I've been trying to complement that map, thinking about if there are other parameters.
Right now it's pretty solid in showing the collective, the individual ruler and their levels of having a state. But can we go in another direction? Just like a square becomes a cube with more dimensions, is there room for other variants of a political system that no one is really thinking about and do not fit the coordinates present at this time?

As per the map above.

While biological sex and gender identity are the same for most people, this isn't the case for everyone. For example, some people may have the anatomy of a man, but identify themselves as a woman, while others may not feel they're definitively either male or female. — NHS

I'm a bit confused by how this isn't obvious for everyone. Gender identity science is a real thing, there are tons to read about it, but I think people just ignore it because of their emotional response to the science. In essence; even at a philosophical forum people can't seem to separate their preprogrammed culture and lash out with every bias and fallacy there is.

What I find more interesting, as I don't see how the definitions can be disputed really, is why? Why does some children go through this? Is it nature or nurture? Is it a combination, like most things in psychology? More importantly, how does gender stereotypes in society and also, the active force against those stereotypes play into the nurture of kids? Where is the balance between upholding differences between genders and fighting stereotypes that influence destructive behavior on both the sense of identity and social interactions later in life?

There was already a tunnel under a segment of the wall. I think that says it all. It's a waste of money and resources.

And in what way would it help the situation? Prevent what? If people move over the border and won't get proper help to integrate into society, they will feed the socioeconomic problems with poverty etc.

What if the cost of the wall would be put on better relations with neighboring countries, with better help of integration for immigrants coming into the country? Problems by immigrated people do not come from them being "different", that is in essence racism. The problems come out of their socioeconomic situation and the lack of integration. It raises tribalism, segregation and hate within society and the consequences can be felt for decades after.

Name one country that has increased long term stability with force and locking borders in the past?
Name one country that has increased instability because of force and locking borders?

Communism has failed because of corruption both of the state and the ideas, it's not about scale.
Anarchy, however, cannot work because how we humans act in groups. Groups larger than 12 starts to break apart based on the nature of how our psychology works. We need structure to follow in order for larger groups to work.

You can also have anarchy under rules, close to the ideals of Ayn Rand. That we have rules and systems invented to be followed by lesser people and those who have the ability to control and prosper do so at their own will. This is pretty much the foundation of Cyberpunk dystopias in which corporations have taken over society and they control the rules and laws applied.

Essentially we have four corners of extreme political ideas on the


Meaning we have communism in the upper left, and upper right we have an autocracy, single ruler (dictatorship) both with low freedom because of the totalitarian rule. In the lower corners are total freedom, but based on community or individualism. So the normal view on Anarchy is still that you work together as a community, but you do not have rulers, the problem arises through tribalistic behavior between groups. And the bottom right is individual rule, in which you can become your own ruler if you have the power to do so.

Is anyone "better" than anyone?

If a person strives for the well-being of others and the self, combined; While holding knowledge and the pursuit for truth higher than the sum of their social projections and interactions - I would call that person better than those who do not strive for this.

To be better than someone else in a specific topic, a contest etc. is irrelevant, superficial and an illusion. To "win", or be "better than someone else" at something can lead to master/slave-situations where the better one get comfortable within their own confidence and the one who lost, grows by overcoming weaknesses and learn to combine new knowledge with a confidence that is more balanced and nuanced. There are no winners and losers in the end, no one is better than anyone else because identity and performance always flow and change.

To be better needs to be based on axioms of the human condition. What defines us, like: knowledge, emotions, communication. We can make people feel better, we can do it while at the same time maximizing that positivity within ourselves as well. We can strive to know more, gain knowledge in order to understand the complexities of life, we can value truth over what is comforting for our ego. It's hard to position the axis of these things under more complexity than good or bad about the human condition; Knowledge or no knowledge? There's no positive value in no knowledge. Truth or no truth? There's no positive value in no truth. Well-being or harm? There's no positive value in harm.

