If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth. — Corvus

Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form.

The problem is your first premise: there's no basis for claiming omnipotence implies God can do this. William Lane Craig (for example) asserts that omnipotence entails the ability to do everything that is logically possible.

There's also a pragmatic problem with your first premise: in deductive logic, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Your premise implies conclusions are not necessarily true, because there's always a background contingency on God's will. This invalidates the use of deductive logic - so the argument is self-defeating.

If you accept God itself is a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then it is not a contradiction. In the world of God itself under this definition, even contradiction is truth. — Corvus

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation. — ssu

They don't understand economic policies and their effects. They blame Biden for the inflation of the past few years (not the global supply chain problems that COVID produced), simply because he was in office, so it follows that this can't happen with their hero in office.

Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. — NOS4A2

I'm not aware that I omitted any relevant facts that I haven't dealt with in prior discussions with you. On the other hand, you're repeating claims I've previously refuted, and have failed to address the crimes by Trump that I brought up: obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation (I specifically pointed to Manafort) obstruction of justice regarding the lawful search warrant for classified docs, and election fraud. I've asked you at least 4 times to Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what? Make the case for your choice. I also asked you to back up your claim, that in his call to Raffensberger, Trump was simply asking for fraud claims to be investigated. Find quotes of Trump that show this.

After (finally) responding to those crimes, go ahead and bring up some facts you are accusing me of lying about "by omission". My guess is that I've previously addressed everything you might bring up (I'm skeptical you actually read my responses).

You accused Jack Smith of being corrupt- politically motivated. I asked for evidence, and you deflect. I've pointed to evidence of Trump's crimes, and you ignore that. Your deflect by rehashing a distorted view of issues with the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation - which we've previously discussed, and I showed you your mistakes. You always drop out as soon as you run out of the Trumpian talking points - while never acknowledging the facts about your guy. So here we go again- I'll respond. Again. But I'll keep reminding you of what you're ignoring

However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. — NOS4A2

You evaded the point I made: volume 2 unequivocally shows that Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation. No refutation is possible. You claim "everyone lied", which is false. The Mueller investigation was impeccable. You change the subject because you aren't willing to deal with the fact of Trump's crimes.

There were errors made in Crossfire Hurricane (not in the Mueller investigation). The biggest errors were the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants. The net result: Page (and only Page) was treated unjustly. But it had no material effect on the investigation, and didn't reflect on the merits. The FBI never got any information through their surveilance of him that influenced the course of the investigation. Obviously, you use the FISA errors as an excuse to ignore the crimes by the Trump team.

It's established fact that Russia worked to get Trump elected, and that one or more people in the campaign knew Russia was helping (and failed to report this contact as required by law) that Manafort gave polling data to Russia, and Russia told him what they wanted Trump to do. This means the law was broken by one or more people in the campaign. You ignore this.

Durham alleged there was "confirmation bias", but never suggested an investigation was unwarranted.

But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place

You're making a desperate attempt to rationalize ignoring Trump's crimes. You're wrong: Durham agreed that an investigation was warranted. He merely opined that it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation.It's a minor difference. FBI would still have uncovered the same set of facts, and a full investigation would have been opened eventually - because crimes had definitely been committed.

...or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.

Errors were made, but only one process crime was identified in Crossfire Hurricane. The "Clinton plan" was an invention of the Russians (I detailed this the last time you and I discussed it. As usual, you stop replying to an issue when backed into a corner).

It's actually pretty hilarious that a guy who so frequently complains of the influence of propoganda is so strongly influenced by the Trump propoganda. Truth doesn't really seem to matter to you.

Mueller was appointed specifically because he fired Comey- absolutely giving the appearance that Trump was obstructing the investigation. Durham had only praise for Mueller.

It is curious why an innocent man would impede a lawful investigation. We'll never know why, but it's unequivocally established that Trump engaged in multiple instances of obstruction. You choose to hide from this truth; you refuse to face the harsh facts that Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation, and did so again in the classified documents case - another of his crimes you choose to ignore.

You alleged Smith's investigations were corrupt. You provided no evidence to support that claim. Trump was indicted for fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, to overturn the 2020 election. The evidence is strong, so of course you ignore it.

