When I compare power-hungry individuals occupying a corporation vs a government, I prefer the mercantilist to the dictator. — NOS4A2

I'm assuming that you live in a democracy - i.e., not Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. If I'm mistaken in that assumption, then I apologize because you have a whole different set of problems.

At least I can refuse to work with or purchase the services of the mercantilist, — NOS4A2

Not when the mercantilist has monopoly control of an essential item - food, water, clothing, housing. And remember that this will happen in your hypothetical unregulated economy.

That we have to beg our governments to address these concerns instead of taking on the task ourselves is just another hurdle to seeing it through. — NOS4A2

In a democracy, however flawed it may be, you are the government. In a democracy you and your fellow citizens have the final say on what the government does. If you do not like the decisions your fellow citizens have made, if you do not like the policies your government is pursuing, you can pick up and move to another state/province/country where things are run more to your liking.

I highly doubt that you will find any such place, but I could be wrong.

Or you can always buy a boat and live out int the ocean. Or perhaps this might be a good solution for you.

Surely a solution to the problem exists outside of government intervention. — NOS4A2

In your hypothetical regulation free society you're screwed.

Perhaps once we relocate we can innovate a cleaner and more cost-effective method and put our former neighbor out of business, without having to give more power and money to some intervening bureaucracy. — NOS4A2

We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. History has shown us over and over that - in the absence of laws regulating economic activity - economic power becomes
hyper concentrated in the hands of a few power hungry individuals - and power hungry people do not willingly give up their power. This is why most democracies have anti-monopoly laws.

In your hypothetical regulation free society, your attempts to put the mega-corporation polluting your town out of business will fail. Mega-corporation will deny you the access to the raw materials needed to create your cleaner & cost effective solution. Mega-corporation will make it impossible for you to get access to the marketplace to sell your solution. We know this as well as we know anything.

Governments are notoriously awful at managing the environment. — NOS4A2

And what's the alternative? Rely on the good will of people? You know the answer to that.

When we believe the government will take care of these issues, we thereby hand over our responsibility, believing they will take care of it. — NOS4A2

That's why we have democracies. If your government is doing a lousy job of managing the environment, then get together with your fellow citizens and elect a different government. Is this easy? Of course not. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not - duh. . .

The reasonably predictable outcome of your hypothetical regulation free society is that you would have less freedom than you do now.

- - - - - -

To a certain extent I understand & empathize with your position. No one wants to be forced how to live their life, we all want to maximize our freedom and options. But on this small planet with 7.5 or so billion people, every action we take - no matter how small - affects everyone else.

If I turn up the thermostat in my house from 68 to 70 because we have company, I am affecting your life in a small but measurable way.

If I am feeling tired and drive to the store to get milk instead of walking - even in my nice environmentally & politically correct Prius - I am affecting your life in some small but measurable way.

Every time I flush the toilet, I am affecting your life in a small but measurable way.

Multiply this by 7.5 billion.

Absent that I would have to relocate. — NOS4A2

And when a big polluting industry moves into town and starts polluting the entire town, then everyone would have to relocate to another town. And when multiple industries move into your state/province, then you can re-locate to another state/province.

Eventually you will run out of places to relocate. OK, maybe outer space, but even there pollution is a problem.

And if you need laws to convince you to avoid spewing toxic fumes into your neighbor’s yard then maybe the society isn’t the problem. — NOS4A2

In this imperfect world that we live in laws are required.

So if I'm understanding you, if I were to move next door to you and built a lead smelting plant and spew toxic fumes into your yard, then in your ideal society there would be no legal mechanism for you to stop me from doing this.

Am I getting this correctly?

The very first Existential Comics has a good take on this: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

There is no such thing as natural laws in science. — MondoR

I agree. However, for better or worse the term Scientific Law is in general use. The overview in the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of clarifying the situation, but it is easy to mix up "natural law" and "scientific law".

Why does God have the Israelites march around the walls of Jericho once a day for six days and seven times on the seventh day before the walls fall? — BBQueue

Isn't it obvious? On the seventh day, six times would not have been enough and eight times would have been too many.

