That is, of course, because in your reality gods don't exist. — Haglund

I don't accept "personal realities". I only accept A reality where everything in it can be objectively verified by the same high standards of evidence and methods of evaluation.
If you are arguing about subjective personal realities then I have no interest in claims that you can not objectively demonstrate to be true.
Last time I checked 4.300 religions , 160+spiritual categories and numerous pseudo philosophical worldviews make claims about their subjective realities.
"Mine" only has one objective version and it is challenged by the high standards of science.
This objective "reality" allows you to post your comments on this platform....

That is really encouraging. I appreciate your input

I don't agree. Wise claims need not be based on knowledge. On the contrary. A wise claim can be based on knowledge, but not necessarily so and wise claims direct knowledge. — Haglund

So you say you don't agree...and then you stress their strong relation!(weird!)
As I posted many times, a wise claim needs to be based on knowledge, so that we expand our understanding of the world (produce more knowledge).
Again in order to make a wise claim you need the FACTS.(knowledge).
Putting the facts together is what makes your narrative wise. Using your narrative is what allow you to understand more things about the world(produce more knowledge).

Can a 5 kid provide you a wise claim for human sex life? Of course not because the kid doesn't know the facts. Wisdom doesn't form out of thin air...the better the facts the greater the value of wisdom in a statement. this isn't debatable. Aristotle knew it and this is why he placed Physika(science) within the Philosophical method!

This is not difficult.

Maybe not, but these unfalsifiable concepts are needed as concepts within the sciences and outside of it ti direct science. For example, I think the gods, in their common effort to create the ingredients of the universe, created the most simple and perfect particles, which means only two will do. A preon model. — Haglund

-I don't make sense of your statement. Science doesn't do assumptions, especially those who are in conflict with the observable paradigm. Again you need to demonstrate objective a cause (god) in order to use it in your argument. If not you are using an unsound arguments as a foundation for the rest of your claims and that is pseudo philosophy. Your foundations need to be epistemically solid.

So, since "natural" is the things built with the building blocks, then this kind of thing which "existed all along" the building blocks themselves, are non-natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again...why is this so difficult for you? Science offers descriptive definitions.
We will need to investigate the mechanism that produced those building blocks and then decide, based on their properties whether they are natural or non natural.
Again you view the Natural as a Realm when it has to do with the properties displayed by the process.
Keep in mind that I clearly pointed to what renders a process natural.

And of course non natural can mean anything. I.e. Quantum fluctuations do not have a documented causal mechanism. Particles pop in and out of existence but their "qualities" point to a natural process. This discovery was awarded with a Nobel Prize...but no one promoted the non natural quality of this phenomenon.
You will need to define the qualities of the non natural. IF not you are trapped in an argument from ignorance fallacy. We need to know what qualities to look for in order to be sure that its not a natural process that differs from what we currently have been observing.

Now you have gone outside the the constraints of your definition of "natural". You'll have to produce a new definition for me. We'll start all over with a new definition, and then I'll see if there are things outside your definition which are necessarily non-natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No I haven't. I described you what known Natural Processes are...read my definition once more.
Just because there is a process with different characteristic but with the same natural properties that doesn't make it "non natural" . Again you need to define "non natural" or you end up with an Argument from ignorance fallacy.

-" You'll have to produce a new definition for me."
-I could produce a definition for the non natural...that would be the most sensible thing to do.
Natural Processes, as I told you are caused by fundamental building blocks of the Cosmos, which give rise to the building blocks of our Universe (sub particles with their quantum behavior, molecules, chemistry, biology etc). Their unguided interactions and really simple properties (kinetic, charge etc) define the produced results, structures, laws etc.
A non natural process would be: cosmic building blocks being externally guided in interactions with intention, purpose, plan and goal, producing results that aren't regular(unpredictable) or contingent to their properties or their displayed properties claimed to be far more advanced (kinetic, energetic charges etc) than those observed and verified in these cosmic scales.
Are you satisfied with my definition on the "non natural" concept?

If you don't even know what "natural" means, why are you so vehemently opposed to "supernatural". I don't understand this. Do you give "supernatural" a meaning which is not based in the root "natural"? — Metaphysician Undercover

-The problem is not with what Natural means. The Natural is defined by our current Scientific Paradigm where , as I already explain, processes enable the emergence of advanced properties withing complex structures and functions. We don't observe advanced properties displayed by the building blogs of matter.i.e. we need to observe structures of molecules to find advanced properties like chemical, biological ,mental etc.

What we verify is just Kinetic properties and charges by particles in a fundamental scale. Those are necessary and sufficient(maybe counterintuitive) to explain the emergence of the Physical world.
Any claim that introduces advanced properties (mind properties, agents, chemical, biological etc)in really small fundamental scales is immediately classified as a supernatural claim.

I hope these definitions will help this discussion go further from arbitrarily declaring things we don't know "non natural".

a. A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality. — Philosophim

-Can you demonstrate the possibility of such an existence?
-Can you demonstrate that an always existing Cosmic field needs such a concept?

Once a thing exists, it can interact with whatever is around it, and follows the rules of its own existence. — Philosophim

-Correct but Since our current indications (Cosmic quantum fluctuations) and logic (non existence not being a state) point to something existing eternally...why making up a first cause?

b. There are no limitations or rules that necessitate what a first cause must be. — Philosophim

-Yes that is a common characteristic among explanations invoking "magic". No data...no limitations.
Its like Phlogiston, MIasma, Philosopher's Stone, Orgone Energy ...all over again.
As I said this is NOT a topic for a philosophical discussion.
Its more of having people pointing out to you your fallacies and gaps in reasoning.

