Btw I find the moment of miscommunication that caused us talking past each other.

-" No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles. — Nickolasgaspar

-Verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation."
So I think we agree with the following orders 1. we observe a reoccurring rule 2. we hypothesize 3. we observe and objectively verify the hypothesis.
Without objective verification none of our hypotheses can be accepted as a principle no matter how good our initial observation was or how good our hypothesis.

I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality. I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process. The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume. — Tobias

-So we are on to something here...and advance.
So you agree with the order I outlined?
First empirical observation, then formation of concepts and models, then empirical validation of concepts that can be used as principles in our evaluations.(Defuse thing(imagination creativity etc) can allow us to apply that value on a concept.

-" I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process."
-I never did downplayed the role of imagination, I only pointed out the correct order of things.

-" The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume"
I am not sure you can successfully argue in favor of "the problem of induction" but I would like you try.

-"What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality."
-Well this wasn't in my initial point...and it isn't part of my position now. I never talked about an accurate picture of Reality, but an accurate picture of reality. (do you get the difference?...I will elaborate).

I pointed out that Objective independent Verification is necessary condition foran accurate picture of reality . Since I don't refer to an Absolute Reality or Absolutely True picture...the term "accurate picture of reality" refers to a model that is in agreement with Current Available Facts about reality.
I am a Methodological Naturalism so I never presume Metaphysical views in my positions. I remain strictly within our limits of our methods and observations and I always keep knowledge, truth, reality within a tentative state limited and defined by the latest , objective and most credible facts that are currently available to us. I don't do absolutes I don't do ultimates...I find them useless in philosophy and in science.
i.e. Not trying to run through a solid brick wall is a wise decision informed by an accurate picture on how brick walls manifest and "behave" in reality and this specific scale.

Ohh dear, one should read your favourite author... have you read Sheila Jassanoff? Just because you read a book does not make you an authority. Books I read too. — Tobias

Again, the author is irrelevant. Science and Philosophy doesn't have authorities. Their work rises and fall on its merit. In order to be able to do philosophy, we need to be aware of the latest and most credible knowledge. I don't know why you object the use of resources as a way to support our Philosophy. MAybe you could elaborate on that along with your critique on Induction!

They come from the way our minds are wired together with interaction with the material world as well as with each other. We are bodily creatures so they come from practical interaction. Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction. Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. — Tobias

-Well,our brains are wired, our minds are the product of that wiring but I get your point. So you essentially say that our empirical interactions guide and form our mental models.
Sure I think we agree on that. Practical every day interactions are how we form concepts. Logic and science are used to verify which concepts have additional values as principles and standards for our evaluations.
-" Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction."
-I don't know what that means and why you keep bringing it up.....My arguments was always in favor of the empirical interaction independent from the highly systematic structure(scientific) or not(every day practical interactions).
I pointed that twice now but you keep pushing this strawman...why is that?

Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. — Tobias

I would look in your suggested material but only if I was making the distinction you are accusing me of between Science and Every day knowledge...but I don't!
The term Empirical observation that I set as the first step in the necessary process to produce concepts includes ALL TYPES of empirical methods that are able to produce objective facts.

I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one — Tobias

-Correct we totally agree on those points.
But your initial statement promoted an insufficient condition. I quote :"Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see.."
As I pointed out in describing rules that we observe in nature, imagination is not a necessary condition. What is necessary is to objectively verify which qualities can constantly provide credible results. And we do that through the objective empirical verification of those qualities.

Most of our principles and axioms are simple because we can not really prove them but they are just direct Descriptions of relations, analogies and differences we observe in empirical facts. This is why fantasy or creative don't play a huge role in defining them.
That doesn't mean that in a Descriptive Framework of science (Evolution,Relativity) Imagination and creativity don't have a really important role).

What I ispute is objective access to the outside world. — Tobias

I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world?

So what from what I understand we both accept Empirical observation as foundational and Imagination/creative plays huge a role if not absolute necessary in specific cased of our intellectual inquiry? I am right.
The topic has shifted to : your objecting to Induction(problem of induction), the questionable value of scientific material and resources in Philosophical arguments and you reject our ability to produce objective descriptions about the outside world.
Pls correct if I don't present your positions correctly and feel free to make your case on any of them.

