include in the statistical analysis a complementary principle (law?) to counteract the destructive effects associated with Entropy. My name for that constructive principle is Enformy. :nerd: — Gnomon
Nope. There may, or may not, be a multiverse. Either way, it has no relevance to anything I've said. Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the term "this universe". I just meant the actual universe, as opposed to any non-actual, possible universes (where the possibilities are due to the instances of quantum indeterminacy in our history).Apparently, since you "don't know" the cause of the beginning, the "speculative" Multiverse hypothesis --- "infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps" --- must be just an article of faith for you — Gnomon
Yes, of course. We form intentions and act upon them. This ability emerged through evolution- there's clearly a survival value.Do you act with Intention? If so, how do you think that ability to foresee the future emerged from nothing but random fluctuations? — Gnomon
A Japanese Cosmologist has estimated the probability that a self-replicating molecule could have formed by pure chance. See this. The probability is low in any given instance, but the larger the universe is, the more likely it would occur at least once. And this is a worst case scenario. This is sufficient to start evolution.Yes. We no longer debate the evidence for "gradual development", just take it for granted. What we do debate is how that process began : by accident or by design? If you don't see evidence of Design in the world, then your definition of "design" may be different from mine. In college, I participated in a Design by Accident exercise, and the lesson learned was that the result of accidents is Chaos instead of Cosmos. — Gnomon
How could a mind intentionally create a universe that would lead to life, unless it could somehow figure out how the universe would evolve? This seems to require considerable knowledge. How could it even work things out in the absence of time?I make no assertions about a "complex mind". Instead, the world-causing mind is assumed to be Simple in the sense of unitary, yet with enormous Potential. — Gnomon
Define "power". Certainly, the inflationary period was a low entropy/high energy state.Moreover, it is obvious that the Cause of the Big Bang possessed "enormous power". Regarding the notion of "uncaused first cause", perhaps we should just say "eternal Cause". Which would apply to a God or a Multiverse. — Gnomon
Neither position can be proved deductively, but it's reasonable to draw an inference to best explanation.If you prefer to think that random rolling of dice produced our lawful and orderly world, I can't prove otherwise. But you can't prove that the initial conditions (like computer settings) just happened without intention.
I hope you don't rely on this false dichotomy to make your case. As discussed before, finite past does not entail "popping into existence". If you agree the past is finite, then you should agree that the initial state exists as necessary brute fact (unless you make some addition hoc assumption that exempts a "god" from being a brute fact). The question is: which is the more plausible brute fact?I'm not competent to judge the statistical improbability of a universe popping into existence, — Gnomon
Are you making an argument from non-aurhority? Penrose is a physicist, not a metaphysician. He seems to be treating life as as objectively special, which strikes me as chauvinism. Life, especially intelligent life, is important to us. That doesn't imply it is objectively important. Objectively, it is a type of object. This universe (the one that we know exists) happens to have produced types of objects that we label as "living". You and Penrose seem to be treating this type of object in a privileged way. I get it, that this is the nature of religion: that we are special to God.Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity. :cool: — Gnomon
Are you suggesting the world came from nothing? This would entail a temporally prior state of nothingness, which is metaphysically impossible.the Ontological contingency of the whole world --- something from nothing --- would be a priori instead of a posteriori. — Gnomon
My probability estimate is based on a finite past with a large number of contingent events having occurred during the course of its existence, due to quantum indeterminacy. Quantum collapse is statistical - there is a finite probability associated with the outcome of each collapse, and it is therefore calculable, in principle - actual numerical probability applies.Your probability estimate*2 would be plausible if the universe was eternal and exists (just happens to be) without any reason or cause — Gnomon
You're assuming the Big Bang was the beginning of material reality. I don't think many cosmologists would agree with you on that. We simply don't know what preceded it. I believe the past is finite for philosophical reasons: it would imply a completed process of infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps.You said "first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality". That's true, the Big Bang could have been a cosmically destructive explosion, instead of the creative beginning of a world of living and thinking creatures. But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. — Gnomon
So...you think it MORE probable that a intentional being (with enormous power and an enormously complex mind) that happens to exist uncaused is MORE probable than the gradual development of beings with small power and limited intellect over the course of billions of years in an enormous universe! (fully consistent with entropy, as described in statistical thermodynamics)?But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. :smile: — Gnomon
When you said:" the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9"That doesn't follow for the simple fact that there is almost no cheating in lotteries despite the existence of lottery designers. The designers want the games to be fair and so they are. — RogueAI
What is x and H in your equation? — RogueAI
In Bayesian terms, the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9 — RogueAI
Yes, I'm discussing ontology- specifically the ontology of contingency. What accounts for contingency in the world? Classical physics is deterministic- there's no real contingency. Quantum mechanics entails indeterminacy, and this accounts for contingency in the world. Is that Feynman's basis for his analysis?Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of anomalous.
