I would not agree. The primary task of the mind is to mediate between stimulus and response, so that the responses will be more effective at helping the organism (and it's kind) survive to procreate.

Even if you're right that he lied, how could it possibly be proven that his benign explanation was a lie? Don't overlook the IG investigation findings.

" where is your evidence he did either of those two things? — Baden

The text messages? Corroborating his testimony with that of Lisa Page? "

Are you just assuming there must be a lie in there somewhere because of your negative opinion of the man, or did he say something that strikes you as an intentional falsehood, that is provably so? If the latter, then tell me specifically what these probable falsehoods are.

" the solipsist cannot logically doubt."

I'll need to see your definition of solipsism. By my definition, a solipsist is someone who believes his mind, and only his mind, exists. I've never seen this belief stated in terms of being something of which the solipsist is absolutely certain about. A lack of absolute certainty implies some level of doubt.

"I don't know that my experience of sitting at my PC writing is not an illusion, but I know that I am currently having an experience of some kind."

I question that you're really being honest with yourself here. I bet you really do believe that you are actually sitting at your PC writing, and that is not an illusion. Your issue is that you can't prove it, so you feel as if you ought to be skeptical of that. Please consider this.

It is not at all irrational to believe that the world of experience is actually a reflection of the actual world. I suggest that this is actually a properly basic belief because it is innate (no one had to convince you of this through argumentation), self-evident, consistent with a rational world view, and the presence of such beliefs is consistent with everything else we believe about the world (e.g. it's consistent with natural selection). It would be irrational to abandon this belief solely because of of the conceptual possibility that it is false. You should not abandon a belief just because there is an epistemic possibility of it being false; rather - a belief should only be abandoned if it is rationally defeated - i.e. you acquire a new belief that contradicts this innate belief, and you have more reasons to believe the new belief true.

No, creating a strawman does not help. Respond to what I said in my immediately prior post. In particular, this comment:

You agree that I am justified in believing there is no evidence. Therefore I am justified in making the assertion "there is no evidence."

Do you see anything wrong with this?

(My argument differs from your strawman because I'm applying abduction (inference to the best explanation) and it is to the world at large, inclusive of all the evils we perceive in it.)

You agree that I am justified in believing there is no evidence. Therefore I am justified in making the assertion "there is no evidence."

"There is no evidence" is a proposition; it is either true or false. If true, it is a statement of fact. As fallible creatures, we don't generally have access to objective truth (exception: analytic truths), so any assertions we make are representations of belief. It's reasonable to ask me to justify the belief, and I did so. Therefore you ought to accept that my reasoning is valid.

The belief "there is no evidence" is justified by the fact that I am aware of no evidence. Similarly, take any ad hoc possibility X: I am aware of no evidence for X, and that is sufficient to believe there is no X.

Relativist:There is no evidence of an offsetting good to the evil of the black death, so why believe there is an offsetting good?

That is not a statement of fact.

On the contrary, "There is no evidence of an offsetting good to the evil of the black death"
is a statement of fact, if true. Why think it false?

reply="Rank Amateur;198605"]

There is no evidence of an offsetting good to the evil of the black death, so why believe there is an offsetting good?

but mere possibility is insufficient grounds for rational belief in something.
— Relativist

i disagree with this, depending on the level of evidence, or the basis of belief.

My statement refers to believing something solely on the basis that it is possible and without considering evidence. Do you really disagree with that?

"Because we can not perceive something with the tools we have, is not a very good reason to deny it's existence."
We shouldn't deny the possibility of existence unless proven impossible, but mere possibility is insufficient grounds for rational belief in something.

Both God's existence and his nonexistence are epistemically possible, so clearly we need more than mere possibility to justify belief.

Insert Trump's crime here >........< and then there is something to discuss on this topic.

I listed some crimes that Trump has possibly committed. Criminal investigation starts with suspicion, followed by investigation to see if there is a case. You can't demand proof of a crime prior to the investigation. Why should Trump not be investigated?