If you're still confused, perhaps this will clarify things.

Not sure about those first six days tho. Seems a bit excessive to me. . . .

This is all interesting, but not what I asked. Perhaps I was not clear.

I'm questioning why the word moral needs to be in here. Is there such a concept as immoral responsibility? I doubt it.

But perhaps there are other categories of responsibility that are conceptually distinct from "moral responsibility"? If not, then the word "moral" seems redundant.

A question for all parties.
Moral Responsibility

So he's talking about being responsible in a 'retributivist' sense. — Bartricks

Every voluntary action that a person takes (so excluding breathing, sleeping, etc) has some measurable impact on the physical world - however minimal. Are there other categories of responsibility that are non-retributive in nature?

If I follow his "reasoning" he is not initially attributing powers - his starting point is to simply define the words. Then he is trying to somehow bootstrap his definitions into existence.

God can make true propositions be false at the same time. But he's told us that true propositions are not false at the same time. Does the fact he's told us that true propositions are not false at the same time give us reason to believe that true propositions are not false at the same time? Yes. — Bartricks

No.

First of all we don't know that your omniscient being (AKA God) planted these imperatives of Reason in our minds, that's one of many things you are trying to prove.

But even acting under that assumption - even if we assume that He planted these imperatives of Reason in our minds - there is no way to know that what He planted in our minds is correct. He could have planted false/bogus imperatives of Reason in our minds. Our limited human minds (which He created) would have no way of knowing that.

Or perhaps our limited mortal human minds (which He created) are incapable of processing the actual imperatives of Reason, and so your omniscient God has placed a greatly reduced and simplified version of the full set of imperatives in our minds - and this reduced/simplified set of imperatives only function properly under certain limited situations - e.g., when dealing with the practicalities of our physical existence.

Can you use your imperatives of Reason to rule out these possibilities? No, because your omniscient being is not bound by your imperatives - and so you cannot use the imperatives to prove anything about such a being since there is no certainty that the imperatives of Reason are correct and/or will lead to correct conclusions.

End of discussion.

- - - - - -

BTW - at the risk of asking too many questions at once, why do you keep capitalizing the word "Reason" and not the word "imperatives"? Is there some person, place, or thing called Reason?

I'm flattered, thanks. I always try to criticize the idea not the person.

I'm actually a bit embarrassed at some of my earlier comments in this thread. Bartricks insulted me with the Dunning Kruger reference.

I should have ignored it, but instead I responded in kind. That was very out of character and wrong of me.

Why are you cutting and pasting an earlier post?

There are enough holes in this line of reasoning to fill The Albert Hall. I did a whole back & forth with Bartricks to try to get some basic rudimentary explanation from him to fill a few of those holes but with no success. I don't have the time / energy to do yet another back & forth, so I'll give you just a few items that need clarification/answering in the first item.

1. If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

What are these "laws of Reason"
Can you list them and/or provide a link where I can examine them. And what's with capitalizing the word "Reason" - what's up with that? Is there some implication/point being made by that capital "R"?

What is meant by the word "are"
As in "There are laws of Reason". The verb "is" (and all its conjugations) has many shades and nuances of meaning/usage. In this sentence it seems like the author is using "are" in an existential sense - i.e., he is asserting some sort of existence. I could be wrong but I doubt that the author of this sentence means that they physically exist - so it seems like he is doing some sort of meta-physical existence - or maybe he means that they only exist our minds? Not sure. But not matter what the explanation is, he has to clarify how you can assign a truth value to this statement.

Why is it "a" mind and not many minds?
And when he says "a mind whose laws they are" - to me this implies ownership - there is "a mind" that "owns" these as of yet undefined "laws of Reason". What does all this mean?

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. As I said earlier I do not have the time / energy to do yet another back & forth, so if you choose to reply I apologize in advance for not replying back.

To you I will appear an idiot. — Bartricks

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I disagree with this. I only know you based on your writing, but based on that it is clear that you are highly informed and intelligent. You just have this blind spot, you're stuck in this "philosophical loop".