If we combine the axioms into a map over the human condition, we can more easily see what is good and bad within being human and striving for good, which in turn shows which someone is better than someone else. The key here is not to "be good", because that's undefinable and relies on a causality measurement that is far too complex for anyone to calculate in their day to day life for every choice they make. But striving for these axioms is pretty much guaranteed to make you a better person, ignoring them pretty much guarantees you to be a worse person.

no GA says entanglement can not happen, and it does, GA is wrong on this issue.

but no worries carry on — Rank Amateur

If you knew why they don't work together you would have already created a unification theory. Both have been proven to work, it's bridging between them into an over-arching theory that hasn't been solved. I suggest you read more about them. That one of them says the other is wrong is the problem, not the nature of the physics.

ok - how about Quantum entanglement which is in direct conflict with GR. Quantum entanglement is real, has been predicted, and experimentally verified. Quantum entanglement is in direct conflict with GR. When it comes to Quantum entanglement - GR is wrong. — Rank Amateur

Both are real, it's why they are trying to reach a unification theory, not a replacement theory.

Which was one of my points...

there might be some theories from before Russel's falsification times that was named scientific theories but didn't really go through the correct procedures, but most done from the enlightenment period and forward has been very strictly tested out and named according to the terminology. — Christoffer

Copernican heliocentrism was published in 1543. Since we now have a system that strictly governs scientific work, the methodology cannot break scientific theories.

think you are missing the point. Not making a disparaging statement about science. Just making the point that much of what any particular generation believes to be a scientific truth, is often shown to be false or incomplete by future generations. Newton gives way to Eisenstein who gives way to Planck who will give way to somebody else at some point. — Rank Amateur

But neither of them disproves previous scientific truths as being false, this is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is compared to a "normal" theory. They might be incomplete, but they build on top of them without changing the facts established. You cannot prove Einstein wrong, you can only add to the theory.

If you prove a scientific theory wrong, it would mean that you falsified it and that happens way before it gets to be called a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the highest form within science, it means it's proved and predicts the behavior of future tests.

String theory, for example, is badly named theory, when it's rather a hypothesis. Higgs boson and Higgs field were also hypotheses which became a scientific theory after LHC verified the particle. You cannot disprove the particle and behavior of a Higgs particle, because it's established fact that it exists and behaves as it does. You can only provide further theories that prove these particles into a new theory which does not erase the existence of the particle or its behavior. The scientific process through this also focuses other fields, so now that the Higgs properties of quantum physics is proved, it means that scientists need to include Higgs in current hypotheses like with the work of a possible unification theory.

Scientific theories have never been proven false or changed because of new theories. Hypotheses do, because those are educated guesses based on established facts but has no truth in them until proven. If you disprove a scientific theory it means a serious screw up by the scientific community on all levels through peer reviews to verification, falsifications and duplication tests.

Sure, there might be some theories from before Russel's falsification times that was named scientific theories but didn't really go through the correct procedures, but most done from the enlightenment period and forward has been very strictly tested out and named according to the terminology.

This is why I think there is so much confusion on this forum because people treat scientific theories as "just theories" which they are never in the scientific world.

Are you essentially saying that when getting rid of "God" in the terminology, there is nothing that could be called artificial, since each artificial result is the result of what is essentially natural?

That a car is essentially natural since it was made by machines, which were made by man, which designed the car, using computer simulations designed and invented by man.

But can we distinguish things as artificial and natural by the initial state as "active thought"? That a car cannot be evolved as a natural thing in nature and might possibly never be without the active thought of making something like a car? So by thinking, we create something that isn't part of natures automatic causality, but controlled? Like I described "controlled evolution" above.

In that sense, artificial can be negative to natural in order to have a terminology outside of concepts like God.

However, the only attribute that seems achievable is omniscience and, thereof, omnipotence. — TheMadFool

Of course, I think that we become more "godlike" than by defining ourselves as Gods by the normal definition we use for "God". We also become a pantheon if we are a civilization, but we might also merge every mind into a collective, so it might be a singularity of knowledge that is hard to comprehend by us today.