"My question is this: what is the basis on which we can make the judgement that God's goodness is incompatible with reality? Do we have the knowledge (or omniscience) and the authority to judge God?"
The basis is our intuitive understanding of right and wrong and conceivibility: there are many bad things that occur for which there is no conceivable offsetting good. How does one make sense of the 14th century "black death" plague, in which 30-60% of Europe's population died?If we can't conceive of an offsetting good, why should we believe there is one? Abduction entails finding the best answer, and a non-answer can't be considered better than an actual answer.

“Anyway, when the "problem of evil" is stated, there's over-emphasis on this physical world and its importance. Sure, this life matters, in the sense that how we conduct ourselves in it matters.

But this life and this world are a blip in timelessness. In fact, the long but finite sequence of lives that you're in is likewise only a blip in timelessness.”
The physical world’s existence is a universally held belief. The same cannot be said for the immaterial. Your claim that “this life and this world are a blip in timelessness” is an assertion that needs support – why do you believe this? Why should I believe it?

“That’s an expression of your unsupported belief in the objective existence (whatever that would mean) of the objects that you believe in.
.
What you’re claiming has nothing to do with verifiability or observation. It has everything to do with unsupported assertion of doctrinaire, dogmatic principle.”
Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with what exists. “Objective existence” just means it actually exists, rather than merely hypothetically existing. Unicorns can have a hypothetical existence. The cat sitting on my lap has objective existence.

That there exists an external, physical world is a properly basic belief, an epistemological foundation for all else. We are not taught that there is an external world, we naturally recognize a distinction between our self and the external world of our perceptions. In other words, it is innate – practically everyone believes it. It is irrational to abandon a belief arbitrarily, or just because it is possibly false. Do you have an undercutting defeater for this belief of mine? Were you born with the belief that the external world is an illusion, or was your prior belief in an external world defeated by some fact you encountered?

“you believe that there’s some (undisclosed by you) “ontic-reality” that can’t be explained by my explanation.”
I can’t judge that, since I haven’t assessed the ontology that you have hinted at. However, I question why you should believe your ontology is true. For example, you asserted “this life and this world are a blip in timelessness” – why think that?
“Alright, what ontic-reality that be? Can you verify that there is that ontic-reality?”
I apply the principle of parsimony. The evidence for the existence of a physical world is extremely strong, so that is a strong starting point for an ontology. I can’t rule out non-physical things existing, but there’s no reason to believe it unless a good case can be made for it. Regarding “verification” – I rely on my sensory input, and the instinctual way my brain processes this input such that I can sufficient sense of it that I (and my ancestors) have managed to survive to procreate. That’s enough verification for me.

“there are abstract implications, at least in the sense that we can speak of them”
Sure, we can speak of them, but that doesn’t imply they have some sort of existence independent of the states of affairs in which they are instantiated. I know circular objects actually exist in the world. I do not know that “circles” exist independently of 1) circular objects 2) minds to contemplate states of affairs with the property “circular”.

““objectively real”, whatever that would mean.”
It means that it actually exists as an entity. Ontology deals with what exists.
“You’d have to be specific about what kind of “reality” or ontic status the physical world has”
Specifically: the physical world exists (the is probably the least controversial ontological claim anyone can make).
“and which isn’t had by the hypothetical setting of a hypothetical experience-story built of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, and a mutually-consistent configuration of truth-values for those propositions.”
Are you asking me to prove your ontology false? No can do. For the sake of argument (since I don’t know much about your ontology), I’ll assume your ontology is as coherent. That doesn’t make it true. I’ve examined D.M. Armstrong’s “States of Affairs” physicalist ontology and it also seems coherent. His seems much simpler, and more consistent with intuition than yours. Why should I accept yours?

“You’re the one advocating some undisclosed special ontic-reality or ontic-status for something (this physical world). I make no such claim about anything that can be described.”
Do you deny the existence of the physical world? The physical world is the only think I’m certain of. I don’t rule out the possibility that non-physical things exist, but it seems irrational to believe something just because it is POSSIBLY true. A case must be made for it, not merely a set of assertions.