I've asked you repeatedly to how you account for Trump pushing the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen. As I've said, it seems the only possible explanations are that 1) he knew he lost, but lied; 2) he's irrational; 3) he's stupid.
Pick one, or come up with another explanation.

You voted to put a morally bankrupt criminal into the White House and to let him escape accountability. Own it.

I'm also inclined to ban people born male from participating in female sports, as a general rule, because they had the benefit of testosterone after they reached puberty. I was curious about the testosterone of pre-pubescent boys and girls and was surprised to discover that girls have more testosterone than boys (see this).

It also leaves open the problem of intersex people like Caster Semenya - she was classified as female at birth, but has internal testes that produce testosterone. IMO, she should not be allowed to participate in female sports.

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy did not transition for "non-criminal" to "criminal" when he was convicted. He became a criminal when he committed his first murder. Similarly with Trump - it's his crimes that make him a criminal, not convictions. Constraints on prosecution (or immunity from prosecution) don't erase that.

You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016. — NOS4A2

It was unquestionably illegal, and even John Eastman (who was pushing for it) acknowledged that the Supreme Court would rule it illegal if it came to them. The changes to the electoral count act simply added language to make it explicit, thus preventing a future lawyer like Eastman from pushing it. (Eastman was disbarred for his role, and is under indictment. Trump is likely to pardon him from the federal crimes, but that won't erase the fact that he committed crimes).

He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime. — NOS4A2

Barr chose to protect Trump from prosecution. That doesn't imply Trump didn't commit the acts. As I said, read Mueller volume 2 - the evidence is strong. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors agreed the evidence was more than enough for an indictment. Would he be convicted if there were a trial? We can only judge based on the available evidence, and there is zero exculpatory evidence - so there is no basis to assume otherwise. But criminal prosecution is off the table, so it's moot. That doesn't make his acts moot. They reflect on his low character, and flouting the law ; it demonstrates he's unfit to serve as President..

Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing. — NOS4A2

The Supreme Court, in US v Nixon accepted the appointment of special counsels, and such appointments have been made for decades. Canon's novel ruling treating SCOTUS language on this as dicta (non-binding). It's likely her ruling would be overturned by SCOTUS if it were to get to them. It's not disputed that an AG can hire staff and delegate investigative and prosecutorial authority. Had Garland hired Smith at 10:00AM, and then at 10:01AM appointed him to his investigative/prosecutorial role, there would have been no basis to claim it unconstitutional. It's absurd to think such a sequence is necessary. But this is all beside the point, because it has zero bearing on the merits of the case (from a legal standpoint) and certainly no bearing on the criminality of the acts Trump committed - again, it shows his character and tendency to flout the law.

Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/ — NOS4A2

The article says,

"Special counsel Jack Smith's office may not have fully reviewed thousands of pages of records turned over by former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik before seeking an indictment of former President Donald Trump Tuesday, says Kerik's attorney, Tim Parlatore....A source close to Kerik's legal team said at the time that they believed the records, which include sworn affidavits from people raising concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential contest, show there was a genuine effort to investigate claims of voter fraud in the last election."

This is an allegation, not exculpatory evidence. The "evidence" (such as it is) was received, not refused, and it is merely alleged (by someone who has no way to know) that it was not reviewed. Given that it contains affidavits, why should we think it relevant? Numerous affidavits were submitted in swing states by people making allegations that were rooted in bias an prejudice, not facts (per court rulings). It's undisputed that there was an to investigate claims of voter fraud, but Trump clearly was looking only for an affirmative answer. DOJ didn't give him the answer he wanted, nor did the various state election officials. So he hired two independent companies to look for fraud (see this) but neither of them gave him the answer he wanted. If he was simply after the truth, he would have made this public. We didn't learn about this until the Jan 6 committee discovered and revealed it.

As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes. — NOS4A2

I did. I have never claimed the one statement ("I want you to find 1170 votes...") necessarily implied a crime. Rather, I'm refuting the claim you made that Trump was merely calling to encourage them to investigate. Nowhere in the transcript does Trump say this. He was pressuring them to change the result, and ignoring the fact that Georgia officials had already conducted investigations, and DOJ staff had also reviewed it. So your claim suggests you are the one who didn't read it, and you also seem ignorant of the broader context.