I will only point out that induction is far more valuable than an actual problem.

Probably best to step away and just hope there is a possibility of a discussion on some other topic.

If not then so be it. Like you said, it can help to engage like this sometimes … sometimes it does not help at all. How to judge is your choice though, obviously — I like sushi

-True. The only problem is that these individuals are all over the place polluting so many discussions. Ignoring them after the initial interaction may be the best tactic.

two questions
Do you have any real arguments sparky or ad hominem fallacies is your norm?
Why do you insist in projecting your relation and rituals you have with your mum on to others?

That is also true for universeness. He may have potentials and some knowledge but his ego doesn't allow him to be honest when he is wrong...plus he likes to accuse others for things he projects on them

Hillary is a lost cause. "Jumps" are programmed in his syllogisms and no GOSUBs are allowed lol.
it goes like this
-I don't know (jump)god
-Science doesn't know (jump) god
-We know everything(jump) god
-I don't understand (Jump) god
-universe exists (jump) god
ITs like trying to reason with a 5yo while being at a party with other kids.
Not possible.

Don't play with capitalizations and exclamation marks to make a point. — Tobias

I will use capitalization. The points are made by the sentence itself, I just highlight the core concept in it. ITs free, available and I don't live in North Korea! ; )

Not at all, see my replies to Hillary. Of course we have empirical input, we are bodily creatures.. — Tobias

-I am not going to evaluate the principles used in our discussion by looking at your replies to Mr Hillary! I need to respect the points made in our discussion.
Maybe you are arguing for a different source and I failed to realize it. Pls elaborate.

I tried to google objective verification... did not yield much.This sentence is gibberish, objectively verified. — Tobias

-lol whats up with the members of this platform and their poor performance in search engines?
Relativist used the same argument to tap dance around the usage of a word reject and why non acceptance is not rejection!!
My mistake, I assume people know the basics on Philosophy of Science.
So the term you should search is Objective Independent Verification. Objective(Objectivism) just defines the Philosophical value behind the Standard of Independent Verification. Objective is the qualities of the produced results from this type of verification.

No they start learning behavior that woks, they do not necessarily form ' a correct model of reality' in there minds. — Tobias

Yes....as you said they are learning a behavior that works in their empirical world. This means that they verified objectively a behavior that has instrumental vallue. Changing the words doesn't change how they learn and why it works.
I am not interested in whether their model of reality is necessarily correct or not. The point of interest is that their empirical interactions are what is necessary for any type of model of reality to be realized in their brains. This is the argument that you challenge. Empirical interaction gives rise to models and concepts and by verifying them objectively we decide which qualify as principles and which do not.

A monkey that gets sprayed with cold water every time it touches a banana will stop touching the banana but not because it has formed an accurate picture of the world in its mind. — Tobias

_What does that even means? Why using monkeys on a discussion on how humans use the empirical feedback to form principles for their evaluations....! How this example qualifies as relevant ?

And before saying " God knows what the monkey thinks"... ask zoologists that study behavior and they will tell you that Mind Theory answers many of our questions on what animals think.
yes they form models, yes they inform their behavior through the feedback they receive,they use concepts, they guide their lives through their efforts to understand what their emotions "mean" and how the should act.
I think its KoKo the gorilla who was caught on cameras using the sign language she was taught...thinking her plan grabbing a banana while going to the freezer.

A monkey and chimps understand agency and causality and form assumptions about the cause. They are pretty accurate buy they are also superstitious like us. Watch videos with Chimps acknowledging the fruits of cooperation, or how they can understand the concept of money, how they use pebbles to buy grapes and why they get mad when they end up with cucumber for their worth of their money. Watch videos on studies about Chimps using orange juice that they love as money in order to "buy" time for looking at pictures of celebrities of their group....and even more juice to look at porn (chimp private parts).
So lets leave magic (god) out from what we know about animals.

