I just can't imagine we are the result of coincidental quantum fluctuation leading to an evolving universe. — Hillary

"Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental.

Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.

Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose?

There has to be something unexplainable in the universe ...

There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known, but this is a reflection of our limitations. So I don't see how one can draw conclusions from this.

What if it's the case 'you are not even "you"'? (e.g. PSM) — 180 Proof

I'm not me, given the elapse of time between entering "I" and "me".

I know this sounds silly, so I'm having fun with it, but consider the alternative: what are the necessary and sufficient properties for being YOU?

Imagine going back in time and encountering your 10-year old "self". Will you be confused as to which of you is the guy who traveled back in time? There are clear differences between the two (e.g. different biological ages, different heights, you have experience and memories the 10-year old lacks, differences in interests and education... ).

Individual identity is a fuzzy concept.

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

Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary. — Nickolasgaspar

I complained earlier:

Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"

Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. — Relativist

You responded:

Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. — Nickolasgaspar

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

You're arguing semantics, and insisting that your usage of the word "reject" is (somehow) required. You're wrong. I explained what I meant (and I believe my terminology is consistent with published epistemology), so we should be able to communicate. But you seem to insist I use your non-standard definition. I don't understand why this is so important to you. We seem to agree on almost everything else.

Is English not your first language?

The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false. — Nickolasgaspar

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

Pro-lifers are also pro-voter suppression (and pro-death penalty). Why? It's all about demographic control. — 180 Proof

I'm sympathetic to your view, but it sounds almost like a conspiracy theory. I'd say it's about power: Republicans latched onto the Jerry Falwell inspired "pro-life" movement because it was low hanging fruit for a large block of voters, and it conflicts with none of their principles (few as they are). It's been a successful strategy.

Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker

I hold to the identity of indiscernables and indiscernability of the identical.

IOW, iff A and B have identical properties, then A is identical to B.

I am something with a specific set of properties. I am not identical to the guy waking up in my bed tomorrow (he will have experienced some TV shows, and a night of sleep that I haven't experienced, among other differences), but we're closely related. My "identity" consists of a temporal causal chain that connects all these guys. My view is called perdurantism. IMO, it's the least-worst account of personal identity.

WHEN DID I say that he is not free to hold irrational beliefs? — Nickolasgaspar

You didn't. I was responding to this:

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

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

The existence of the universe is sufficient proof for me. Science offers no reason, only mechanisms. The mechanisms and the material it offers can't provide reason for its own existence. — Hillary

So you seem to believe there has to be a reason for everything. Why think so?

To be honest, that seems to me to be an assumption rooted in theism.

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem?
— Relativist
As you said its your attitude......not other people's attitude or the Default Position one should hold for p. — Nickolasgaspar

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

If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.

You're assuming a context. Some contexts might call for more discussion about p, but I'm just defending my usage of the simple statement.

If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?

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

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

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

In the colloquial usage of the term, when we demand proof we literally demand Objective facts that can falsify or verify a claim — Nickolasgaspar

But we all hold falsifiable beliefs, and this can be rational. Demanding proof is expecting too much, because in practice it often means "convince me". Rather, request a justification and (if the guy is being rational), you'll find it's based on something else you disagree with. You can take such a conversation down several levels without being convinced - but you can (perhaps) learn to appreciate he has some depth to his reasoning.

No one is or should make absolute claims about knowledge or proof or certainty.
That said no one should ever believe or promote claims with zero justification just because there is a weakness in the way we can verify/falsify things. — Nickolasgaspar

I agree on both these points

"I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p.
— Relativist
That is a problem because "I believe ~p" is NOT a direct logical negation of the proposition P! — Nickolasgaspar

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

Grow up Mr Hillary! You are the magical thinker who talks about gods. you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

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

Doesn't 'rational justification' count as meeting a burden of proof - this latter term is archaic English. Isn't proof traditionally just an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition? — Tom Storm

It could, but it's ambiguous and leads to misunderstanding. There's an active thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). The KCA is purported to be a "proof" of God's existence. Someone making this claim has the burden to demonstrate its soundness - this is a real "burden of proof". On the other hand, a theist may provide a perfectly rational justification for his belief (e.g. God spoke to him directly) even though it has no power to persuade. No burden of proof.

I think we agree on most of the issues we've discussed. But to be clear, when I say "I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p. This is irrespective of any justification I may have, and it doesn't mean I'm closed minded about it. I'd use different language to reflect a withholding of judgment.