All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, — NOS4A2

You read my posts as carelessly as you read the Raffensberger transcript. I've repeatedly challenged you to read Mueller volume 2 and make a case for Trump being innocent of obstruction with regard to Manafort. You refuse.

You've provided no positive spin on Trump's hiding documents from his lawyer who was charged with returning documents demanded in the subpoena. You provided no positive spin on Trump lying about the specific allegations against Dominion and the Fulton County.

You've avoided commenting on the fact that Trump repeatedly, and aggressively spread the falsehood that the election was stolen. You've evaded my question about whether you account for this effort as lies, irrationality, or stupidity.

So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work when all you will do is repeat the accusations and the arguments of prosecution, while remaining wholly ignorant or at least reticent of the defense. — NOS4A2

You jump to the conclusion that I am simply parroting the prosecution. Understandable, since you simply regurgitate the unsupportable "witchhunt" claims of Trump and his propoganda machine.

I've actually considered the evidence, and I referenced some of it. Trump unequivocally lost the 2020 election, but he spread the falsehood that it was stolen.

He lied about what people said to him. Examples: Rusty Bowers and Brad Raffensberger.

He attempted to get the acting AG and deputy AG to lie: “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen". He refused, and Trump nearly replaced him with a sycophants that would do what he wanted.

He tried to pressure Pence into illegally rejecting electoral votes.

He pressured Raffensberger (among others) to overturn the election. When you previously claimed Trump was just asking for an investigation, I asked you to provide quotes of Trump's that supported your claim. You gave me nothing.

Trump was told by 2 AGs, White House Counsel, and 2 independent research organizations there wasn't sufficient fraud to overturn the election. He retold the lie about the State Farm allegation soon after Barr told him it was "bullshit", and repeated this lie on 1/6.

There can be no positive interpretation of Trump's spreading the falsehoods. Given his history of fraud (including, but not limited to,
Trump U, Trump foundation, tax fraud), and other obvious lies (e.g. denying knowledge of Cohen's payments to Stormy), the best explanation is that he knowingly lied. The alternative is that he's either irrational or exceedingly stupid. I've brought this up to you before, and you've never replied to it. So which is it? What positive explanation can you put forth?

I haven't even touched on his multiple instances of. obstruction of justice. Mueller vol ume 2 describes the evidence for his obstruction of his investigation. Barr's dropping the case doesn't mean the crimes didn't occur. Go ahead and defend the legality of what Trump did regarding Manafort - after you read the report. (Restain yourself from excusing Trump's criminality based on him being pissed off about the Russia investigation; obstruction of justice does not become acceptable on the basis of righteous indignation).

He clearly obstructed justice when he defied a lawful subpoena for classified documents. He hid documents from his lawyer. Rather than put forward a real defense, he lied to the public about the search, labelling it a "raid" and falsely claimed agents were authorized to kill him. Those two lies aren't crimes, but they are examples of his approach: commit crimes while inflating his cult members with propoganda.

You've alleged Smith's prosecution was "political" - but there's no evidence of it. Crimes were committed, crimes were investigated, and 4 grand juries agreed. Unprecedented? Sure. We've never before had a criminal as President.

What exculpatory evidence has Trump put forth? Nothing. He just says everyone else lied, and he repeays the lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Of course, he has some level of immunity - but immunity doesn't equate to innocence.

Now make your case. Point to evidence that supports your allegations. If you don't, it will be glaringly obvious which one of us is depending solely on "propoganda".

Thanks; I knew he was planning to dismiss the fraud case, but overlooked this one. Apparently, Canon's ruling will not establish a binding precedent - since the prior SCOTUS ruling is still there.

Wray has said he would not let FBI agents target individuals (since that's unconstitutional), as Trump has promised to do (see this). Plus, Wray let his agents execute a search warrant of Mar-a-lago, after Trump hid "his" classified docs and lied about it. Trump needs someone loyal, who won't let the law get in the way of doing Trump's bidding.