Throughout history people much, much smarter than you have attempted to explain/understand what the sentence "God exists" actually means - and they have all failed. The very concept of a deity, god, omniscient being (whatever term you choose to use) is illogical down to its core. You cannot use logical reasoning to prove something illogical.

Based on your writing I'm assuming that you hold some sort of religious belief and that your religious beliefs are important to you - and that's OK. That does not pose a problem for me. But for some reason you cannot accept that this is simply a belief. At the risk of doing an amateur psychoanalysis of someone based on their writings on an internet forum, the sense I get is that there is something inside of you that feels threatened by the notion that there is no logical explanation for your core beliefs.

There is a word for this feeling inside of you - cognitive dissonance. Your desire to believe in God and you desire for there to be logical explanations for this belief are mutually contradictory and this creates an uncomfortable feeling inside of you - a conflict if you will. But instead of rejecting one of these two contradictory notions, you are attempting to do the impossible - use logic (Reason, ratiocination, etc) to prove something illogical.

Again, people much, much smarter than you have attempted to do this and have all failed You're a smart person, but you're no St. Barticks.

Oh, wait a minute, Dunning Kruger - you're an expert and I'm someone who has a smattering of knowledge but lacks the meta-cognitive ability to recognize his limitations. Well, yes. I recognize that I am not an expert in philosophy. I would never argue some fine point about Anselm's take on, umm. . . . . well I hardly know anything about him at all. I would have to google just to remind myself who he was.

BUT - you don't need to be an astronomer to know that the moon orbits around earth and that earth orbits around the sun. You don't need a PhD in History to know that George Washington was the first president of the US. And you don't need to know the first thing about Anselm to recognize that there is no fucking way that you can use logic (Reason, ratiocination, etc) to prove this sentence is true:

There is an omniscient being who has the ability to create a square circle in a galaxy 20 billion light years away if He so chose, but He has not done this.

To use the vernacular, this is just bat shit crazy.

Why an otherwise intelligent person cannot recognize this baffles me.

BUT - maybe I'm wrong. Maybe right now - in this very exchange - I'm demonstrating a classic case of Dunning Kruger and these posts will be quoted 100 years from now. So in your response to me (and I know you will respond) please demonstrate the logic that proves the sentence just above. Give me your definitions/premises and how you arrived at your conclusion.

If you can do this then you are truly a genius of the highest caliber.

@Present awareness@Bartricks

Is it possible to have something more infinite then infinity? How could something that goes on without end, have MORE without end? — Present awareness

Because according to our friend Bartricks, God can do ANYTHING. God can make a square circle. God can make a statement that is both true and false. God is not bound by logic. Anything means anything.

He can do contradictory things. But he hasn't. — Bartricks

So, he 'can' create a being more powerful than himself, but he hasn't. — Bartricks

How do you know that He has not created a square circle in a galaxy 20 billion light years away from you? Perhaps He texted you? Or maybe He has a blog or website where He tells you exactly what He has and hasn't done.

Yes, of course an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. He can do anything, so he can do that. — Bartricks

So can the omnipotent being create another being that is MORE omnipotent than him? If yes, then that newly created more omnipotent being can create yet another that is even more omnipotent. Lather, rinse and repeat and infinite number of times.

There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could frustrate the other and thus neither would truly be omnipotent. — Bartricks

So an omnipotent being cannot create another being that is equally omnipotent - that would be terribly frustrating for those poor omnipotent beings.

There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could frustrate the other and thus neither would truly be omnipotent. — Bartricks

Can an omnipotent being create another being more omnipotent than itself? If no, then such a being is not omnipotent because there is something that it cannot do.

If yes, then you have an infinite number of omnipotent beings, each of which creates a yet more omnipotent being - and thus there is no omnipotent being.

If you want to claim that this reasoning is invalid because you have defined the word omnipotent in such a way that there cannot be anything more omnipotent, then you are carving out an exception to your position that God is capable of doing everything. But if your version of God can illogically break the very definitions of every other word in the English language (create a square circle), then God your should also be able to break your definition of the word omnipotence. You can't have it both ways.