And on and on it goes. Can I sumarize your contribution by the imperative "Read Kahneman"? If so it is duly noted. — Tobias

-No my contribution is that I point to material one should know before trying to do Philosophy on this specific topic.

You said that you don't promote magic...but you didn't attempt to explain where do you think our ideas and heuristics come from.
Without empirical interactions Humans don't just end up without ideas...they just die! W know that(unfortunately) from nursery facilities in Romania during communistic(lol not in theory) regimes where well feed newborns, deprived of all stimuli for long periods of times, had their brains shutdown.

So feel free to tell me why you believe those ideas...not just what you believe.

Circularity. You cannot empirically verify the value of empirical verification... One has to have had the idea that that is a pausible way to go beforehand. We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically.

((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) — Tobias

Do you all in here come from the say school of sophists????? oh boy here we go again.
I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification....don't play with words just to earn impressions!!!!

Look at science's run away success in epistemology. Look at what makes a Logical Fallacy ....a Fallacy. (unverified premises).
The reason why Objective Verification has become a principle...IS BECAUSE its value is validated EVERY SINGLE TIME by the epistemic value claims have when they are are Objectively and Empirically verified.

You essentially argue in favor of Magic. Magically an idea about the value of empirical verification came in to our minds without empirical input !!!
And for the sake of the argument lest say that this idea came about magically.....what criteria did we used to confirm its value and ability to produce high quality epistemic results...AGAIN it was done by being objectively verified every single time we demanded it in our Standards of Evaluation.

If you observe children you will find out that they are prone to accidents and the smart ones use those accidents to correct the model of reality in their minds. This is the first empirical indications we get about the value of Objective Empirical Verification..obviously not all of us have realize that.
Systematized methods like Logic and Science just defined it and included it in their principles.

-" We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. "
-Intuition isn't magic, it doesn't come out from thin ai. Our intuition is shaped and "trained" by our previous empirical experiences about our world. Read Daniel Kahneman's book on intuition and other heuristics. He won A Nobel Prize for his founding. Don't try to do philosophy without being aware of our Scientific Epistemology. IT is always a recipe for Pseudo philosophy.

-"We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically."
-What a pre scientific era has to do with our discussion sir??????? Empirical methods able to provide Objective results did not start or stopped with Science?
Science is nothing more that an attempt to systematize those Standards.
WHat on earth are you arguing about! Have you ever taken a course on Philosophy of Science?

I am not interested in what magical sources you believe our Principles come from in but in what you can demonstrate Objectively as their source.
The principle of Objectivity was acknowledged by humans....after "we" were conned way to many times by others who just offered Promises and False claims during our transactions not Objective evidence.

I wont even go to your rest of your claims before you acknowledge that you are wrong and after you remove magical agency behind our principles and of course acknowledge the fact that REAL WORLD experience lead to therealizations of principle. Your feet are in the fire until you do that.

Here is your change!
1. When you reserve judgment for a claim do you go on and Accept the claim.
Since you going to tap dance the answer is NO. You won't accept, you will reject the claim until you are ready to make that judgment.
2. When you think a claim is wrong, do you go on and Accept it?
The answer again is NO — Nickolasgaspar

I will hold your feet in the fire....answer that and you will see that your objection is just your ego.

Before I made my first complaint about your semantic nonsense, I searched a number of sources (SEP. IEP, Blackwell,...) to see if your usage was common. It's not. I gave you the opportunity to provide such a source. You had nothing. You even lied by claiming you weren't appealing to a standard dictionary, right after doing so. You are hell-bent on playing semantic policeman based on the semantics you like. I'm not interested in spinning my wheels on such bullshit, so I'm done arguing with you about it. — Relativist

-What is my usage lol?????Where do you expect to find entries about the action of non acceptance of a claim when belief is reserved
The meaning of the word is defined by your ACTION. The dictionary only provides to which words it is synonym with.