What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary? — Philosophim

-Nothing, because Necessity NEEDS to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed logically. Logic is not an adequate way to argue for Necessary and Sufficient of metaphysical mechanisms of reality (ontology). We have made so many many mistakes in the past but some of us insist in the same tactics.

a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today. — Philosophim

If we ignore all the fallacies and problems, there is one reason to limit adding up things in a "magical" cause...and that is Parsimony.

This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be. — Philosophim

-Correct, as I said Unfalsifiable claims can not be tested as possible or impossible mainly because they carry no limitations. Vague concepts have zero characteristic to evaluate. They are absolute declarations posing as Panacea for all mysteries.
Again this is not philosophy.

b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible. — Philosophim

-Not only that. Our current picture of the cosmos dismiss the necessity...and obviously the sufficiency of a first cause.

If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. — Philosophim

-If you design an answer without limitations then....there aren't any. Now we know particles pop in and out of existence all the time and we can observe them by viewing the affect they have on the particles of our universe.
When you use scientific knowledge to argue about your cosmology (particle with velocity) I suggest to accept all the epistemology and avoid cherry picking aspects that suit a specific narrative. Facts are facts and should be respected as a whole.

If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused. — Philosophim

Our current physics and QM point to an area, not a singular point, that would make the role of a "first particle" relevant to this discussion. Now this is way in the Metaphysical realm so any conclusion beyond this point will be, by definition pseudo philosophical/scientific.

Where does this leave the idea of a God?

It is possible that there is a first cause that could have a power over existence we do not fully understand. But it is also possible that this is not the case. Further, because there is no reason why there should only be one first cause, there is no reason there cannot be other first causes, thus other Gods, or other alternatives such as particles that simply appeared. — Philosophim

-Why use the word god when most of the people believing in this concept don't recognize the narrative you are placing it in and what happened to Parsimony? Answering Mysteries with mysteries is not philosophy.
Again that huge jump from "a particle" to a god playing pool with it can only be a subject of a pseudo philosophical narrative.

Can we use the idea that a first cause is logically necessary to prove there is a God?

1. We cannot prove any one thing is a first cause.
2. There is no logical limitation that only one thing can be a first cause.

So while we can state it is possible for a God to be a first cause, so could any other possible thing we imagine. As such, a God as a first cause is not logically necessary, only a logical plausibility. — Philosophim

-Well plausibility implies probability...and that is a mathematical and statistical concept.
I would like to know how you arrived to that conclusion without any verified cases of "gods creating universes" and "universes created NOt from a god". How on earth can you even talk about plausibilities when you don't even know whether a god is possible to begin with.
Its Alchemy and chemical transmutation all over again. People wasted time and money for the "plausibility" of producing gold from lead when chemical transmutation isn't even possible!!!

Why our "Philosophers" fail to learn basic things from the errors of the past and what it means to talk about plausibility without first demonstrating possibility?

Does this argument deny that God can exist?

No. All the current philosophical arguments for there necessarily being a God can no longer stand. This does not mean a God is not a logical impossibility. While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist. If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality. — Philosophim

-Sloppy transition. I don't know why you connect the unfounded plausibility of a god with an argument against his existence!
Again Possibility and impossibility of an existential claim needs to be demonstrated objectively not assumed logically.

-"While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist."
-Causes exist.....that doesn't mean that a first cause was not a routine natural cosmic one(change in its energetic state) or the cause of our universe (this universe itself) was the first one in the cosmic history.
-" If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality"
-Just because you include sentences about the universe and sentences about god in the same paragraph that doesn't mean that those are premises of the same argument...just saying.

The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. T — Philosophim

-We are in agreement with the first statements. Objective evidence are necessary for every existential claim.
Your second statement is problematic. Possibility ALSO demands objective evidence. You can not just declare something to be possible without previous verified examples of its possibility to exist.

One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative — Philosophim

-Sure, but I don't know how good it will be to explain a made up "necessity" (first cause) since our facts point to existence being a necessary state for the cosmos.(empirically and logically).,

A while back I wrote an argument that a "first cause" was logically necessary. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 After much debate, I am satisfied that the argument successfully stands. With this concluded, I wanted to add what this means for origin theories of our universe. — Philosophim

-As I pointed out, you don't have enough data to assume non existence. After all Non existence is not a state of being so it is irrational to even assume it in your effort to introduce the supernatural.
Again this is not a Philosophical Topic. This is a theological one.

I don't know if this helps you but I will try to introduce some perspective.
I am a Methodological Naturalist. As such I accept our Limitations as a Pragmatic Necessity in our what we can observe, verify and learn. So based on that acknowledgement I understand that everything we know and learn are limited between the nature of our methods (observations) and the nature of the investigated realm we have access.
So for me Absolute values of Knowledge and Truthiness are red herring, distracting us from what we can actually achieve in those areas.
Our evaluations will always be limited by the available facts but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to embrace claims that aren't based on any facts at all.

-" Statements are either true or false, and then either said to be true or said to be false. "

-You are addressing a completely different dichotomy (and a false one since you include two different "positive" evaluations, true and false, in one).

True or not true are the possible evaluations we can arrive for any specific claim.
I am not denying or objecting to those options. I can be reckless and even include falseness in the same statement.