What about ommibenevolence? Will omniscience lead to ommibenevolence? Knowledge does seem to make us better people. Many tough moral problems would dissolve into crystal clarity and we could achieve it it seems. — TheMadFool

Which is an interesting sub-question. If knowing all makes us understand all the consequences of every action, how can we ever make a choice that is bad? And if all make choices based on knowing everything, everyone would know if someone makes a choice that is bad and can, therefore, correct it.

I think the movie Interstellar makes a good example of my argument.

In what other way can we make sense of N? — TheMadFool

N is in concepts outside of math, the equivalent of zero.

In terms of space; if you add four walls, one floor, and one ceiling you get previously defined objects stacked on top of each other. You need to add N to these six objects in order for it to be defined as a room. The space, N, between them all is the added property for the concept of a room. Just like you add a zero to a one in order for it to be ten.

And in math, there are many definitions and calculations around infinity and just like infinity can be calculated in many ways, so could N, which is the opposite of infinity.

Then we could add how we would define the heat death of the universe. When all energy has reached its conclusion, it can no longer be defined through either M or P, it is neither of them and therefore N. It could then be used to describe the end of P and M. However, the twist to this is that the heat death is true because energy reached infinitely low values. So N is both the opposite of infinity and is infinity in this case.

I reject existence of artificial processes, that are somehow separate from natural processes. — Hrvoje

How do you define controlled evolution then? It is not supernatural and not programmed by any other, but ourselves. Controlled evolution is going to be a thing moving forward. Both in genetics and in cybernetics, so that would apply "artificial" to the terminology of "selection".

The explanandum of a cosmological argument is not the sum of the physical features of the first cause. — SophistiCat

At this point I recommend that you actually take a closer look at these arguments, because I get an impression that you have a very vague idea of what they are saying. — SophistiCat

The explanandum of the argument just refers to the first cause...

I don't know which examples of cosmological arguments you have in mind, but the ones I am familiar with mainly trade on the one feature of the first cause that cannot be denied (short of denying the existence of the first cause): it's being first, uncaused cause. This is what's supposed to make it metaphysically special, elevating it above any natural cause that we know or can hypothesize. Everything else that is said about that first cause more-or-less flows from that. — SophistiCat

...and the explanans of those arguments aren't deductive or even inductive, they are merely wishful thinking by those using the argument to prove the existence of God.

The first cause cannot be addressed as God by the common definitions of God. It can only be what it is by the argument. It is also impossible to conclude that it will never be observed or explained within a scientific theory, that is an assumption about science that requires future knowledge of what science can and cannot explain.

Defining science by our understanding of science today is limiting when predicting possibilities of what science can explain and do in the future. This is what my argument is about, that if we try and view the progress of scientific understanding in a logical way, there is a logical possibility of the progress reaching a form of a singularity of understanding.

But such a resolution could hardly be expected from science. Science tells us what is (the brute fact), not what must be. Only logic or metaphysics can claim to do the latter. — SophistiCat

That is actually not true (you can also see the video above). A scientific theory has predictions to be tested and verified. Those predictions predict what must be. When Einstein did his general relativity theory, it predicted bending light around the gravity of the sun. The theory predicted it because the theory is a scientific theory, not "just a theory" to reference the video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919

the actual history of science is a very long line of succeeding theories - each proving the last one false, incomplete or seriously flawed. — Rank Amateur

Only theories that didn't face proper verification and falsification (even before the term was invented) were able to be considered false. Generally, scientific theories do not really end up considered "false". A theory is a proven fact about something, even if the theory appears false by new evidence, the theory has still been proven and observations are true. When new theories come up, they are applied in synthesis with other theories.

Here's a good video on the matter:

All the knowledge that "is" has always been ours, hasn't it? Who else possessed knowledge? Even when we thought that the world was made of fire, water, earth, and air, and that we were the center of the cosmos, all that knowledge was all ours. Our knowledge is much greater now than it was 2500 years ago. It is greater than it was 25 years ago. — Bitter Crank

How do we know there aren't other sentient beings in the universe that possess other knowledge? And isn't this a bit semantic? "All knowledge" is referring to knowledge of all things. Maybe need to rephrase in the argument, but that's the pragmatic meaning.