I wonder who Trump will install as FBI director, after he fires Christopher Wray. Maybe Sidney Powell, who showed her investigative prowess by unconvering Dominion Voting Systems' efforts to rig the 2020 election. Another possibility is Marjorie Taylor Greene. :wink:

Great set of suggestions. I'll add a concern, one that I don't know how to fix.

Everyone likes it when some government policy helps them. Many (including most low income people) resent it when something is done to help OTHER people, but not them. E.g.: the student loan forgiveness program. I personally never liked it, and I understand why working class people would resent it. This dovetails with some of the issues you raised: the perception is that focusing on LGBTQ issues implies not focusing on what is important to them.

Similarly with aid to Ukraine: many resent it. There's no apparent, immediate benefit to Americans. It's supportive of American ideals, and we liberal idealists support it, but this doesn't sell to many.

The rats are fleeing the ship, starting with illegally-appointed Jack Smith. The corrupt, political persecution has failed. Now he has only a few months to destroy all his evidence and communications, and milk his taxpayer-funded government payday until the last second. — NOS4A2

Members of the Trump cult live in an alternate reality. The only statement that has one toe in reality is the claim that Smith (and all previous special counsels) can't legally be appointed.

The "toe in reality": a single circuit court judge (Aileen Canon) ruled that AG's do not have the authority to appoint special counsels. The context this ignores: SCOTUS has previously ruled that AG's do have the authority, and appellate courts in other circuits have upheld this. Canon has previously made erroneous judgements in the case that were overturned on appeal. This is is also likely to be overturned. We could discuss the legal issues, but I doubt you'd consider them, since you invariably look no further than the rationalization for some pro-Trump ruling.

The evidence is overwhelming that Trump obstructed justice in the documents case, and that he conspired to illegally overturn the 2020 election. There is no exculpatory evidence. This is all true irrespective of the legality of the special counsel regulations, and irrespective of whether or not the morally bankrupt criminal will ever be held legally accountable.

Needless to say, the glaringly obvious facts that crimes were committed is proof positive that Smith's investigations and indictments were appropriate.

It appears the only way forward is for the common people to completely reject traditional sources of information, and rebuild the truth from the bottom up. — Tzeentch

The issues with major news organizations are not fatal. They are selective in what they report, but that's dealt with by using multiple sources. They usually report facts; the problem is the interpretations of those facts. It's usually possible to distinguish fact from interpretation. Opinion shows (which dominate cable "news" stations) are entertainment, not news.

Deniers of climate change, vaccines, Jan 6, 9/11, etc. invariably get their information from "non-traditional" sources. These usually aren't actually sources - they don't typically have actual reporters gathering news. They select stories from MSM, and internet rumors. Their selection of stories and their interpretation, can be more distorted than mainstream news sources. This is AFAIK, anyway. If you know of some alternative sources that don't have these pitfalls, please share them.

But so did the establishment media, no? — Tzeentch

Hell yes!

The establishment has dominated the media for decades. They have operated on 'post-truth' principles for just as long.

The difference is that now there are multiple actors operating on 'post-truth' principles and the resulting bullshit cacophony makes it impossible not to notice something is wrong.

The media is giving their customers what they want. How did we get here? The pivotal point in history was when the FCC, under Reagan, revoked the Fairness Doctrine.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Any return to "fairness" ideals would be treated as an assault on free speech. The dark corollary of free speech is the right to lie. So the only thing we can hope to do is to help people learn to seek truth.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Absolutely. A belief is rational if it is arrived at through sound reasoning; it needn't be true.

2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity?

Maybe. Being "unsure" has varying degrees of doubt. Having a bit of doubt wouldn't preclude believing in traditional Christianity.

One could also embrace an untraditional view of Christianity, denying Paul's opinion, while embracing the supposed teachings of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels. A "Resurrection" could be viewed as figurative- didactic fiction.

'Post-truth' is a system the US establishment has created, which might indeed be described as such. Trump moves within that system, but he isn't the cause or even a principal part of the problem. — Tzeentch

Trump didn't cause the problem; he exploited it and exacerbated it.