My point is simple. Truth is a human concept that help us evaluate claims in relations to the facts available to us.
Ultimate truth is the goal we strive for. In a hypothetical, if we had all the available facts we would be able to arrive to statements that were ultimately true.
So we might hold claims that are true to us (based on the facts we have) but ultimately they can be wrong because we don't have ALL the facts needed for a complete picture.

So I am claiming the opposite you are accusing me of because I am addressing a different dichotomy....what we know to be true vs what we would know to be true if we had all the facts needed for a complete picture.

I know. The point I am making is that the below are two different claims that you are conflating:

1. The statement has been evaluated as true
2. The statement is true — Michael

No I am not. My whole argument is to distinguish true statements from Absolute truth.

I pointed out that true statements (based on facts) are reasonable but not necessarily absolute truths.
Reasonableness(accepting a claim to be true based on current facts) and Absolute Truthiness are two different things.

You argue for the former and conclude the latter which is a non sequitur. — Michael

-No my arguements have nothing to do with this strawman. Pls reread my posts more carefully.

I only pointed out that its meaningless and irrational to reject current truth claims ( in agreements with current facts) in hope or holding Absolute Truth as an excuse to do it.
Do you get the difference between those two positions?

Again my definition addresses the ACT of Evaluation...not the idealistic concept of absolute truth.

A random guess may be in agreement with facts, it may have instrumental value, but it is not knowledge. — hypericin

Well by definition it can be. The utilization of that guess and the successful yielding of results alone render it" knowledge". Unsystematic Empirical Knowledge is mostly the result of guessing and unconscious or conscious empirical testing.
You seem to use "Knowledge" as an idealistic "quality" that a claim has it or not...when its the other way around. All claims are put out and through testing they awarded the title of knowledge.

If we cannot evaluate truth in an absolute sense, then we cannot evaluate knowledge either. — hypericin

Same error here(absolutism). Knowledge and truth are not(always) the same thing.
I.e. We know Relativity(in an ontological sense) is wrong but we still use it for its instrumental value.
Epicycles in Ptolemaic Astronomy did have an extensive epistemic and predictive value, but it was not a true model of the solar system.
In science there is a well used principle Known As Quasi Dogmatic principles. Its this process when a untrue framework is still used for its instrumental value while it crashes and burns, providing valuable data , supportive for the new framework!
So we need to distinguish truth and knowledge...and this is the reason why I AVOID "TRUTH" in my definition. Sure most knowledge is indeed based on true claims...but there is big but especially in scientific procedures.

We can only claim that something does or does not hold the status of knowledge. — hypericin

-Correct as I already said, knowledge is nothing more than an evaluation term. Its a status we apply on claims that are in agreement with currently available facts.
Whether those facts allow us to have the whole picture, thus our claim to be an ultimately true statement...that is an other discussion.

This is why Science doesn't do " ultimate TRUTHS". Its only provide descriptions based on current facts. Those facts can be used to evaluate claims as true or not true (without a capital T).

What is or is not considered knowledge changes over time, because our body of currently accepted truths, as well as the justifications we consider legitimate, change over time. — hypericin

-I will only change the term "truths" with "facts."
Yes truth and knowledge change with our advances in our technology and observation. Additional facts change the narratives that describe accurately a phenomenon. The newer narrative is True...the older no true anymore.

-"The defendant is claimed to be guilty, but it doesn't follow that the defendant is guilty. "
-Correct but we don't know that.We can only arrive to a conclusion based on available facts. So our statements are evaluated as true or not true based on those facts.

-"And the same with truth; we might claim that something is true, but it doesn't follow that the claim is true."
-Correct, but again our evaluation can only be made based on the available facts either we are happy or not.
i.e.
Was Geocentrism a true statement. Based on the contemporary available facts it was considered a true statements.
Is Heliocentrism a true statement. Based on our available facts, it is considered to be a true statement.
Can we be absolutely sure that Heliocentrism is true? We can say yes...based on our current available facts and assuming that there aren't any facts out here that could change this.

-" I might claim that there is an apple in the bag, but there might not be an apple in the bag."
-Correct but I don't have any facts to evaluate your claim, either than it is possible for you to have an apple in the bag. IF I saw you holding an apple earlier and now I see a protruding bump in the shape of the apple on your bag I can evaluate your claim as true.

Again I don't really get your objection since all the examples you give seem to provide support to "truth limited to current available facts" than "absolute truth".

Yes, our truth claims are limited by our nature, but truth itself isn't. Either there is an apple in the bag or there isn't, regardless of whatever I claim. . — Michael

-Ok I think I found the problem in your argument. You are arguing about the Abstract concept of truth as an Absolute Ideal and I am pointing out that there is ONLY one meaningful use in our daily life and the only type of evaluation we have access! Sure we agree that only one out of two possible answers can be true. How that can change the Actual and ONLY meaningful use that "truth" has as an evaluation term in our lives?

Words have practical and common usages. We need our words to satisfy our needs in our communication. We need to label a claim that is in agreement with what we know TODAY.(true statements in relation to available facts).
We also need a concept that points to our final goal (seek absolute Truth).
So in order to avoid Ambiguity fallacies you will need to distinguish those two concepts.
As I said we only have access to the first concept in our evaluations and we can only strive towards an absolute goal theoretical without being able to achieve it.
So reality checks points out to us that we can only evaluate claims based on what we currently know.
They might be proven wrong in the future but that doesn't really change the fact that our current position based on those facts is the most reasonable position to hold.