As many people in this thread have tried pointing out to you, the very notion of omnipotence is inherently illogical. But if you are attempting to use logic/reasoning to prove that logic/reasoning can be broken - then you cannot use logic/reasoning to prove anything - since there is no way of knowing that any such "proof" is truly valid. After all - it could be that there is an evil God who has created the rules of logic to deceive you into believing such things.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Look - I have close friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I have seen first hand that religion helps people cope with life and provides a great source of comfort. And my religious friends/relatives do not feel the need to justify their beliefs - they just live them.

Religion is deeply and profoundly illogical. That's OK. Life is absurd. But for some reason, there are folks who cannot accept this and instead attempt to use all sorts of bizarre reasoning to "prove" the impossible. People much smarter than you & I have attempted to do this and have failed. Even people who believe in God cannot agree on the most basic definitions of words.

You cannot define things into existence (whatever you mean by existence).

Take a leap of faith.

- - - - - - -

BTW - There's no doubt that you are much more knowledgeable about medieval scholasticism & the history of philosophical thought than I. That in itself does not make your points any more valid.

So you have no answer. As I thought.

Then look up Dunning and Kruger and then ask yourself why you might be finding everything I say a bit nonsensical. — Bartricks

Truly ironic

I tried to create a non-sarcastic question but your posts are so bizarrely nonsensical that it slipped through. I apologize for that. That said, my request was sincere. I keep an open mind. Perhaps the phrase "laws of Reason" has some esoteric meaning in your philosophic world view that I'm not getting. I did google "laws of Reason" before I posted but did not find anything useful.

A law of Reason is an imperative or instruction to do or believe something. — Bartricks

I plead ignorance in this discussion. Would you kindly list the "laws of Reason". If this list is too long, perhaps you can supply the top 10?

This is a variation on Hanlon's Razor

I never even get past the notion of greatest. No idea what that means. Who is the greatest soccer player? What is the greatest tuna fish sandwich? Etc.

But if you're saying this is the worst example of violent behavior against the US government, I'm saying it's not. — Hanover

I'd agree with that - The Civil War was worse.

I don't think any scientist have found "something to come out of nothing (vacuum)" — hans solace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

independent and transparent investigation — NOS4A2

If Trump and his supporters would be satisfied with the results of such an investigation there might be some merit in this proposal. But when that investigation came up with nothing would Trump say "OK, this was investigated and they found nothing. I concede - let me give a very belated congratulations to President Biden"?

Of course not. Trump (and his supporters) would reject such results and still find something wrong with any investigation. If Trump is not willing to take the word of Secretary General William Barr what on earth makes you think he would accept the results of an independent (i.e., bipartisan) investigation?

rephrase the question — TheMadFool

Maybe in your mind it is re-phrasing, but in fact it is an entirely different question.

Other than that, I yield to @L'Unico and @Mijin in this conversation. . .

Quantum fluctuations alone do not presuppose or prove an existence without a prior cause. Would you like to point out why you think we do? — Philosophim

Quantum mechanics shows that events at the sub-atomic level are random and "un-caused". These "un-caused" events behave in a statistically predictable pattern, but each event has no prior "cause".

Now if you want to postulate that quantum physics is incomplete and there is some underlying "causality" that science has not yet uncovered , then go for it. But people much, much smarter than you & I have been unable to do so.

BTW - I neglected yet another option

e) The whole notion of "causality" is nonsensical. In other words, we are like dogs looking at a computer screen - we have no idea what's going on out there.

At best, the notion that everything has a "prior cause" is a hypothesis that needs to be proven.

To Tim's list I would also add

d. Things can exist without a prior cause

If you think theology is well-defined, can you find that definition and reference it here? — tim wood

Of course there is no single precise definition of the word, but there is universal agreement that it has to do with the religion / God / etc.

From WIkipedia: "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. "

From Britannica: "Theology, philosophically oriented discipline of religious speculation and apologetics that is traditionally restricted, because of its origins and format, to Christianity but that may also encompass, because of its themes, other religions, including especially Islam and Judaism. The themes of theology include God, humanity, the world, salvation, and eschatology (the study of last times)."