It seems like we have already evolved into a 'new kind of being'. We have been 'homo sapiens' for what... 2, 3, 400,000 years, but our evolution either took a turn, or maybe it just finally paid off, somewhere around 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. (It depends on what one uses as a sign of major advance -- cave paintings or agriculture or writing.) The last 300 years (Age of Enlightenment) is perhaps another turning point. — Bitter Crank

I'm speaking of the self-controlled evolution through the consequence of knowing all things. If we know everything, we would likely be able to control everything and that is what would make us godlike.

Godhood is generally a true diagnostic test for first-class hubris. We have quite a ways to go before we will be all-knowing, everywhere present, and omnipotent. — Bitter Crank

I'm not referring to the usual omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent type of God, but godlike. And I am speaking of the consequence of the evolution of our species into the future, not who we are right now or what our potential today is. The argument is about the logical development of humanity if not stopped by things like mass-extinction events.

My personal view -- and it is neither original nor mine alone -- is that we invented the gods. — Bitter Crank

Mine too, I'm not arguing for the existence of God with some convoluted logic, I'm talking about humanity become "godlike" if we reach the level of evolution or controlled evolution when we know all about the universe.

Gods in our culture right now, are very much invented. There are enough anthropological, historical and psychological results to back that claim up.

What has this to do with what we are discussing? Nothing! — Dfpolis

It has everything to do with this. It has been pretty clear that we've been discussing proving God's existence and to do that you need to apply scientific facts and theories. If there are none, you can't prove anything with a logic that then has assumptions slapped on top of the conclusions.

You continue to wander in the wilderness of self-imposed confusion. My meta-law argument is based on the laws of nature studied by physics, but you do not realize that because you are not open enough to even read a proof.

I am tied of wasting my time on someone who refuses to make any effort to inform themselves. — Dfpolis

I'm unable to see your proof within published scientific papers. Can you link to publications in which your "proof" has been peer reviewed?

At the moment you are doing an appeal to authority fallacy, with the authority being yourself. And as I said, if you base your argument on physics, your proof need to have gone through a peer review, verification and falsification process before it can be considered proof for anything.

It's easy to write a book and refer to it as proof, it's an entirely different beast to have actual proof that can survive verification and falsification through peer reviews. You need to step down from that high horse and realize this fact. But if you have links to your scientific publications, go ahead and link them, please.

Or else you are just doing pseudoscience and that's it.

No, no, and no. Before you object, consider the form of your questions. — tim wood

I don't think those questions are asked in any problematic way, those were questions to you, not an argument. By saying "no", you are actually disagreeing with psychology, how people influence behavior and others intentionally and unintentionally. So saying no is a bit irrelevant, since the premise which this connects to has support and isn't up for an opinion on the matter. This is why I think some criticism doesn't really work since many seem to disagree out of opinion and not the actual premise.

"I would characterize." Indeed you would, and you did. Without finding out what it was you were characterizing. — tim wood

According to whom? I said I have a clear and unassailable understanding of God, which just might be of interest to some people, but you just blew right by it. — tim wood

Really? However I define God? — tim wood

An exercise for you. What could God be, that in it's being is unassailable as being. That is, my claim counters yours. Either I'm a complete wackdoodle, or you have some thinking to do. — tim wood

The problem with all of this is that people invent personal interpretations of the term "God" and use that to counter any type of use of the term "God" within an argument. So to propose that no one can use standard definitions of the term, the definitions that are common within language, you can claim truth to any argument and distort the actual communication that is established. Like using the ontological argument to reach the first cause of causality, in which people claim the first cause to be God by using a distorted definition of the term as it is used commonly.

It's like me saying that a table is not a table for me, I define a table as a fire extinguisher so if someone is trying to convince me that a regular table as everyone else defines it is a normal table I will dispute that it isn't because of my own interpretation of language.

This would mean that any defined things in language cannot be used in arguments since people can dispute them by redefining words as they seem fit.

"God" as defined in common language, refers to a sentient entity, spiritual or similar, which is responsible for the creation of the universe.