Not really.
Specifying unfalsifiable concepts doesn't really replace the need of epistemic foundations in a claim.
In order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge.
i.e. You can find my tip of "jumping from the window to reach your car fast" to be wise especially when you are in a harry, but if my "wise" claim ignores the fact that the apartment is at the top floor of a tall building...that doesn't make it so wise...

So you need epistemic foundations for any claim to be wise...thus Philosophical.

-" A theology that specifies it's gods and mentions their reasons for creation, can have profound impact on epistemology and be a source of deep wisdom,"
Now If that was indeed the case then we should've been able to find parts of our Epistemology based on Supernatural Principles...and those principles should be able to produce testable predictions and technical applications when applied !
As far as I am aware no such entries have ever been made it in our Academic epistemology and we don't have any Major Philosophical breakthroughs.

So we really need to investigate why a religious claim appears to have profound implications in knowledge or wisdom and identify the true cause. Most of the times is just reason that happens to hold unnecessary supernatural assumptions.

Pls explain how your statement is in conflict with what I wrote?

In both cases(jury trial knowledge evaluation) we can never be absolutely sure and this is why in the case of the jury...the members don't choose between guilty and innocent! Like with every application of the Null Hypothesis, Significant findings are demanded in order to departs from the normal risk free position. So its always guilty/not guilty or true/not true without absolute convictions.

but whether or not he committed the crime has nothing to do with the evidence available to jury and everything to do with historical events that actually happened. — Michael

-Correct, being reasonable and accepting the current facts has nothing to do with the actual True statement. BUT again, the time to depart from our Default Position is ONLY after we have available facts to support our position.
We need to acknowledge that our Knowledge and truth claims are limited by our nature, our methods and the rules of Logic.
Reasonableness doesn't equate Truthiness but Absolute knowledge and truth are red herrings that either distract us from what we can really achieve or act as an excuse to accept unfounded claims.
Maybe you can elaborate on what you disagree with.

As I have said before, this is more of Chronicling and less of Philosophizing. We already know that those thesis are not wise because they either conflict with knowledge, logic or they are unfalsifiable. So we can not really work upon them and produce wise claims that can expand our understanding of the world we live in or inform our actions.

What we can say for sure is that the Theological assumptions are a poor source of wisdom or epistemology and this is why we can only find Philosophy studying its history and social impact than counting its philosophical contributions.

In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

-If you read all my comments, that is my main argument. Theological claims are not Philosophical.
In order to understand that distinction, one needs to understand what Philosophy really is.
The etymology of the word inform us for the goal any philosophical inquiry should have." Produce wise claims that expand our understanding of our world and inform our actions".
In order for any claim to be wise it needs to be founded or originate from epistemic foundations.
We can NOT accept a claim to be wise when it is in conflict with Knowledge.
With that fact in mind we can easily see that Theology can not provide any wise claims because none of its convictions are based on knowledge. They are unfalsifiable faith based beliefs.
What philosophy can do is study what people believe and see whether they have a positive or negative impact on facts of reality.
So theology has more of a "chronicling" role in Philosophy than an actual discipline that can produce wise claims.

First lets put things in Categories.
Atheism was one of the major achievements of Philosophy (together with naturalism). As a result they allowed Science to experience a run away success in epistemology for more than 500 years and that was achieved by just removing agency and Arguments from ignorance from the list of "possible" answers and explanations.
Theology was a worldview that sneaked in Philosophy really early due to our superstitious nature and biological urges to ease our epistemic and existential anxieties.
We now view all supernatural worldviews as pseudo philosophy and this is why you won't find serious works under that tag.

But it did get me wondering what the difference is between theology, religion, and philosophy (of religion) — Paulm12

-Theology is the umbrella term where different religions arise and flourish.
Since we were unable to find any "wise" claims originating from theology(claims that can inform us of facts and expand our understanding for the world we live in), Philosophy is limited in studying these beliefs and their role in our societies.

Further, the Center for Naturalism

deny[ies] that individuals have ultimate responsibility for their actions (in the sense of origination - being the self-caused authors of their actions) and assert that free will is an illusion — Paulm12

-That is the picture we get from Science. Individuals are not in control of their actions or better they control a really small percentage of them but they can work on expanding their control!
This is where analytic thinking and reasoning can be helpful.
btw. Everyone should be hold responsible for his actions but we need to understand that most people don't have the power to affect most of their decisions.

By the way determinism is an observer relative term. We as observers and our limits in our observations "see" things as determine because we don't have the whole picture and access to all hidden variable...if there are any.
On top of that, agency in the animal kingdom is a chance organisms have to avoid things that might appear determined to an organism with limited sensory inputs.

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will. — Paulm12

-First you will need to demonstrate that free will is an option for organisms with biological urges, drives, peer and cultural pressures, environmental influences etc etc. Sure agency must provide the "luxury" of choice, but again how free is it?

I can not talk as a metaphysical naturalist, but as a Methodological Naturalist I can only point out what I observe and can verify.
This is that natural laws produce a world that demands from us (as agents) to make choices guided by our fundamental biological drives(to survive, flourish and procreate).
There is no conflict between those two models under the Scientific Paradigm.

if naturalism is true…the laws that govern the universe are what make everything happen. That everything which happens in the universe is a physical play out through time. And that means everything single thing, including our conscious thought and decision-making…If our decisions are tied to the physical processes of the universe, then we only have a say in them in so far as the physical processes output what we will say about them. In other words, what we think, feel, say, and do are all an output of how the universe is playing out

I think the described problem begs a question based on the use of ill defined abstract concepts.