I could go on and on. Search the phrase "definition of theology" and you get 2,200,000 hits.

None of the standard definitions remotely fits my thinking.

- - - - - - - -

This exchange reminds me of conversations I had with the now banned Frank Apisa - he had his own, umm, unique definition of the word "God" - which resulted in pointless looping back & forth debates.

But look. If expanding the definition of the word "theology" to include the position that the whole subject is incoherent - if that rocks your boat? Then go for it. If you could get all the theologians (or people who consider themselves to be theologians) to buy into your definition? That would be a most impressive achievement.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but that sort of expands the definition of the word beyond all recognition. I did a quick search and I'm not seeing any dictionary definition that even remotely resembles my thinking.

By that I mean that every (intelligent) person must reconcile him- or herself to the sheer fact of mystery, or if you will, death. For each individual, that substance of that reconciliation becomes a theology. — tim wood

Who let the dogs out? Not only do I have no idea, I am reconciled to the fact that I will live out the rest of my life and die without ever knowing who let the dogs out. I simply add that to the list of absurd nonsensical questions that people post on the forum

I acknowledge that I will never understand life's mysteries. Are you saying that my acknowledgment of my limitations is a "theology"?

Okay I think I take your meaning. “God exists” is either true or false. — Brett

There is a third option - namely that the sentence "God exists" has no coherent meaning and thus you cannot assign a truth value to it.

Interesting. Nietzsche is one of those folks that I just "don't get" - but maybe I'll give it a second look one of these days

Indeed. It is sad and a tragedy. I never thought I'd look back fondly at Barry Goldwater.

Frivolous was wrong word. Bogus. And while there may have been a few useful idiots in there - the overwhelming majority of Repubs signing on to those lawsuits knew (and know) that they were bogus.

I am no scholar of American constitutional law, but surely the Trump campaign/GOP are veering really close to actual sedition. — Wayfarer

Filing frivolous lawsuits is not an act of sedition. Stupid, harmful to political discourse, divisive? Yes. But not close to seditious.

A very significant amount of effort and hard work is required to make sense of what appears to be incoherent nonsense at first glance. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have many more important things to do with my life than to make sense of incoherent nonsense.

So it appears to me, that what you are lacking is confidence in your own capacity to judge metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings of, umm, well - and here I get stuck - I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. I get that you are dissatisfied with the notion that everything (whatever "everything" means) is explicable in terms of a physical reality (AKA physicalism). But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything.

I have found a way into it, through the contemplation of Platonic realism, . . . . and it’s given me a perspective from which to read the subject. — Wayfarer

Don't let my carping stop you folks. If believing this stuff helps you with your life then who am I to stop you? It seems harmless enough in the scheme of things.

And if you can come up with a set of metaphysical principals that you metaphysicians can agree on - and if they are not coherent nonsense? I will keep an open mind.

It seems like the modern trend back toward monism is simply a failure of our institutions to teach solid metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

I apologize in advance for this disparaging comment - but this has to be one of the most unintentionally funny comments I have seen on the forum in a long time. "Solid metaphysical principles"? Talk about a contradiction in terms. :lol:

That out of the way, I then said to myself that I needed to be fair - perhaps there is some core set of metaphysical principals that I was previously not aware of. So I did a google search of "metaphysical principals" and, not unexpectedly, came up with a disparate set of contradictory information. Here are some of the top sites that came up:

Christian Philosophy / by Louis de Poissy

Live By These 11 Metaphysical Principles and Create the Life You Truly Desire

The First United Metaphysical Chapel

For completeness I also reviewed the Stanford Encyclopedia as well as Philosphy Basics

All of this confirms my initial reaction - when it comes to metaphysicas there is no agreement on even the most basic concepts.

But I try to keep an open mind - I am out on the forum to learn new things - so perhaps I am wrong. If there are any solid metaphysical principles that should be taught, then clearly all (or most) meta-physicians should agree upon them, yes? So what are these principals?

So ‘what is real’ is of greater scope than what exists. — Wayfarer

But that does not answer my question. What is the semantic difference between "physical" and "existence"?