That is the common definition in our language. If you define God as say a teapot, it doesn't matter for the premise. Because if, within the ontological argument, the first cause is an inter-dimensional rock of a specific material that caused the Big Bang it's not God, it's an inter-dimensional rock of a specific material. So, if we, through science, solve what was before Big Bang and it turns out that it is just an inter-dimensional rock that caused everything, no one would call that rock "God", even if everyone before it, who agreed with the ontological argument proving God's existence, called it that. All those people would then change their focus onto something else where there is no evidence at the time, and call that "mystery", God.

What I mean by this is that it becomes irrational to have such a wide definition of God since you would change what it is based on the situation. When the inter-dimensional rock is proved, the first cause is no longer "God for all those who wanted to prove the existence of God through those arguments.

So in the premise, to use "God" is through the standard definition. If you have the opinion that "God" is a fire extinguisher in order to dispute the premise, that is a bit absurd.

I also find your strict definition of how a premise should be written in an inductive argument to be not only limiting but not really correct either. Not every premise in every argument needs to be formulated like a modus ponens. I might need to rephrase them to better make their points, but as with the questions I asked above, which you answered "no" on, the truth of them doesn't come out of opinion, but out of truth in psychology research, so the premise of behavior influencing others is based on scientific logic, so if disputed you need to dispute the results in psychology. The premise is true.

Consider these definitions:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

Inductive arguments can take very wide-ranging forms. Some have the form of making a claim about a population or set based only on information from a sample of that population, a subset. Other inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence, or authority, or causal relationships. There are other forms.

So the problem you have with the argument seems to be that you have your own definition of the term "God" and that the first premise doesn't apply to your own definition?

This is a little out of control - maybe more than a little. — tim wood

See past that, I relate to the argument I made as I ended that segment with that it's not an attack.

1) a premise in an argument is or should be a simple statement of the form all/some/no P is/is not Q. It may take work to get it into this form, but good arguments are work - any other kind of argument is a waste of time. — tim wood

Yes, it's work and that is what I'm doing, therefore I've modified it since the first post was written, according to the objections. This is part of a larger moral ethics piece I'm working on.

But as most arguments aren't really deductive, isn't this an inductive argument? Isn't "all/some/no P is/is not Q" strictly for deductive forms? Even if it is, also used in inductive arguments?

2) "personal belief is an illusion of keeping belief to yourself": apparently you have a problem with personal belief. Um, your problem, that's a personal belief, yes? — tim wood

• Do you agree that personal belief is unable to be contained as it influences both how you communicate and how you behave?
• Do you agree that eventually, your personal belief will influence others around you and/or even be communicated as an idea to others?
• Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a belief is rational or irrational, it still follows the above two points?

What is your conclusion on personal belief based on these three points?

I made a claim about my idea of God. Without having even a remote idea of what I mean, you projected your own critical notions on it. — tim wood

I would categorize a belief in God to be irrational, type A, since it does not have rational or evidential support, i.e unsupported belief. Since God hasn't been able to be proven, no one can claim it to be proven. If personal belief is that God is proven through a personal logic that cannot be applied outside your subjective reasoning, it is not supported belief, it is an irrational belief.

How is this a personal opinion on it? Personal logic doesn't apply to outside logic. The logic is, God hasn't been proven to exist, personal belief in God and any personal reasoning about it is strictly subjective and therefore is personal belief unsupported by external rationality and evidence.

This isn't about proving Gods existence, it's about defining personal belief that is either unsupported or supported, rational or irrational.

And this is a great problem with discussions about God: that people do not know what they themselves are thinking when they talk about God , but they suppose they do, and they add to that, that they suppose they know what someone else is talking about or thinking when that other is talking about God. Both make the same set of mistakes. The only outcome of a discussion between two such people is nonsense. — tim wood

I agree and I think I need to revise the first premise in some way to include a better definition, I'm of course working on this. But is God a teapot? Is it an ocaen beach? Is it my neighbor? The purest definition of God in language is, of course, neither of these but a sentient entity that is responsible for creating the universe, the world, and man. We can of course use dictionary definitions as well, which doesn't really change my argument: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

However you define "God" it is still based on an unsupported, irrational personal belief about something not proven to exist. If your personal definition of God is your neighbor and that you rationalize like this: My neighbor is God, My neighbor can be observed to exist, therefore my neighbor exist and since my neighbor is God, God exists. However, this isn't how language defines "God". Using the possibly infinite, personal interpretations of words as a defense against the first premise seems, therefore, like a form of circular counter-argument, because if anything can be defined as anything, then we cannot form any communication or understanding of anything when changing definitions always alter everything, even arguing that definitions alter arguments.