IMO, the solution is education. This includes formal education- teaching critical thinking, and also revising Civics classes to help kids learn to make more rational voting choices ( looking beyond the slick ads).

The post-high school masses are a more challenging group to reach. One possibility is entertainment, like movies, TV shows. They've been effective at pushing more people to embrace conspiracy theories, so it's not unreasonable to think they could do the opposite.

Why would you create duality between subjective & objective means ? If God does exist, then his being qua being would both be nondelimited prior to manifestation and delimited via manifestation in the mental & physical world (assume both categories are relative to one another). — Sirius

The subjective/objective difference is simply that an objective means is demonstrable - it can be shown to be true to others. If someone believes they've personally experienced a God, that can help justify his belief to himself, but it has no power to persuade anyone else.

The trick is to stop looking for God and understand he has not only always been with you but he is identical to your reality. — Sirius

I hope you understand that this statement can't possibly persuade anyone that a God exists- and that's because it depends on the premise that a God exists.

People seem to think God is like a pseudo object which exists apart from the universe, which is just superstitious & baseless.

IOW, you don't consider the God of your belief to exist apart from the universe. OTOH, I see no reason to think that anything like a "God" exists in any objective sense. I'm fine with you embracing your belief. I'm certain I couldn't possibly convince you you're wrong, even if I wanted to (which I don't). I hope you are sufficiently open-minded enough to understand why I don't share your belief.

If you want to know God, you just need to think differently of him, or to put it more succinctly, you need to stop thinking of him, as he is beyond concepts and experience as well.

I admire your passion. I hope your belief helps you to do good.

I disagree with you, but I acknowledge that no logical argument can prove you wrong. It also seems to me that our difference on this point is vanishing small- as small as the possibility that "2+2=4" is false.

All human being go through that stage, just as many of them go through the stage of childhood. Zygotes, neonates, children, adults—these are stages, not different organisms. — NOS4A2

No, it's not the same organism, because it isn't identical. You aren't strictly identical to the NOS4A2 of yesterday: some cells have died, some replaced. On the other hand, the only thing you have in common with the zygote from which you emerged is a similar (but not identical) sequence of DNA. So what does it mean to share an identity with something that is not identical?

A 2-inch diameter ball of pure snow rolls down a snow-covered mountain. During the descent, more snow is compacted into it, and it picks up dirt and pine needles on the way, growing into a 20-ft diameter ball of snow and other debris. Does the 20-ft diameter ball share an identity with the 2-incher? If it hit a tree on the way down and split in half, which half gets the identity of the 2-inch original? Does it matter how much of that original is contained in each half?

If an identity endures over time, what is it that is actually enduring?

we make an ontology out of the phenomenology of the world. Some people then believe that this is identical with an objective truth in the transcendent sense. For me, this idea is naive. — Wolfgang

We make models intended to represent reality (ontology) based on our perceptions and the empirical data we develop. Yes, it's naive to think we necessarily got the models right, but there's no reason to think they are entirely wrong nor that they can't be improved upon to more closely model reality.

Classical and quantum physics are therefore two ontologies that we have made out of two different phenomenologies.

Correction: there's a disconnect in these two models: physicists have only partially described their relationship. Perhaps there's a fatal flaw in one, the other or both- if so, a comprehensive model should be sought. In the meantime, it seems undeniable that each model is telling us something about the way reality actually is.

Whether it is an ontological emergence depends on us, because it is we who epistemically construct the world. — Wolfgang

In your opening post, you used terms ambiguously. Is ontology what is actual, or is it a human-created model, that may or may not correspond to the actual? The same with laws of nature. Actual ontological emergence implies reductive physicalism is false: new (true) laws of nature arise that cannot be fully accounted for by lower level laws and objects. By contrast, epistemological emergence is consistent with reductive physicalism: new laws emerge that we couldn't anticipate, but they reflect nothing ontologically new (in terms of actual ontology).

But regardless of that, it seems that this fine carpet of matter is fundamental at the smallest level and everything macroscopic 'unravels', but then evolves according to its own rules and acts deterministically (gravity through planets).
In any case, we will not be able to describe classical and quantum physics with the same terms and theories.