All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs.
— Nickolasgaspar

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

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

Matter consists of real particles that inflated into real existence from virtual particles. — Hillary

That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet:

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

No. Its not circular, as no cause or reason for existence is given by physics. Only gods can do that. The Default State is gods plus the universe they created. . — Hillary

Theists are apt to form arguments from ignorance based on the current state of physics, so I don't play that game. As I mentioned, I'm examining this in terms of materialist metaphysics. I defended the notion that the past is finite, and a finite past entails an uncaused first cause, which by definition cannot have a cause - and therefore no causal explanation. If you were to insist it must have a non-causal explanation, then you have the burden to show that non-causal explanations are metaphysically necessary for existence. Or is this just another of your unstated premises that you choose to believe as a "default"? :-)

All claims positing that gods don't exist need to prove that claim and by repeating that I must give the proof, the real circular reasoning is exposed.

All premises in an argument need to be supported, including unstated premises. I'm not making an argument, so I have no such burden; I'm just critiquing yours.

the claim that diverges from the default state needs to prove the claim gods don't exist. I don't have to prove anything within the realm of creation

You're confused. You presented an argument, and if you can't make a case for its soundness then the argument (as presented) is vacuous. You believe in God. I got that, and I have not suggested I can prove your belief false. So what is the point of presenting an argument that you can't defend other than by saying "prove it false (or unsound)?" Is it not obvious that such an argument would persuade no one? So what is the point of presenting it? Why not simply assert "I believe in God. Prove me wrong," since that's essentially what you're doing in a roundabout way?

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist

Yes, but that was not in the five points. Your default state is the universe without gods. Do you have proof? — Hillary

Your first stated premise is contingent upon the existence of gods. Without that assumption, no one would consider your argument sound. That's my point. I don't have a "default state" about gods (you may be mistaking me with someone else), but I'm pointing out that someone presenting an argument has the burden of arguing for its soundness. If you aren't able to do that, then just admit it.

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist


What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational? — Hillary

What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.

I recommend reading about Artificial Neural Networks:

Neural networks learn (or are trained) by processing examples, each of which contains a known "input" and "result," forming probability-weighted associations between the two, which are stored within the data structure of the net itself. The training of a neural network from a given example is usually conducted by determining the difference between the processed output of the network (often a prediction) and a target output. This difference is the error. The network then adjusts its weighted associations according to a learning rule and using this error value. Successive adjustments will cause the neural network to produce output which is increasingly similar to the target output. After a sufficient number of these adjustments the training can be terminated based upon certain criteria. This is known as supervised learning.

Such systems "learn" to perform tasks by considering examples, generally without being programmed with task-specific rules. For example, in image recognition, they might learn to identify images that contain cats by analyzing example images that have been manually labeled as "cat" or "no cat" and using the results to identify cats in other images. They do this without any prior knowledge of cats, for example, that they have fur, tails, whiskers, and cat-like faces. Instead, they automatically generate identifying characteristics from the examples that they process.

By "Universe", I'm referring to the entirety of material reality. I accept the assumption of a finite past (just as the Kalam does) - so there is no "infinite sequence". I infer there to have been an initial state, one that has the potential to fluctuate into one or more "big bangs". The initial state accounts for everything subsequent. I'm invoking no particular cosmology (string theory or otherwise). I'm examining this from a materialist metaphysical standpoint.

Material cannot have brought itself into existence, even when eternal. How? What's the physical process behind the emergence of matter? — Hillary

An initial state does not entail being "brought into" existence, it entails it existing uncaused and "eternally" - in that there is no time at which it doesn't exist.

I don't understand your issue with "matter", as that's not controversial: matter is composed of particles, particles are quanta of quantum fields, which came to exist as our "universe" (i.e. the product of the "big bang" that we examine retrospectively) cooled after the big bang.

Let's see. My first statement is:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
No gods mentioned! — Hillary

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods."

The infinite chain of cause and effect (serial big bangs) needs outside creatures to be brought into existence (in an infinite past). — Hillary

Supposing an infinite past is somehow feasible, what is an "outside creature"? As noted, I regard "the universe" as the entirety of material reality; hence there are no "outside creatures". Assume such things, if you like, but don't then claim you've proven one of these actually exists when you simply assume it.

Non-intelligent matter needs eternal intelligences to exist. I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods.

So your argument is circular.

It's me who should ask evidence for their non-existence.