The only outcome of a discussion between two such people is nonsense. — tim wood

How do you define God? (not proving, but how do you define God)

So far, to my way of thinking, you're expressing some opinions and trying to make an argument from them - but it cannot be a good argument until you can write your first good premise. — tim wood

I think the problem with the premise is that it rubs religious people the wrong way and forming all sorts of defense mechanisms against the God-premises. The argument is about belief, any sort, religious and otherwise and the conclusion is not about proving Gods existence or not, which some seem to believe. However, there's no evidence for a God, if there was, why hasn't society accepted it? Because some doesn't accept the evidence? What evidence? In order to actually counter argue that first premise, you need to show that it is false, i.e that God exists and therefore it is false. If the premise is false because of interpretations of God is almost infinite, then how can anyone prove the existence of God when no one can define a definition of God in language? It seems to me that the first premise is true because for it to be false, the existence must be proved first and if proven only by personal logic and not external, it doesn't make the premise invalid.

Maybe it's formulated wrong, but the point of the premise isn't really false.

Clear enough: you apparently define "God" in way that serves your argument. Now it's up to you to offer some rigorous definition. In particular, I believe in God, and it (my belief) is well supported by both evidence and rational deduction; beyond that, my belief is unassailable by either doubt or rational argument. To be sure, though, there are lots of people who prefer the supernatural God supported by irrational beliefs. Do you begin to see your problem? — tim wood

In case of premise 1, I might need to add the definition of the classical concept of God through Christian theology or theology in general. Maybe even add a new premise to generalize irrational belief.

The point is that there isn't a conclusion that can be supported by any evidence or rational argument. I've seen many trying on this forum and throughout history, but they do not apply with real-world science in mind and they always jump from their logical conclusion to an assumption instead of ending at the actual conclusion. I.e God is the unmoved mover, which is an assumption about the unmoved mover, which could just be a very high dimensional rock since we don't know anything about events before Big Bang.

You see what I mean here? The argument is about irrational belief which distorts reality for the self and others, intentionally or unintentionally since personal belief is an illusion of keeping belief to yourself. Your writing now is an example of this, in which you point to a personal belief and in writing it out you are projecting this personal belief into the mind of others. If someone reads what you write and this influence their concept of reality you have unintentionally pushed a belief that has no support in evidence or rational arguments (a personal concept of evidence or rationality is not valid in proving God).

This is in no way critique against you, just to be clear. I'm just making an example.

To be sure, though, there are lots of people who prefer the supernatural God supported by irrational beliefs. — tim wood

And this is the problem that I found unethical in the world because it distorts people's reality. Irrational belief is not a healthy foundation in society and because personal belief is an illusion, we cannot just accept that some are able to divide their personal belief from their rational ideas since the personal belief will eventually be expressed vocally or through behavior and choices.

This is why I argue for epistemic responsibility or the form of it in which people need to move away from defending their irrational belief and accept it as irrational while keep questioning ideas and never accept what doesn't have good support in evidence or rationality. The argument shows how irrational belief is dangerous and how rational belief (type B and C) should be held up higher than type A. There is no priority in the world today, which might be why people confuse personal belief with rational belief and proven truth so much, even on this forum.

Banned user - Goodbye

if time was infinite — Devans99

Stop persisting with an argument you have no initial proof for.
You have no argument.

We can still use statistics to find out about what happened — Devans99

No, we can't, learn physics. You ignore actual science and you just keep going. It's frustrating that you just don't get it.

Your argument is not working. Period.