Clearly, our understanding (our ontological models) unravel. That doesn't imply the actual ontology includes true ontological emergence.

Against this background, a unification of classical and quantum physics is therefore not possible, unless new laws are found on both sides and categorically unified. — Wolfgang

Again, the ambiguity of your terminology makes it challenging to interpret. But I'll try.

The dichotomy in our models has 2 possible causes: 1) there is true ontological emergence. 2) there is no actual ontological emergence; rather, our models are do not adequately represent the true ontology.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe #2. Ontological emergence seems like magic. Even if it's wrong, I think it's the preferable assumption- it just means we need to try and develop a model that accounts for what we see.

Sure there is. Technically we could film or track the entire life of a human being from beginning of his lifecycle to the end, and the identity of that being remains the same. — NOS4A2

You're claiming that this temporal-causal relationship between the stages identify an individual identity. That's a consistent definition, but not objective.

I am a human being: a self-sustaining complex organism, with a functioning brain, capable of thoughts, dreams, and emotions. A zygote is not a human being, per this definition. Rather, it is an entity that has the potential to develop into one or more human beings. Therefore I do not share an identity with the zygote from which I emerged. You will disagree, because of the definition you've chosen. My point is that the definition you choose is subjective.

The differences between you now and you at the beginning of your life are profound, but at each stage you were present and identical to both. — NOS4A2

That depends entirely on how you account for an individual identity. There is no objective basis for doing so.

There are any number of differences between them. The differences/similarities are what is relevant to the debate. You can decide they are sufficiently similar to warrant assessing them as the same kind of thing, and I can judge them sufficiently different to assess them as a different kind of thing. The judgements are subjective; there is no objectively correct answer.

The one on the left is what the one on the right looked like about 9 months earlier. In those 9 months, what changed for you? — NOS4A2

Continuum fallacy.

When Trump blames the bad economy on Biden, that's a false statement that ignores the global reasons for inflation and the work Biden's government has put in to mitigate it. But the bulk of his voters (not the evangelical christo-fascists, but the seemingly normal voters) voted because of the economy, because they wanted Trump to fix "the economy that Biden destroyed". It doesn't matter if experts point out that this is a faulty narrative, it doesn't matter if they try to inform; the people do not value expert's input anymore because they have, through the constant erosion of definitions, lost their ability to spot when something is true, something is an actual fact, or how to check if something is.

It's basically a lynching of the concept of truth, facts, rational reasoning and scientific methods, all in favor of the masses sense of individualism forming an arrogance by making their ego feel like the protagonist who knows better than everyone else, rejecting any ideas that do not fit their world view by bad faith grinding down the defining elements of knowledge into absolute noise.

This has to stop. — Christoffer

I agree with most of what you said, except (what I perceive to be) the undercurrent of hopefulness.

Politicians have tended to elected by their electioneering practices. They don't get elected by proposing well thought out policies. They get elected by dumbing it down - distilling it to sound-bites that are directionally congruent with policy choices, while spun to be appealing. So (for most), the voting choice is based on the superficial. The problem: this has created the opportunity for a man to run entirely on the superficial - honing the message to make it more appealing.

The proper solution would be for the population to delve more deeply, to try to understand the impact of what is said - to demand more detailed policy positions, and also to understand that even the best policies will also have some negative consequences. The problem is, this isn't going to happen. People don't take the time, or they lack the skills, to understand. We will perpetually be at risk of being victimized by demagogues.

Interesting chart, particular since it's from 2015. I looked to see what's gone on since then (here): GHG emissions by China and India have increased, while US and EU has gone down.

Media is a business, like any other, giving customers what they want. Anyone searching for information, can find a source that presents it in the most appealing way. So I don't attribute biased reporting and analysis to the rich or elite; it's a consequence of supply/demand.

If people were rational, none of this would matter.

In his first term, Trump circumvented the law by issuing executive orders. This included leveraging Title 42 (restricting entry into the US during an epidemic), and his "Remain in Mexico Policy", which denied entry to the US to prevent triggering asylum law (the law requires keeping asylum seekers in the US until there is a court hearing to either grant or deny asylum. This is the true enabler of immigrants staying here). He also engaged in family separations to discourage people from attempting to immigrate.