-" if naturalism is true…the laws that govern the universe are what make everything happen. That everything which happens in the universe is a physical play out through time. And that means everything single thing, including our conscious thought and decision-making…If our decisions are tied to the physical processes of the universe, then we only have a say in them in so far as the physical processes output what we will say about them. In other words, what we think, feel, say, and do are all an output of how the universe is playing out."
-We will need to approach this problem much more analytic of the mechanism in play.
Yes everything we have ever observed and verified has been classified as Natural.
Yes our mental states are products of a Natural mechanism (biological brain).
But that "mechanism" is hooked at a sensory system, with the ability to register external/internal stimuli, store previous experiences and inform future actions based on the feedback.
All those interactions are interpreted by us with meaning and feelings (Symbolic language/what it means to us and how it makes us feel) allowing us to reason different scenarios,thus avoiding previous failures and attempting to have better choices. This demands a long period (known as childhood) and many of us keep meshing up even after that period or for the rest of our lives.

There is nothing incompatible when you take the time and analyze the facts.
Humans are agents, they have the capacity to gather information and improve their choices based on previous experiences, aiming for better results. Its not a "free choice" by any chance since it demands access to experience, knowledge which many do not have or can't process, freedom from personal biological drives and vices, cultural and societal pressure etc etc
Agency, under those conditions and based on the biological systems we are aware of, is something natural.
Freeing ourselves from the "noise" and choosing our actions is a exercise in frustration and a constant struggle that can only get better through practice, but still only a very small percent of our choices will be free from environmental and organic "interference" .

I don't understand what tense has to do with it. In the general form we're discussing the meaning of the noun "knowledge" which obviously has no tense. The proposed definition is "a justified true belief". We can then use tense to talk about having (or not having) a justified true belief or having had (or not having had) a justified true belief, and so on, but grammatical tense has no bearing on the meaning of the noun. — Michael

-Well I dare to say that I understand Isaac's point. Before that I must point out that the definition proposed in this thread is a messy one. I think I have a better one that avoids the use of the word "true".
People tend to project an absolute meaning to the word "Truth" which is unrealistic.(Absolute /ultimate knowledge/ true)
We can only evaluate a claim as true or not true based on the facts that are currently available to us...not in an absolute sense, because we don't know if we have all the facts needed to make such an absolute evaluation.
So when a claim is true, it means that it is Only Currently true based on the limited available facts we have.
Knowledge and Truth values are affected by tense since the accumulation of facts never really stops (especially in science). Knowledge claims, especially in science are tentative and remain always falsifiable since we constantly improve our methods of observation.
My preferred definition is to view knowledge as an evaluation term that identifies claims being in agreement with currently available facts and with an instrumental value.

Now on an other point, the example of 2x2=4 describes a fact(relation) among physical entities(by physical I mean entities which obey the 3 logical absolutes). No new observation can add new facts to this "fundamental relation" between physical entities. You can argue that in QM we might find problems with how well Logical absolutes apply , but then again we don't really deal with physical structures (entities) but with different energetic states of matter.
We need to understand that our frameworks (truth claims) are GOOD for the scale and scenario they were designed to describe. If we find issues in our descriptions then we need to check whether we have drifted outside the area our frameworks are good for.....logic included.

Evaluations of knowledge and truth fail when we apply absolute standards.
Science showed us that those standards are useless and disabling. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a far better standard than "absolutes". Statistical Standards are far superior since a knowledge claim is not just a true one...it also carries an instrumental value and we NEED to act upon it.
So we need to take the risk...and this is what is rewarding. This is why Tautologies are valueless and Inductive reasoning is the main characteristic of scientific knowledge.

If there isn't a bus and you say "there's a bus" then what you say is false. — Michael


But what's wrong with saying something false? — Isaac

-Ok this explains your absurd arguments in our discussion about morality.For a moment I thought I was not explaining things well but you are just in the Philosophy of Absurdism.
So to answer your question there is this fallacy called Argument from Ambiguity. Words represent concepts and concepts include specific meanings. If you are not going to use them according to their common usage then you won't be able to arrive to meaningful conclusions.

-"Knowledge is true belief justified by true premises"
-This problematic definitions states that Knowledge is a true belief someone holds based on truth claims.
So in my opinion this definition informs us more on what people do with a true claim than what a knowledge claim really is.
Knowledge is an evaluation term. We use it to evaluate claims in general. A claim is accepted as knowledge when it is in agreement with available facts and carries an instrumental value.
With that definition we avoid the black whole of "true" because people tend to mix absolute truth with "Currently true statement".

In short, we have no data to feed in our metaphysics. You can't do Philosophy Without foundational data. You assume way to many things that you know nothing about.
We don't know if this cosmic fluctuation field is eternal or not, we don't know if the emergence of processes like our Universe is a one time or constantly occurring phenomenon...we know nothing.
So assuming the ontology of the cause for a phenomenon that possibly never happened (nature came in to being) is an irrational intellectual practice.

Most importantly even if there was a cause responsible of what we identify as Nature, that wouldn't quality as "non natural"...because "Nature" is a limited label we put on what we currently know about the cosmos.