Here is your change!
1. When you reserve judgment for a claim do you go on and Accept the claim.
Since you going to tap dance the answer is NO. You won't accept, you will reject the claim until you are ready to make that judgment.
2. When you think a claim is wrong, do you go on and Accept it?
The answer again is NO you dishonest tap dancer.
The answer on the above questions....and your tap dance around them proves to everyone to everyone that you here to pump your ego...not to acknowledge your misconceptions.
IF you were honest you would answer both questions and FOUND OUT YOURSELF that REJECTION is your reaction for a claim NOT THE REASON.
Why is so difficult for you to accept that you are making silly excuses lol....."I searched a number of sources..."...hahaha you are unable to understand basic concepts.

If you like laughing....just read your claims!:wink:

I couldn't agree more! Do you need a chip replacement? — Hillary

Not really....one front fork ,some tubes a shorter stem and a rear derailleur

I admire your efforts to try to get these good folks to think clearly, but you must realize just how extraordinarily hard it is for someone to change these deeply held beliefs.

It's not merely a case of correcting some non-essential belief (e..g. "Gee, I was certain that it was going to rain today - I guess I was wrong").

For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy.

But don't let me discourage you. :wink: You may be planting some seeds that will bear fruit some time in the future.

BTW I don't believe Hillary et al are trolls, nor are they stupid. — EricH

-I appreciate your input. The real problem is not individuals like Hillary, but guys like Relativist who are almost there but they will spill the milk when they are challenged to correct their views or defintions according to objective facts and our needs to describe them .
Hillary is a lost cause in my opinion and this is why I only use him as the medium to communicate ideas to undecided by-standards that happen to read the thread and posses critical thinking
I will admit, this doesn't happen often but I had a fair amount of hits in the past on other platforms.

Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"
-No they don't ,that is a claim you use to avoid being exposed by dictionaries.
Dictionaries provide common usages of words. We as thinkers need to decide which usage covers all our needs and addresses all aspect of a concept(philosophy). — Relativist

Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy.
No that is a false statement. Any usage that doesn't much the one I suggest and resembles yours is problematic for the reason I demonstrated before (logical fallacies, non direct logical negations etc).

Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic,
-ITs not! When the justification of a usage is verified by its ability to avoid ambiguities and fallacies(as I explained many times) and exists in the dictionary then its not problematic(btw do you know that dictionaries include more than one definition?)
. After all I didn't point to a specific definition of a dictionary, but to the facts of our actions pointing to a specific one .
The actions we take are two.
We are convinced for the truthiness of a claim....we ACCEPT it.
We are not convicted thus we reserve judgment ....we don't accept it
We are convinced the claim is wrong....we don't accept it.
But you dishonestly avoid to acknowledge these fact and you will do that again.

since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy.
Sure....I just listed you the facts that force this word to describe non acceptance...

But you had. And now you're doing it again. — Relativist

-I just pointed out where you can look up for synonyms of non acceptance.
The definition of this word is produced by our needs to describe the action of the non acceptance of a claim either due to withholding judgment or believing to be false.

-"You're arguing semantics,"
No you dishonest sophist!!!!!! I pointed out that if it was a simple semantic issue I would accept your usage..BUT IT ISN'T AND YOU KEEP DODGING TO ACKNOWLEDGE your position has with my questions.
Your definition is lead you to a logical fallacy(Strawman) and your arbitrary assumed reason for a rejection to a non Direct Logical Negation.

AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST TIME.

WHEN you withhold judgment, do you accept it as your belief?????????
WHEN YOU believe the claim to be false, to you accept it as your belief????
Now ANSWER HOnestly with a yes or no or you are done!

Listen,the Freddie chip replaced most on board logic enabling the production of cheaper boards. Also all daughter boards where remove in the previous update. The SIO connection was an early implimentation of the USB protocol allowing hot swap and daisychain of peripherals. The architecture consisting of one cpu and many co processors was adopted by the industry and it its the standard to this day!

-"Yes. But Im not trying to convince you."
-Hillary ...first be honest to your self and then to others. You act like a child.
You are all over the place exposing your irrational beliefs.
When I ask you what are your evidence and that a claim has a burden to meet in order to qualify as a rational one...your answer is "its not a scientific one...so It doesn't have a burden".