... When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?. — Gnomon
Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.
"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction. — Gnomon
Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form.If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth. — Corvus
If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid.If you accept God itself is a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then it is not a contradiction. In the world of God itself under this definition, even contradiction is truth. — Corvus
They don't understand economic policies and their effects. They blame Biden for the inflation of the past few years (not the global supply chain problems that COVID produced), simply because he was in office, so it follows that this can't happen with their hero in office.What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation. — ssu
I'm not aware that I omitted any relevant facts that I haven't dealt with in prior discussions with you. On the other hand, you're repeating claims I've previously refuted, and have failed to address the crimes by Trump that I brought up: obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation (I specifically pointed to Manafort) obstruction of justice regarding the lawful search warrant for classified docs, and election fraud. I've asked you at least 4 times to Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what? Make the case for your choice. I also asked you to back up your claim, that in his call to Raffensberger, Trump was simply asking for fraud claims to be investigated. Find quotes of Trump that show this.Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. — NOS4A2
You evaded the point I made: volume 2 unequivocally shows that Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation. No refutation is possible. You claim "everyone lied", which is false. The Mueller investigation was impeccable. You change the subject because you aren't willing to deal with the fact of Trump's crimes.However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. — NOS4A2
You're making a desperate attempt to rationalize ignoring Trump's crimes. You're wrong: Durham agreed that an investigation was warranted. He merely opined that it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation.It's a minor difference. FBI would still have uncovered the same set of facts, and a full investigation would have been opened eventually - because crimes had definitely been committed.But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place
Errors were made, but only one process crime was identified in Crossfire Hurricane. The "Clinton plan" was an invention of the Russians (I detailed this the last time you and I discussed it. As usual, you stop replying to an issue when backed into a corner)....or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.
It was unquestionably illegal, and even John Eastman (who was pushing for it) acknowledged that the Supreme Court would rule it illegal if it came to them. The changes to the electoral count act simply added language to make it explicit, thus preventing a future lawyer like Eastman from pushing it. (Eastman was disbarred for his role, and is under indictment. Trump is likely to pardon him from the federal crimes, but that won't erase the fact that he committed crimes).You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016. — NOS4A2
Barr chose to protect Trump from prosecution. That doesn't imply Trump didn't commit the acts. As I said, read Mueller volume 2 - the evidence is strong. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors agreed the evidence was more than enough for an indictment. Would he be convicted if there were a trial? We can only judge based on the available evidence, and there is zero exculpatory evidence - so there is no basis to assume otherwise. But criminal prosecution is off the table, so it's moot. That doesn't make his acts moot. They reflect on his low character, and flouting the law ; it demonstrates he's unfit to serve as President..He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime. — NOS4A2
The Supreme Court, in US v Nixon accepted the appointment of special counsels, and such appointments have been made for decades. Canon's novel ruling treating SCOTUS language on this as dicta (non-binding). It's likely her ruling would be overturned by SCOTUS if it were to get to them. It's not disputed that an AG can hire staff and delegate investigative and prosecutorial authority. Had Garland hired Smith at 10:00AM, and then at 10:01AM appointed him to his investigative/prosecutorial role, there would have been no basis to claim it unconstitutional. It's absurd to think such a sequence is necessary. But this is all beside the point, because it has zero bearing on the merits of the case (from a legal standpoint) and certainly no bearing on the criminality of the acts Trump committed - again, it shows his character and tendency to flout the law.Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing. — NOS4A2
The article says,Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/ — NOS4A2
I did. I have never claimed the one statement ("I want you to find 1170 votes...") necessarily implied a crime. Rather, I'm refuting the claim you made that Trump was merely calling to encourage them to investigate. Nowhere in the transcript does Trump say this. He was pressuring them to change the result, and ignoring the fact that Georgia officials had already conducted investigations, and DOJ staff had also reviewed it. So your claim suggests you are the one who didn't read it, and you also seem ignorant of the broader context.As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes. — NOS4A2
You read my posts as carelessly as you read the Raffensberger transcript. I've repeatedly challenged you to read Mueller volume 2 and make a case for Trump being innocent of obstruction with regard to Manafort. You refuse.All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, — NOS4A2