Look, lets say there is a bunch of building blocks, and what these building blocks do is obey the laws of nature, so that whatever they produce is said to be natural. Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks. And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

-"Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. "
-You don't know how they came in to existence. Maybe they existed all along...and this is most probably the case since none existence is not a state being on its own.

-"Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks."
- Well we need to be more precise. We have a cosmic quantum field where we can observe quantum fluctuations affecting the fundamental particles of our universe. We understand that there is a sub-level underlying the building blocks of our universe and they are totally natural in their behavior (A Nobel Prize was awarded for the modeling of those fluctuations).

-"And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree?"
-How on earth can you conclude to that claim? We don't know if Quantum fluctuations came in to existence or they were always there. We don't know if there was a cause or that cause can NOT be natural.
The burden is on you who makes a claim for something that can't be demonstrated to be possible. At least we know that Natural Causation exists!

-"If we're not going to "dance around concepts", then what is the point of this discussion?"
-An honest....we don't know answer? An honest acknowledgement that we have verified natural causation and he have never verified supernatural causation to be possible????

-"No, you defined "nature" that way, as what manifests from fundamental building blocks. It was your definition. All I need to do is show that there is necessarily something outside of what is "natural", by your definition, and this is, by valid logic, non-natural. That I've done. "
-How can you ever demonstrate that??? How can you show that there is something necessary "outside nature" and how can you say that "necessary thing" has properties that aren't natural????? Valid logic will not make the trick. You will need Soundness...not validity. Logic is acceptable to the GIGO effect. You will need to feed demonstrated premises.
"Not even Wrong" arguments are not useful or philosophical.
The main problem with your claim is that you are unable to define the non natural, So you will always end up with an argument from ignorance fallacy...no matter how sound your reasoning appears to be.

I am asking you to show how to apply your moral considerations in a particular case. How best to treat transgender folk? — Banno

-Well why is this even a question???? Is Discrimination an option?
Would you want to live in a society where your sexuality defines the way you are treated.
Just make that question for every moral judgment in your life and tell me how it goes.
Just put yourself or your family's in the particular case you have troubles with.

Nickolasgaspar presented a particular approach to ethics, which I think somewhat problematic. The suggestion that he show how it can be applied remains open. — Banno

-What do you mean "it remains open". Judging(approving or disapproving) people's behavior and its affect on other members of their society is what Morality is all about. Why is this so difficult for you?
Sure there are grey areas where its not clear if we will need to "sacrifice" members for the well being of others and their society in general....but at least we have a real-life foundations where we can start producing objective evaluations.

It might be more interesting to get Nickolasgaspar's opinion here. He has explained how we are caused to act for our own wellbeing, and that as a result all we need to do is measure wellbeing - in terms of brain chemistry, it seems - in order to work out what that wellbeing is, and so solve all the problems we previously considered to be questions of "ethics"

So here's an opportunity for Nick to explain the practicality of that theory. In my old-fashion ways, I might pose the moral question "ought we use the word "woman" for a man who has transitioned to a woman?" I'm sure @Isaac and @Tom Storm would be interested in hearing how it works in a practical situation.

Show us how your ideas will objectively set us on the straight path. — Banno

-You are talking about politeness not morality.

Ok, rather than call what is outside of natural "supernatural", would you prefer "non-natural"? I don't really care about the terminology. If you dislike the term "supernatural" let's just call it "non-natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

-both describe the same concept.
Again the problem is How do you prove that!!!!!?


When it is demonstrated that there is something other than the natural, then we must call it something. You defined "natural" as what manifests through verified building blocks, so the manifestation of the building blocks themselves must be something other than natural. Can we call this the "non-natural"?[/quote]
-lol......no those building blocks "obey" all the laws of nature. There is nothing non natural about them!
Don't use that term as a bin to throw in anything you don't understand. That is a fallacy.(Argument from ignorance).

A "system" is a human construct. This statement makes no sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Dude...your language mode is a mesh. This "system" includes facts of REALITY. (our biological urges, environmental stimuli, peer pressure, cultural pressure, superstition, habits....etc etc.
Come on...lets no tap dance around concepts.

-"It's already been demonstrated. According to your definition of "natural", nature builds things from building blocks"
-lol no it isn't......arbitrary labels do not make parts of nature supernatural....lol

You need to demonstrate that building blocks in nature NEED a supernatural agent to exist before assuming their supernatural origins.

-"I've demonstrated the necessity to assume a cause which is not natural,"
-lol no you haven't. Demonstration requires objective evidence....you are just pointing to something you don't understand and declare it supernatural. That is pseudo philosophy.

I'm not asking you to explain it, I'm informing you that you're mistaken. — Isaac

If you have painkillers in your drawer...then you know that I am not mistaken....

Yes this is true. And this biology that "cares" about its well being and forces us to take actions results in friendships and murder, among many other things.

How do you go from that to prescriptive morality? By which I mean telling a murderer what they did was wrong, and people in that situation should not commit murder in the future.

If you are sticking to science, then seeing a murder should result in you update your theory of human behaviour to include murder as part of biology that "cares about well being.". Is that what you do, or do you say "murder is wrong"? — PhilosophyRunner

"Murder" is a legal term. We use many terms to label the act of "killing" other humans and they depend on the situation. So your example already refers to an "immoral" act.
Murder is immoral.
Killing other people can be moral. (self defense, protecting your others or your country etc).
This is situational ethics.

I'd love for you to expand on this if you have time. How does a brain generate an emotion? — bert1

There are Moocs (Neuroscience) that explain how specific mechanisms give rise to our affections and emotions and we reason them in to feelings.