If you weren't trying to convince people you wouldn't be whining about other scientists not listening to you...and you wouldn't be claiming that you will win a Nobel Prize for these ideas....
The arguments you use for your beliefs and for the excuses you use to avoid exposing your beliefs are ridiculous.
You are a dishonest interlocutor and unfortunately there are many magical thinker in here that reward this dishonest behavior. This is really sad.!

Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner. — Relativist

Am I going to do this with you too? Really. After many months I got back in this forum and I had people denying the role of wisdom in philosophy, the role of knowledge in wisdom, the role of knowledge in soundness, the role of logic in Philosophy.....
Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary...or better see whether you accept a claim while you withhold judgement and how reasonable would be if you did that!

You didn't. I was responding to this:

you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Relativist

You were not...since you said :"'ll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs"
No were in my statement I limited his freedom to accept a claim. I only pointed out that he is the one who needs to provide evidence for his claims (not me to falsify a Universal Negative).

I was explaining why he doesn't "need to" do anything. You come off as overly aggressive. You can ask him to justify his beliefs, you can express skepticism that his position is justifiable. You can ask him to explain his reasoning. I just think you should soften it up, a bit.. — Relativist

-No you were promoting a no True Scotchman fallacy. When he is arguing and debating for his beliefs,all over the place so he needs to justify them. His excuse "its not a scientific claim so I get a free pass" is not acceptable....I am sorry if you can not see that.

Sure, but that's not a problem. If you've used p to try and convince me that q is true, it suffices to tell you "but I reject p". You are then free to challenge my position on p. — Relativist

No No No....don't introduce ifs in the topic of this discussion. The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false.
The non acceptance of a P should always be a Direct logical Negation or else your conclusions are acceptable to logical fallacies. A Logical Negation can only address your rejection of that P.... NOT the reason of the rejection of P and not your belief in a P~
i.e. "I reject all god claim" tells you nothing about the statement "I believe gods don't exist".

No. There are 3 possible attitudes I can express, not 2:
1) I accept p as true; or
2) I reject p (believe p false); or
3)I reserve judgment on p (e.g. because I have insufficient information to either accept it or reject it). — Relativist

You are totally confused. Attitudes are irrelevant to the misuse of the term "rejection"!
You need to understand that that 2 and 3 attitudes lead you to NOT ACCEPT the claim. Non acceptance is rejection BY DEFINITION...why is this so difficult for you !!!??????

A "claim" is a statement made by a person; it is a statement of a belief held by the person. The person (not the statement) has a burden to defend it, and only if he's promoting it - trying to convince others. — Relativist

-Correct to a degree. We as thinkers also have the freedom to learn about those claims and find out from those who presented them in public forums whether they have met their burden.

Demanding proof is expecting too much, because in practice it often means "convince me". — Relativist

What do you mean...its too much. We are here to discuss ideas. Some of us, like Mr Hillary comes with beliefs and makes absolute statements for their truthiness. I challenge that and ask for his reasons and evidence.(To prove his reasonableness ).
Where do you see the problem exactly? Did I pointed a gun at him and forced him to come on line and make all those arrogant unfounded claims of his "mystical knowledge" about the universe?
No he accepted the challenge when he agreed to interact with others in a public forum.

Listen you are making excuses by making a no True Scotchman fallacy.
You literally claim, that he is here (in almost all Discussions that include gods), claiming that gods are real...but because he isn't here to convince people(here is your Scotchman) we shouldn't ask for evidence or as we commonly say proof with a small p.
I don't know what criteria you use to distinquish a rhetoric from "I am just expressing my beliefs in many many posts".
My criteria are really simple.When a claim appears in public I want to learn from the author or the believer whether his belief have meet their burden...that simple.
If he keeps arguing for the truth value of his belief, I take that as an effort to convince me of his unfounded beliefs. If you have a criterion that proves that I am wrong pls present it to me.

Rather, request a justification and (if the guy is being rational), you'll find it's based on something else you disagree with. — Relativist

This is what proof means in its colloquial sense. By providing objective facts he has the change to prove that his belief is rationally justified.
Don't you ever use that word in your every day life? don't you ever demand from other to "prove it to you''?