Title 42 is no longer available, per court ruling, but I expect he'll come up with some quasi-legal basis to duplicate what he did before. He explicitly said no changes to law were needed; all he needed to do was to exercise his "extreme power to shut down the border" (i.e. skirt the law).

So it sounds like I have a decent understanding of your position. So now I can comment.

I believe these philosophies and religion can definitely be valuable for the individuals that embrace them. I would not try to talk anyone out of them, even if that were possible. Nevertheless, I do not find them personally valuable. What I find valuable is to be grounded in objective facts. I don't just mean grounded in an epistemological sense, but also grounded in my outlook on life and my relations with others.This has worked well for me - it's a perspective that makes it easier for me to accept whatever happens and to make realistic decisions on how to react. It's not for everyone. Nothing is.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Here's what I asked:

do you agree that there are no alternatives to science for discovering objective truths about the world? — Relativist

You seem to be tacitly agreeing, since you proposed no alternatives and instead said:

So you're asking, what other 'terms' are there? To which the answer is, practically the whole of philosophy other than science. Ancient and pre-modern philosophy, Eastern philosophy, existentialism, phenomenology. There are many. But if they are looked at through the perspective of 'what is "objectively true" in what they say', then most of what they say will be missed. — Wayfarer

I think you're saying that limiting our perspectives (our world views) to objective facts is too limiting; it leads to rejecting some philosophies that can be valuable.

There are domains other than that of objective fact. I will only say that Armstrong's style of philosophy is to assume that science provides the only valid perspective. — Wayfarer

So then, do you agree that there are no alternatives to science for discovering objective truths about the world?

What I infer is that you are defending or promoting world-views which do not depend exclusively on objective facts. Am I right?

Trump won because he got more votes. That sounds simplistic, but my point is that people did not vote for the principles Trump represents. They didn't vote for fascism, and most don't understand what rule-of-law means. Trump was good at telling them what they wanted to hear: simple explanations and solutions for the perceived negatives in their lives. Trump amplified and leveraged pessimism. Few voters make an effort to understand the impact of policy proposals.

Deporting millions of immigrants sounds appealing to those who buy into scapegoating them for some problems in society, but it ignores the negative consequences. I don't think anything good can possibly come of it, if it actually comes to pass. It will fix no problems, it will just make some people happy that these "others" are out of our midst. It can't solve the real problems - that would require changing the laws, and Trump has told that's not necessary - his "extreme power" is all that's needed.

Deficit spending is a big concern for many, so slashing $2T from the budget sounds like the right thing to do. That exceeds the total amount spent on discretionary spending, so it would have to entail cuts to "mandatory" spending, including Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits, and the military. Wherever the cuts are made, that will negatively impact the recipients. On a macro level, decreased government spending will be contractionary to the economy - there will be less money in circulation, decreasing GDP - thus negatively impacting the economy as a whole.

Huge tarriffs will increase the prices of imported goods - so it will be directly inflationary. It is likely to result in retaliatory tarriffs that will decrease demand for US goods, so that will negatively impact manufacturing jobs - this will be balanced against the increased demand for domestic manufacturing, so there will be this win - but it's an macro balancing, not a micro one: some individual producers will do better (adding jobs) while others will do worse (losing jobs).

Removing taxes on Social Security income will benefit only higher income recipients (this includes me, BTW), and it will deplete the SS Trust fund 2 years earlier (from 10 to 8 years). Deporting undocumented immigrants, who pay into SS but will never receive benefits) will hurt it even more.

I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed. If he does, there will be serious negative impacts. That's the problem with simplistic proposals for complex problems. So it seems to me Trump is in a lose-lose situation. The good news: this bodes well for the next election cycle.

Consciousness IS part of the world at large. If consciousness is immaterial, then the world includes this immaterial sort of thing.
— Relativist

The world contains no immaterial things, according to materialism. An 'immaterial thing' is an oxymoronic expression. — Wayfarer

My statement was not based on a premise of materialism. I was making a semantic claim about the meaning of "the world" in metaphysics: it is the totality of existence.