Thank you. To be clear, would you consider a thermostat to be aware of temperature in this sense? — bert1

-Α small metal plate being affected by temperature thus allowing a circuit to open or close is not what we identify as "being aware". Animals (including humans) are aware of things around them by processing stimuli through a central nervous system which allows them to identify meaning and predict implications.

There is no sharp cut-off point between being bald and non-bald
— bert1
of course there is. You just choose not to admit it. Here are the extremes for both cases(Again)
A. a head without hair b. a head with hair.
A a unconscious state b. a conscious state.
Both extremes in both cases display many stages in between. — Nickolasgaspar


OK, lets write it out:

[bald] .... [1 hair, 2 hairs.....501 hairs....100,001 hairs]... [not bald]
[seven] ... [???] ... [not-seven]
[spatial] ... [???] ... [not spatial]
[unconscious] .... [what do we write here???]... [conscious]

Please tell me what goes in between unconscious and conscious?

I have included the concepts of seven and space as these are arguably binary as well, with no middle ground, just to illustrate the point. I'm suggesting consciousness is like that. — bert1

Can you see the problem in your claim? Υοu are making up concepts with an idealist quality that don't exist in nature.
like a head can have many "numbers of hair" our conscious states come display many levels. You can be asleep,half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in afocus state etc etc etc etc etc etc.
You need to revisit the concepts you use.

Sure there are...are they for a long time with us?

You've yet to demonstrate that. Comfortable and free of pain I'll grant as being self-evident since such emotions are directly about comfort or pain, but where's your evidence that following such emotions leads to happiness, physical health and being valued by ones peers? — Isaac

-what emotions????? Dude you also need to do your homework, its not my job to explain to you why the pain of an open wound informs you for a crisis your physical health is experiencing and how it is connected to you being "well" and being able to ...continue to be.
Your biology makes it best to force you to care as an agent for your well being.
No oughts or musts.....just ISes.

ITs a fact that our biology "cares" about its well being and forces us to take actions by interpreting urgent issues with intense emotions.
You are just here to deny everything just from pure ego. I am bored addressing stupid objections.....seriously!

Yes, I can use it as an argument for something. Consciousness is an unusual concept. The vast majority of concepts do admit of degree. That's why I mentioned the example of baldness. It's a perfectly good concept, but it is not binary. — bert1

Sir...you are fooling yourself with these bad arguments and bad language mode.
You can be unconscious, conscious and display many degrees of consciousness from highly alerted to lethargic
You can be bold, have hair and all the stages between those two extremes.
You just choose to the two extreme points and ignore all the in between.

There is no sharp cut-off point between being bald and non-bald — bert1

of course there is. You just choose not to admit it. Here are the extremes for both cases(Again)
A. a head without hair b. a head with hair.
A a unconscious state b. a conscious state.
Both extremes in both cases display many stages in between.

Well, for the vast majority of properties in the world, I completely agree with you. But consciousness is different. — bert1

You should also agree with me on this one.

-"The concept does not seem to allow of degree.'
Of course it does...but you literally dismissed it when I pointed that out...just because it makes your argument look bad.

There is of course, plenty of degree about what we experience once we have got consciousness 'booted up' as it were, — bert1

-"

There is of course, plenty of degree about what we experience once we have got consciousness 'booted up' as it were, to use an emergentist metaphor, but if there is a 'booting up', there has to be a binary transition from non-conscious to conscious. — bert1

-And there are many degrees to baldness when we get/or loose our first hair.
Again you just choose to ignore the part of the phenomenon that makes your argument sound bad.
The extreme in both examples are binary.

But nature generally lacks such binary transitions, especially when you get the microscope out and look closely. So that presents a problem for the emergentist. — bert1

Neither consciousness or baldness is binary........

But I have evidence of my consciousness that no one else can have, because no one else is me. — bert1

-evidence for what?
I also have evidence of your conscious states mate. You interact with me, you share your conscious and questionable ideas, you appear to be alive so you must be conscious of your surroundings thus able to acquire what you need to survive. At worst, I can hook you on an fMRI scanner check that you are not a robot and even tell you what you think.

When I say panpsychism is a denial of emergentism, that's only with regard to the emergence of consciousness specifically. — bert1

-Cherry picking? Special Pleading...are you ok with the use of fallacies in your arguments? I am not, I tend to dismiss such arguments without second thought.

I'm only talking about the philosophy of mind. — bert1

Pansychism has nothing to do with Philosophy. Its an unfalsifiable metaphysical worldview and it is direct conflict with the available scientific facts of reality.

Of course, the vast majority of properties in the world are emergent. But consciousness isn't one of them. Consciousness is very unusual like that. — bert1

-Again Special pleading. What do you mean "consciousness" is very unusual, what is unusual about a biological sensory system arousing specific areas of the brain allowing the organism to be conscious about things in his environment????? You don't get to declare something unusual, you need to demonstrate it. You must point to the science that proves external stimuli can not be collected by our biological sensors (eyes,ears) and they can not be converted to electric pulses, can't arouse a specific area of the brain responsible for visual consciousness and the image can't be compared with a previous input providing info on what we look at etc etc etc etc

I think you might be confusing panpsychism with substance dualism. Panpsychism is typically a monistic view. — bert1

No I only point out that making up magical answers was a common practice in our medieval philosophy. The example was random.