You can take such a conversation down several levels without being convinced - but you can (perhaps) learn to appreciate he has some depth to his reasoning. — Relativist

Does he really have depth to his reasoning?By pointing to argument from ignorance fallacies, or appealing to mysteries (dreams) or reject the burden an unwarranted assumption has?
Sorry I can not see a depth but only chaos in his reasoning.

verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation. — Tobias

Argument from Ambiguity fallacy. You are talking about the steps of a verification process(after the validation of a principle) while I refer on the method we recognize the value of Verification as a principle...or any other principle.
i.e. The three logical absolutes ((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) are principles that we verified empirically every time we use them.
We may not have an absolute proof about them and we didn't declare them to be trues true their constant empirical validation is what allowed them to become principles and rules of logic.

Ahh Kahneman... Objectively with a capital O... It does not impress me much. — Tobias

- I think Daniel will be very sad hearing about your disapproval(or was your disapproval aiming my capital O?) .(Either way I will make this joke) I hope he finds some consolation and comfort by cashing the check he received along with the Nobel Prize we won while studying human heuristics....(.no offense).

No one will state that her hypothesis is a product of pure imagination. It also is not. Hypotheses are the product of informed imagination, the knowledge of current debate, the knowledge of the literature and knowledge of current empirical findings. However, they are organized and considered in a certain way. One cannot do that without imagination, the forward looking assessment of states of the world. — Tobias

-Why didn't you include my first sentence? "Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make."
You cherry picking a part of my reply allowing you to argue "against" something that we are in agreement ...lol

You believe in trolls? Did the gods tell you in a dream they don't exist? How did they tell you if they don't exist? — Hillary

I don't learn the truth in my dreams by gods! Floberhulfter comes and informs me on what is true or not.

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem? — Relativist

As you said its your attitude......not other people's attitude or the Default Position one should hold for p.
If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.
This is what I am telling you. If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?
I suspect not. You reject all Ps that you think they are false and all Ps that haven't convinced you yet....right?

I believe they do on a base of scientific knowledge. They provide a reason for existence. — Hillary

There aren't scientific bases for gods and you haven't presented any.
They first have to be demonstrated as true before one claims they provide a reason for existence......

. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning. — Relativist

DUde Hillary....this is what I am saying you from post one mate!!!! You need to demonstrate the objective and epistemic values of your reasons when trying to communicate your claims in public forums.......holy cow, Am I talking to a 5yo!!

I'll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs. He is free to hold rational beliefs and decline to share his justification. We are free to remain unconvinced that he could justify it. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning. — Relativist

I am getting really tired with accusations about things that I didn't do...by Universewoowoo, Hillary and you now.
WHEN DID I say that he is not free to hold irrational beliefs??????????????????????????
I only pointed out the reason why they are irrational, why all claims have a burden, why special pleading is a fallacy, why Unwarranted Assumptions in arguments pollute our philosophical arguments , why soundness is needed for an explanation to be logical.
He is free to say whatever he wants...but he can not make up his own facts on the Ontology of the universe and push them as science (he is entitled to his own opinion not his own facts) or insisting in using theology as an authority figure in philosophy or claim that making up invisible agents is the most reasonable explanation.
I don't know why you think you need to defend HIllary from me....seriously....when did I attempt to limit his freedom.....ITs the job of Logic and Objectivity to do that.

I make many scientific claims. They need evidence. But gods are no scientific claim. They don't need evidence. Believe would not be believe anymore with evidence. — Hillary

-Ok I saw in my sleep that your claims about god are all wrong. its not a scientific claim, it doesn't need evidence and that proves that you are wrong...

Dude I don't want to believe that someone old enough to vote, raise children and drive can make such silly claims....I think you are a troll...

"I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p. — Relativist

That is a problem because "I believe ~p" is NOT a direct logical negation of the proposition P!
I reject p only points to one thing......that I.......reject P.
IT says nothing about ~p. As you said reserving judgments can be the reason behind of the non acceptance of P and its the "minimum" reason one should have to reject a claim.
Again you you think that the statement"I reject P" means "I believe~p" then it is really easy to strawman the reason of the non acceptance.