I believe time is finite — Devans99

Then you are not doing a philosophical argument, you are just believing without proof and you are just having an opinion, no argument at all.

If time is finite then time must have been created by God (so I can rest my case and just address the time is infinite case). — Devans99

You are not listening to the objections of your argument. You have no support to the claim that time is infinite, therefore your argument is not working. Case closed.

Prove time is infinite before the rest of your argument. It's that simple.

If time is infinite and entropy increases with time, what else could happen but entropy reach a maximum? But we see a low entropy universe so if time was infinite, entropy reset events must of happened. — Devans99

How do you know time is infinite?

If time is infinite and the Big Bang is a naturally occurring event; it should have occurred an infinite number of times already; but we have evidence of only one. So we can conclude that the Big Bang was a non-natural event caused by God. — Devans99

You do not know that time is infinite. You do not know the nature of Big Bang since physics has not been able to verify everything about the event. We do not have evidence of "only one".

So we can conclude nothing and certainly not that it was caused by God.

I ask again, what evidence within physics support your claims and conclusions?
You are making assumptions about physics that simply do not have any support to them. If you make things up about physics you do not have a solid argument. Period.

How else would you propose to reset entropy? It requires the contraction of space; IE the big crunch; there is no other way to lower entropy. — Devans99

What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset?

Well we have half of the evidence — Devans99

So your argument fails right there, right? You need more evidence to end up with a conclusion that is true, right?

It was not a naturally occurring event — Devans99

How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this?

a non-natural event caused by God. — Devans99

This conclusion is based on nothing, you have no evidence in physics and you make assumptions about what hasn't been proven at all.

What is your knowledge of physics? Are you using any physics to support your premises and a conclusion?

Entropy only increases with time. If time was infinite entropy would be at a maximum. — Devans99

How do you prove time to be infinite? Why would infinity be reached at this time?

It is not; so if time is infinite there must have be 'entropy reset' events. — Devans99

This demands that your first statement to be true, which you haven't proved and no physics provide support for a definite conclusion to this as well.

These would be Big Bangs/Big Crunches. — Devans99

"Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physics.

But there cannot have been an infinite regress of these in time; then there would be no first Big Bang so the system as a whole would not make sense. IE a creation event. — Devans99

You have no true premises for this conclusion.

I notice you avid addressing my actual argument and resort to generalities. — Devans99

I refer to the actual science and physics that do not support anything of what you say. You might need to wait until physics have given you proof that supports your conclusion and premises.

You cannot deduce anything about God at this time, there is neither data or enough evidence to prove anything. You make an assumption before making the conclusion, meaning your argument is flawed.

Think about this: why do you think no one has been able to prove the existence of God for thousands of years? Do you think you are able to do it in here easily? You might, but you need to be rock solid in your argument, you cannot have any flaws and if you put blame on criticism of your argument you are not helping yourself in reaching a conclusion that makes sense.

You might need to research physics before making claims on your premises being true because they aren't by current physics.

I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time. — Devans99

There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas.

(else entropy would be at a maximum by now — Devans99

Why would it be maximum by now?

Christoffer, a basic premise of philosophy is asking questions and reviewing answers to glean a better understanding. You seem to miss some basic principles. — papaya

You still need to be clear on what premises you are referring to or in what way you counter-argue the conclusion. You cannot be vague, that is trolling.

Father - is the symbolic equivalent of God - Mother is a more contemporary symbolic equivalent of God. — papaya

This is irrelevant to the argument.

So far you have evaded answering any questions about your Mother and Father — papaya

Irrelevant to the argument.

Particularly your belief in them - be it symbolic or literal. Perhaps if yous started examining some of these metaphors you would glean a better understanding of the metaphysical. — papaya

You are answering an ethics philosophy argument, not metaphysics. You are also not clear on how it relates to either premises or conclusion for the argument presented.

Make your case clear in relation to the argument presented.

ah - but you have evaded answering the simple question that a child could answer! — papaya

give it a shot Christoffer and help human kind - is your mother your mother? — papaya

I understand you are new here, maybe you don't get the rules of this forum?
Stop trolling and do the discourse correctly.