It isn't assumed. Panpsychism must be true if the alternatives are false. — bert1

Again....you need to demonstrate that the alternatives are false......The evidence we have don't favor your ideology.

-"The evidence you are referring to doesn't show what you think it shows. "
-Allow me to accept the position presented by Neuroscience and dismiss yours.

Of course a functioning human brain in a human body is necessary and sufficient for a functioning human being, that's pretty much true by definition. — bert1

-You converted the induced conclusion of neuroscience....to a tautology. Great!

You haven't told me anything interesting about consciousness. — bert1

-Obviously you were not paying any attention. Neuroscience has located the areas responsible for our conscious states, for the introduction of the content of our thoughts and how by manipulating those areas we can affect our states.

This says nothing about the consciousness of, say, a snail, thermostat, or lawnmower. — bert1

And there is a reason for that......its because the brain mechanisms responsible for our conscious states....are irrelevant to those things you mentioned.
Its like holding your tuna sandwich responsible for the low air pressure of your rear tire.
This is philosophy of Absurdism.

It doesn't tell me why a functioning human brain is conscious, and why, say, an internal combustion engine isn't. — bert1

- Well what it matter is what it tells to experts, not to us. Our brain has the hardware that allows it to be conscious, it is hooked on a sensory system that provides information about the world and the organism, it has centers that process meaning,memory, symbolic language, pattern recognition.A combustion engine....burns fuel and its censors provide information for that process.

Why can't a brain do all the things it does in the dark, without consciousness? We know it doesn't, but why not? — bert1

-I am not sure you understand what it means for a brain to conscious....It helps to be aware of where you can find resources, avoid predators and obstacles, make choices of your behavior and actions in your society, adjust it according to other people's behavior.
Consciousness is a state where our brain receives and processes important stimuli that help it inform and choose the best action.

OK, that's good. OK, so we look at an fRMI scan and what? See consciousness there? Or do we infer consciousness? Or what? If we infer it, what is the inference? Can you spell it out? — bert1

Sorry but those are "funny" questions....Do we look at xrays and see digestion, or mitosis, do we scan leaves and see photosynthesis? In ALL natural phenomena we observe processes that enable specific properties and qualities.We don't see these properties, we see what they produce.
here is some material to understand the mechanism involved.

https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/neurobiology-of-consciousness-study-explained
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI&t=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-1etGWVvb8

I agree with you, I think I am. But the evidence I have for your consciousness is not the same evidence I have for my own consciousness. — bert1

-Actually the correct quote should be "I feel , I am ". The evidence are not the same but the are more than sufficient to meet any objective standard.

Sure, the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks", but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks". That's what we deal with in metaphysics. If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

-"the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks",
-yes
-"but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks".
-yes
-" That's what we deal with in metaphysics."
-yes
-"If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural.Do you agree?"
-No, how do you prove that?

-"That natural things are necessary for the effect A, does not exclude the possibility that supernatural things are also required for the A effect."
-What natural things are necessary of is irrelevant to how we establish and verify possibilities.The possibility of the supernatural must be demonstrated, not assumed.
How can you do that? Easy, by just pointing to a single example where the supernatural has being demonstrated to be true, beyond reasonable doubt and by the use of objective evidence accessible to everyone and without of the need of an auxiliary assumptions or a fallacious argument from ignorance.
Do you have such a case?

Yes, remember I mentioned "free will". And the hypocrite that you are, chose to reject the reality of free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again declaring a natural phenomenon of cognitive deliberation "supernatural" is not evidence for the supernatural.
You can NOT POINT TO AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT DESCRIBES THE INABILITY OF HUMANS TO MAKE CHOICES FREE FROM OTHER INFLUENCES AND CLAIM TO BE SUPERNATURAL!!!!!!!
I'am not an hypocrite, you are scientific illiterate and irrational and that makes everyone who corrects you appear to your eyes as a hypocrite!

-"That the extent to the freedom of the will is limited, does not necessitate the conclusion that it is not real."
-Sure, our will is a real phenomenon......declaring it "fee" is scientifically ignorant because none of our choices are really free from the system we are in.

-"and also supernatural causes are required for A. "
-Stop this sophistry. You need to demonstrate that supernatural causality is real and that it is required for A. You don't get to assume it you need to demonstrate ti. You don't even define what supernatural causality would mean for A. What we should expect if it was natural and what if it was supernatural causality???

If it is a fact that the natural effectively restricts the supernatural, this does not necessitate the conclusion that the supernatural has been excluded. — Metaphysician Undercover

-You just don't get it. You keep promoting the same Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Don't you value valid arguments at all?
The natural tells us nothing about the supernatural. A natural explanations renders a mechanism Necessary and Sufficient...that's all!!!!
Whether a supernatural explanation is relevant,that is on you do demonstrate sufficiency and necessity through objective positive evidence in favor of the supernatural...not by making arguments through the use of gaps in our epistemology.

Again you need to define and demonstrate that the supernatural exists, is possible and it can interact with natural systems by a specific mechanisms. Can you do that by providing objective evidence.
PLS DON'T make the same fallacious claims on us not being able to prove the supernatural impossible.....or that "free" will is evidence for the supernatural...

btw our efforts to free our will from all this power noise produced by biological drives,environmental influences, peer pressure, cultural indoctrination and prototypes, pleasure traps of cost effective andy and fast rewards etc etc) is not a supernatural phenomenon...its just cognitive deliberation. Its a well understood phenomenon and it assist many our our cognitive abilities that allow us to reflect on scenarios.