I'd use different language to reflect a withholding of judgment. — Relativist

I know that this is the problem. What I point out that the usage and meaning of words have one purpose, to be practical enough so that they can cover all the needs of our communication.
If this was a simple matter of semantics I wouldn't bother at all, but as you can see, using "non acceptance/rejection'' in the way you suggest it allows logical fallacies and non direct logical negations to sneak in our arguments.
This is a common problem between Atheists and Theists.
The theistic claim is that a god exists. The direct negation made by Atheism is that Atheists are not convinced/do not believe in the claim that god exists. Unfortunately theists accuse Atheists for a Non Direct logical negation which is "you believe god doesn't exist".
Atheism doesn't address this negative claim and if it does we are dealing with Antitheism or Hard atheism which both are not the minimum requirement to be an Atheist.

Grow up Mr Hillary! You are the magical thinker who talks about gods. you are the one who needs to provide evidence.
I don't promote any claims. I only point out that your claims are unfounded and qualify as irrational beliefs...that's all.

This is why I object to saying anyone has some abstract "burden of proof". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof". More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak. — Relativist

-"Anyone" doesn't have some abstract "burden of proof''. Only claims have burden of proof. Those you accept them and promote them are oblige to meet it....if of course they are interested in accepting reasonable beliefs.

-". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof"."
Only in a mathematical aspect proof has a stronger value.
In the colloquial usage of the term, when we demand proof we literally demand Objective facts that can falsify or verify a claim.

-" More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak"
-It still remains a standard by which we justify a position based on what feedback is currently available to us. No one is or should make absolute claims about knowledge or proof or certainty.
That said no one should ever believe or promote claims with zero justification just because there is a weakness in the way we can verify/falsify things.

What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? — Hillary

that's your problem Mr Hillary, not mine. To be precise its an intrinsic problem of unfalsifiable claims based on non naturalistic principles.
Fortunately the burden is on the claim and as a believer you will have to meet it.

-" If I tell you I saw it in a dream you say it's just a dream."
-No, dismissing your dream by just calling it a dream isn't the best response. I can come with a better one that is compatible with your claim.
I will say. I also had a dream that revealed to me that your dreams are not true.
So we have two people making two antagonistic claims based on the same crappy subjective evidence. "my dream told me so".
How do we go around finding out whose dream is the real deal?????

What if an outcome in the double slit experiment gives unexpected results? Say that instead of an interference pattern a one slit pattern shows up? What if there was proof of gods? — Hillary

-Hillary.....the problem with your position is that currently there are no proofs for gods! When we come up with proofs that would be the moment to justify your belief ...not a second sooner!
"What ifs" do not qualify as sound premises for arguments ...you just express a wishful thought.

Maybe, dear Nickolas, you should learn some real Physica, Science, before engaging in philosophical debate. — Hillary

Let me get this straight....this comments comes from you...the guy who introduces gods in science? the guy who declares the universe to be god? The guy who pretends to know the cause of the big bank....that guy tells me to learn more science?
The guy who doesn't understand how we arrive to a default position, what is the Null hypothesis, why soundness is important for reasonable beliefs, why all claims have a burden,why fallacies render a conclusion irrational....that guy tells me that I am not skilled enough for philosophical debates.
I may not be educated scientifically or philosophically enough.....but You Hillary? You really think you are in a position to judge that? lol

You will find then that Metaphysica is a lot more than engaging in logic and that ontology includes Theology as well as Science. — Hillary

The problem is that your philosophy is Pseudo-metaphysika....and only Pseudo ontology includes Theology since none of your claims can be investigated for their truth value. Without a known truth value we can never evaluate them for their wisdom. Without wisdom you don't have philosophy...you have pseudo philosophy.
You are a pseudo philosopher mr Hillary and a really bad "scientist"

We're discussing propositional attitudes developed through judgment. — Relativist

Actually we are talking about logical negation and their importance to be direct.
A Direct logical negation allow us to avoid addressing other irrelevant aspects of a claim.
i.e. -Do you accept my god claim
-No I don't, I reject your god claim.
This is a direct logical negation. the negation No I believe no gods exists is not a direct one to the initial question.