I ASK AGAIN AS AN EXAMPLE - do you believe your mother is your mother and your father is your father, and what is your evidence? please do not evade the question — papaya

What is the point of this question? Make a counter argument that has a relation to the argument presented. I cannot evade what I do not understand as related to my conclusion, ok?

Belief 1, my mother is my mother with no evidence = bad things = false
Surprised you didn't make that simile! — papaya

This isn't a clear counter-argument. What premises or what about the conclusion is problematic. You are too vague in your criticism.

Undefined terms, therefore this premise is DOA. In particular, because you do not make clear what you mean or what you wish to be understood by your use of "God," you make of it an unqualified term. You may as well have said, "Whatever anyone means or understands or ever did mean, or will ever mean, or understand by the word "God," is based in 'something unsupported by evidence by evidence or rational deduction.'" — tim wood

Not sure what you mean here, it seems clear, there has never been any clear evidence or rational reasoning behind the existence of God. That's the premise, meaning there is nothing but faith and belief behind the "existence" of God.

What is the actual problem with the premise here? What is not clear? Is there evidence for a God you mean?

Even within this, your conclusion is unjustified. At this point you ought to take stock of just what it is you're attempting to do. Your argument is suggestive but not conclusive, and it's an injustice to you to decide for you what you're doing. What are you doing? — tim wood

What is your objection? What is the problem with the conclusion? Unsupported belief is unethical, supported belief is ethical, that is the conclusion.

I'm seriously interested in your points, here but I'm not sure if you are criticizing out of fear for the conclusion or by the logic not holding up. I want the logic to be solid, it's part of a moral theory.

I prefer you to make your counter-argument clear. Stop being intentionally difficult. This is philosophy.

Perhaps if you try to answer the question, you will see the relation.
I repeat:
do you believe your mother and father are your mother and father and can you evidence this? — papaya

This has no relation to the argument. This is an ethics argument. Make your point clear please.

demands evidence for something being true. — papaya

No, it demands examining your belief instead of accepting it as truth without reason.

Or to put it more bluntly do you believe your mother and father are your mother and father and can you evidence this? Likewise can you evidence that someone loves you — papaya

What does this matter to this argument? I see no relation

This is a very confused claim. First, physics uses the hypothetico-deductive method, not strict deduction. So, physics never knows with the kind of certainty that strict deduction brings. Second, we are not doing physics, so what physics does or does not know is totally irrelevant. — Dfpolis

Physics has proven theories and they haven't proven anything to support any unification theory.
If you can't combine physics with your conclusion, you are essentially ditching science for your own belief. Physics is not irrelevant, your claim is irrelevant since you are supporting it with your belief, nothing more.

(2) show that a logical move is invalid. — Dfpolis

Your logic is invalid since you base it on an assumption that hasn't been proven yet, i.e what happened before Big Bang.

Again, if you read the proofs, you would know that this entire line of objection is equally irrelevant. As I said last time, these proofs use concurrent, not time-sequenced, causality. So, as I also said last time, the nature of time and the history of the cosmos are irrelevant. If you actually read the proofs you would see that no assumption is made about how the universe began, or even that it did begin. — Dfpolis

No physicist will agree with you because you are working with belief, not science.
You cannot prove anything because science demands much more strict focus on actual proof and logic, but you act within the realm of belief. So there is no truth to your argument, you claim there to be but have nothing to back it up with.

Since you are still not making proper objections because you have not read the proofs, I will wait until you have read the proofs to continue. — Dfpolis

You are not making proper arguments that actually proves a truth so there's nothing to object to. You cannot demand counter-arguments to arguments you haven't proven.

Prove that you know what happened before the Big Bang before demanding counter-arguments. You say you have the truth about the start of causality but you haven't shown it and no physicist would ever accept your claims just because you "say you are right".

You cannot demand people to object to you before you have followed burden of proof. You need to realize this fact first. You cannot prove your conclusion because people can't object when you haven't even presented a clear case for your argument and science shows you are wrong.

Prove your argument first and stop avoiding your obligation to do so, jeez.

Point being?