You presented an argument that ostensibly proves there's a God. Your argument is a failure, for all the reasons I stated. If this argument is at all related to your justification for belief, then I conclude your belief in God is irrational. Calling it a "default" doesn't rationally justify holding it as a belief. Personally, I prefer to hold rational beliefs.

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe. I'm aware of many atheists who's belief in the non-existence of gods is rational, and I'm open to the possibility there may be theists who hold their beliefs rationally. Maybe I'll encounter such a person someday.

I can sense a trend here: The gestational age at which fetuses can survive outside the womb has decreased over the past century or so and is decreasing in step with advances in (bio)technology. It appears that a time will come when even a zygote will be viable ex-utero. What then? Abortion would immediately have to be made illegal, oui? — Agent Smith

If at some future point, it becomes possible to artificially gestate a zygote, then abortions will be obsolete if the pro-lifers are willing to pay for the gestation service (can't be cheap), and to divide up the resulting children among themselves to be raised.

I'm alluding to a general problem I have with many pro-lifers: it's easy express moral outrage at abortion, while shrugging off the fact that the alternative has life-altering consequences for the mother who gives birth ("that's their problem, but I'll pray for them").

We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist
I have. — Hillary

In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular.

Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works. — Hillary

No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs.

You also clalm that an irreducible cause can't explain it's own cause, but irreducibility is irrelevant: a first cause is uncaused, and therefore it's logically impossible for there to be a causal explanation for it. To assume other sorts of explanations exist entails another unstated premise requiring support.

There is support. The existence of the universe. — Hillary

The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.

Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence. — Hillary

Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.

Only eternal intelligences can do that. — Hillary

How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent.

How is the right to privacy grounds for right to abortion? — Agent Smith

This article may help:

"The constitutional right to privacy protects the liberty of people to make certain crucial decisions regarding their well-being without government coercion, intimidation, or interference. Such crucial decisions may concern religious faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters."

Your objection about what a juror might believe and how we evaluate beliefs in our everyday life do not justify your assumptions that any rejection is based on the opposite belief.Can you see that problem? — Nickolasgaspar

We're discussing propositional attitudes developed through judgment. I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: In simplest terms, I may judge the proposition true, false, or withhold (suspend) judgment. Nuances can be added, such as degree of belief. Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. If I'm mistaken, and you believe you are consistent with standard epistemology, please point me at a reference.

You c↪Relativist
You can either reject a claim either because you are not convinced, or because you are convinced of the opposite.
That is not defined by stating your rejection!
i.e. By rejecting the claim (god exists) that makes me an Atheist...not an Antitheist.(Hard Atheist).
In order to be an Antitheist, I must accept the opposite claims (God's do not exist). — Nickolasgaspar

What I reject is your terminology. I explained what I meant, and you seem to insist I use the words the way you choose to use them.

When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!!

Sure, but the standards jurors apply to verdicts do not prevent a juror from privately forming a belief based on a lower standard. In everyday life, we form most of our beliefs on a much lower standard than that. Consider a civil trial in which jurors are instructed to base judgment on a preponderance of evidence (i.e.slightly more evidence in one direction). Do you allow them to form a private belief on that basis? If so, you should allow them to form a private belief on the same standard in a criminal trial. A private belief needn't correspond to the jury instruction. Belief formation doesn't work that way.

A I said, we're using the words differently, particularly "reject". You use reject to mean "reserve judgement".

A judgment in a criminal trial is a bit different. I may believe a dependent guilty based on it seeming more likely than not, but acquit because there is reasonable doubt. IOW, I can believe something without being absolutely certain.

in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't understand what you're saying. If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. Rejection means I believe it false. I neither accept nor reject the proposition "there is life of Europa"; i.e. I reserve judgment. You seem to use the words differently.

11% of atheists are pro life. So it's not necessarily a religious view. — frank

That's a small fraction, and I would guess many of them are malleable/educable (e.g. the survey shows the fraction was reduced from a 2007 survey). A view rooted a a religious belief will be incorrigible.

Nevertheless, if a portion of the community is crying "murder," it's your business. — frank

I agree, and I've brought up this issue with many of them. I understand and respect that it's murder from their perspective, and that this is a valid perspective. This seems to be what you are trying to convey, but I'm just adding that it's worthwhile to try to help them understand that other perspectives are also valid.

Yes, and that which is real (i.e. ineluctable, more-than-intersubjective) is independent of "faith". — 180 Proof

Yes- in general, things exist irrespective of people believing they exist. But faith entails an unjustified belief. Belief in God can be unjustified even if a God exists.