-" I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: "
-your usage "reaches out" to possible reasons , that's all.

I may judge the proposition true, false, or withhold (suspend) judgment. — Relativist

-Correct! If you judge the proposition as true it means you Accept it. In both remaining cases where you withhold or judge it as false you just Don't Accept/reject the claim. Withholding a judgment has the exact same implications...The claim is not accepted as part of the body of your beliefs. (it doesn't make the cut).
Lets take a real life example. When you give ad interview and you end up not getting that job can you be sure that you were rejected because the interviewer believes you suck at that job? Is it possible that you didn't convince him that you are suitable for the position? Both positions can be responsible for your rejection.

Nuances can be added, such as degree of belief. — Relativist

I will agree with that but again a specific degree of belief will allow us to accept a claim and all other degrees bellow will force us to reject a claim.

Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. I — Relativist

Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. I pointed to Logic,that a non Direct Logical Negation can easily derail us to a Strawman or a false dichotomy.
I pointed to the fact of what happens to a claim that is either not convincing to us(reserving belief) or convincing us to be false. In both case we don't accept the claim...the claim is rejected for not meeting our standards, not because it is false.
Those logical rules have a very important role in Philosophy.

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is. — Hillary

Oh!ok , I had the wrong impression they were gods...lol

Keep talking to your self...this is what you do after all. You are done....is this difficult for you to understand?

Universeness is atheist, just like you. But his calibers are above yours. Shall I post or shall I not...? — Hillary

again lets assume that the caliber of this arrogant pretentious demagogue is above me....HOW would you know??? lol
Because he trolls you and your social cues don't allow you to see it?

-"

With or in the material universe you can't prove or disprove the eternal heavenly realm. — Hillary

-lol so why accepting it? Aren't you interested in avoiding potentially wrong claims?
You don't really care the truth value of what you believe?

-"For you it's a fantasy,"
-Lol I never said that! what's wrong with you two and your strawmen?
For me is an irrational belief that isn't supported from objective facts.
Are you able to distinguish the difference of rejecting a claim as irrational and rejecting it as a fantasy or wrong?

-"

for me an improvable reality giving reason and meaning to my material dancing — Hillary

"
-I get it, but why don't you keep it to yourself but you force it on others as true and a fact?

You're still in denial, or school took it away from you. — Hillary

-lol in denial of what.......of the fact that you accept an improvable reality because it is comforting for you? This is what I am telling you from day one Hillary! lol


Why would you ever accuse others being in denial because they demand higher standards for suspiciously comforting claims????

Your sentences, accusations, claims and arguments are a hot mesh mate!
Are you really 35 and did you really go to school because your reasoning appear to be that of a 13yo.

lol....that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there.

Okay, one last try. In my Default Position, the very existence of the material universe is proof of the heavenly universe, because they come in a duo package. — Hillary

That is a false equivalence . The existence of a material universe CAN ONLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE for the existence of a MATERIAL UNIVERSE.
The qualifier "heavenly" in front of the word universe obviously introduces some qualities that YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE as possible and true.
CAN you do that or you are just good in playing with words?

I said I am not sure....not that I am interested in knowing.

-My Default Position is different from yours.
lol....hahahahaha obviously, but your is just a position NOT a position that we arrive from the Null hypothesis...so remove the default Mr hillary!

-"My default position is a heavenly etetrnal universe, and next to it the material copy of it, in which heavenly life repeats eternally in periodic big bangs. "
-Yes your position is that you believe in magical claims you are unable to objectively demonstrate as true. I already know that and I don't ask that.
My question is simple. How a full grown up individual with access to education can still hold medieval age beliefs without any objective verification.

Ego dragon, bovine manure? If anyone offers cinstructive comments it's universeness! Not sure about you... — Hillary

-And how would you know mr Hillary???
You are unable to understand how we define a Default Position or why all claims come with a burden.
Do you really believe that your reasoning is a credible source of judgments?
If yes pls demonstrate one of your existential claims.