You responded to this:

If there is more to existence than what science can possibly discover or extrapolate, how then can it be discovered? — Relativist

...by elaborating on objections to this assertion:

all that can be known can be known by means of science

You demonstrated that there are truths that science cannot uncover, which is a point I agree with. But it doesn't answer my question: what truths can be discovered outside of science?

Is it solely negative truths, like "physicalism is false"? I don't have a problem with that, but that statement tells us nothing about the way reality actually IS. Can positive facts about the world be discovered outside the parameters of science? If so, then describe the methodology.

You noted that science cannot discover God. I agree 100%. My question is: is God discoverable through some alternative, objective means? What about other aspects of reality that are beyond the reach of science ?

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit. Do you take a categorical belief to be absolute? Granting no such thing as infallible beliefs, what would an absolute belief then entail? So far, it seems to me that if a belief is not infallible, then one is aware that the belief might be wrong - and this irrespective of how well justified it might be so far. Which in turn seems to me to necessitate that all fallible beliefs are graded beliefs upon analysis, even when staunchly addressed in terms of yes/no. — javra

Do you not consider 2+2=4 a categorical belief? Is it a fallible beliefs? Are you "aware that it might be wrong?"

Regarding beliefs that are clearly not categorical, I agree we have degrees of belief. I'm also fine with a fallibilist saying "I believe X", even though he knows it's at least logically possible he's wrong.

What is our area of disagreement? I think we went down this road because you denied the principle of equivalence:

"I believe X" is equivalent to "I believe X is true"

I don't follow why fallibilism would make these statements unequivalent. It's just a semantic equivalence, a claim related to the meaning of truth.

I'm fallible, so I acknowledge that my belief X could be false, but that doesn't negate the semantic equivalence. My degree of belief in X is equivalent to my degree of belief that X is true.

Epistemology is not directly related to the real world? — javra

Of course it is, but the definition of "belief" and the practices used in the discipline of epistemology doesn't depend on any particular theory of that connection.

I really dislike the idea of "absolute/infallible certainty" being something that anyone can hold. You affirmed that:

implying that "belief" means something less than certain, and "knowing" = absolute certainty.
— Relativist

Which to me is not a position that a fallibililist can hold. — javra

Irrelevant to the point I was making about the terminology, and the problems of using any colloquial definition of belief.

The discussion of what fallibilism is and entails can present itself as one such. — javra

I expect we could agree on a definition of fallibilism, if we could agree on the terms (like belief) that it is based on.

I really don't like to debate semantics, where people argue what a word really means. The objective ought to be to communicate. My reference to a "standard" definition was aimed at trying to avoid potential communication problems. If we use the word "belief" differently, we won't be able to have a meaningful discussion.

:up: :up: :up: :up:

There a rather long enough post in which I explained, to which you did not directly reply. What does philosophical analysis address? The real world or manufactured bubbles? — javra

The philosophical analysis I was referring to was epistemology, so not directly related to "the real world or manufactured bubbles" - which is metaphysics.

We commonly hear people expressing certainty as "I don't just believe it, I know it", implying that "belief" means something less than certain, and "knowing" = absolute certainty. — Relativist


Um, no, not "absolute - hence infallible - certainty". But it does mean that the belief can be justified without inconsistencies, thereby evidencing both its truth and that the knower can thereby confirm the — javra

You're demonstrating that the colloquial use of the term "belief" leads to quibbling about what each individual means. All the more reason to use the formalisms.

Hell, we disagree galore on epistemology then. — javra

Do we? It sounded like you were just defending the use of a definition of belief that differs from that of standard epistemology.. I am a fallibilist: empirical beliefs can't be proven with certainty. That is a separate issue from the definition of belief that is standard in epistemology.

You sound pissed off, like when you (falsely) accused me of making a confrontational statement. I've simply tried to address things you've brought up, as honestly as I can. If my views piss you off, there's no point continuing.

The most serious threat to his freedom will be the trial over his election fraud. I've been following that one closely:

DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.

-full text of the indictment

By comparison, the NY conviction is minor. The fraud he committed is almost on par with treason.