Hypothetically, let's assume a God exists: a being who created the universe, but does not intervene in its affairs post-creation. (Christianity is false in this scenario, because it entails an interventionist god). Joe believes a God exists because he was raised Christian and unquestioningly accepted what he was taught. Joe's belief in God is unjustified, and it's mere coincidence that his belief is true (i.e. it's a Gettier problem).

You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. — Nickolasgaspar

Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa.

On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. It's not an incorrigible belief, but it's a justifiable one, in that it's the best explanation for the available evidence.

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
2)An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause.
3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes.
4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence.
5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist. — Hillary

Numerous problems with your argument:
1) We have not actually found such a cause.
2) A first cause isn't necessarily irreducible
3) Assertion without support: assumes something supernatural actually exists that has the capability to design and produce a universe. Why believe such a complex entity just happens to exist? Why exempt it from requiring cause?
4) Unstated premise that material is brought into existence. An initial state of material reality does not entail being "brought into" existence; it entails no earlier state.

Why isn't it happening the other way round though? — EugeneW

Some physicists (e.g. Sean Carroll) have suggested that time may actually be symmetrical, such that there is a mirror universe to our own, with an arrow of time running in the opposite direction.

We don't screen voters for their justifications. You're a citizen, you get a vote. — frank

Of course, but the establishment clause prohibits laws that force a particular religious view on the rest of us. That's what abortion bans do.

There's more to it, of course, but this aspect is rarely brought up.

. Abortion is either murder or it's not. If it is, it's everybody's business.

No - there's no objectively correct answer. Is a zygote a human being? What establishes that? God implanting a soul? "Human being" is a fuzzy concept.

I think it's unsurprising Roe v. Wade is being overturned. That a majority of the Justices intended to do so has been apparent, despite their disingenuous and cynical performances during the appointment process (itself something of a farce). — Ciceronianus

It's true they were being disingenuous, but almost everyone knew which way they leaned - that's why Dems opposed them and GOP supported them.

Anti-abortion voters had an advantage over pro-choice voters: they were single issue voters- they wouldn't vote for a dog-catcher if they suspected she was pro-choice. Pro-choice voters weighed this among a variety of issues, and I suspect many just took Roe v Wade for granted.

if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. — frank

But if their view on this is rooted in their religion, then it shouldn't be the determinant of what is law. There are reasonable approaches they could take to reduce abortions: support agencies that provide medical and other financial support for poor, pregnant women; education; ensuring access to birth control; adopting (otherwise) unwanted children...

In my opinion, both pro-lifers and pro-choices have a point. It would be ridiculous to allow abortions the day before delivery while considering it murder the day after. So at what point does the fetus stop becoming part of the woman’s body and start becoming a “baby” (sorites paradox)? At what point does it deserve moral consideration? Scalar morality could help here. — Paulm12

That's a fair point, and I haven't had a problem with placing some reasonable restrictions - although there should be medical exceptions in any case.

I agree that the notion of god is incoherent and I think that this is the idea's strength for a lot of believers. — Tom Storm

I'd call it more of a fuzzy concept: having a vague set of vaguely defined properties. One (fairly popular) vague property is the ability to grant wishes.

[

the opponents to Roe vs, Wade have maintained a 50 year (1973-2022) campaign to overturn the decision. Victory at this point can not be a surprise, because piece-by-piece, the conservatives have been moving necessary pieces on the political chessboard toward checkmate. — Bitter Crank

Bingo. It was inevitable, considering their laser focus.

Left-leaning people were far too complacent, taking their successes for granted, and not recognizing that there's a struggle to retain their gains. Same sex marriage could easily be next to go.

I view "agnostic" as an internal epistemological-psychological belief state of "not knowing", where "knowing" is in the strict philosophical sense of justified-true-belief (non-Gettier). Based on this view, we're all agnostic.

I did the experiment on another forum to try to distil only the common properties imagined of a god from a handful of Christians and the result was an empty set. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe?

If life is found, the first question will be whether it is directly related to life on earth. It's possible life originated on Mars, and came here via meteorite. Or it could have an extra-solar origin, came to both Earth and Mars from that source.

I feel kind of apathetic about it. It couldn't have happened without the participation of a lot of women, so they got what they wanted. — frank

Less than 20% of all women want an outright ban on abortion, and yes - they may get what they wanted- at least in some states.