“It isn’t clear what you think I’m claiming that logic is.”
I’ll refrain from guessing. Why don’t you tell me if you agree with the statement I made (“logic is an epistemological tool”) and tell me if you think there is anything more to it than that.

“Do you think that physics doesn’t comply with logic’s abstract facts”
Known physics is actually incoherent, so I’ll assume you’re discussing an idealized physics – the actual “natural law” of the universe. I expect that this idealized physics is coherent – it entails no contradictions. What other abstract facts of logic do you have in mind? But yes, of course, I believe that the operation of the universe throughout its history have been consistent with this idealized physics. But I think you’re overlooking the key point: physics (as generally discussed) is descriptive. The fact that 2 electrons repel each other is not dependent on an abstract law that makes it so; rather, it is due to the intrinsic properties of the electrons.

“I don’t claim the objective existence of our surroundings independent of us, the experiencer, the protagonist of our life-experience story. I’ve already clarified that. You’re repeating an already-answered objection. I’ve been saying that Consciousness, the experiencer, the protagonist, is primary, fundamental, and central to the logical system that I call your “life-experience possibility-story”.
Good for you. I disagree. Shall we agree to disagree, or do you think you can show that your view is more worthy of belief than mine?

“Your objection about what they merely are, seems to be a way of saying that you believe that abstract facts would need to be something more ontologically powerful, in order to produce the objectively-existent “ontic reality” that you think that this physical world is. Is that your objection?”
I’m saying that I believe abstractions are causally inert and they actually exist only in their instantiations and in the minds of intelligent beings as a product of a mental exercise.

“I suggest that this life and the physical world in which it is set, are completely insubstantial”
Why do you believe such a thing? This seems similar to someone claiming to be solipsist – one can’t prove them wrong, but there’s not really a good reason to abandon the basic world view that we have innately.
“it would be meaningless to speculate about whether there’d be those abstract facts if there were no beings to whom for them to be apparent.”
It is relevant when discussion the nature of abstractions. Some people think triangles exist as platonic objects in a “third realm” or in the mind of God; others believe they exist only in their instantiations. These controversies may, or may not, be relevant to you – but they are not inherently “meaningless".

Relativist:
“Your assertion isn’t the least persuasive, and in fact it merely seems dismissive – since you aren’t actually confronting the issues. “
.
Michael: ” I confronted the “problem of evil” by pointing out that the evil societal world to which you refer is only one of infinitely-many hypothetical possibility-worlds, which are settings for infinitely-many life-experience-stories.”
At best, you are giving me a reason why you reject the argument from evil. You have given me zero reason to reject it, and I doubt you could persuade anyone because your position depends on accepting some rather unconventional beliefs. ,

“As I said, all that is a blip in timelessness.”
From my point of view, that is an incoherent statement. Timelessness is a term that I’ve seen applied to God and to abstract objects. Even if we assume those things exist, that doesn’t make the physical world a “blip in timelessness.” I accept that it probably makes sense in your world-view, but TBA – I don’t see anything of interest in it, since it seems pretty far fetched.

"Time is a perception of our minds,"
Physics has time dependent equations, such as the Schoroedinger equation, which describe how a physical system evolves over time. Further, this is contrary to intuition. So you have a burden to show why it is more likely merely an illusion.

If time is an illusion, how can you claim the universe can collapse? Are you assuming block time (b-theory)?

Are there infinitely many possible universes, or only a finite number of possibilities? Is the past infinite? There are reasons to think it is not.

Michael - I'll get back to you later.

I simply do not understand the validity of the argument. Given the omnipotence of God, He could create a world in which evil exists and there is a greater good created by the evil that exists. Let's just say that if He did create such a world, then the argument, the 'problem of evil' will not apply.

You seem to be saying that it is possible that all this evil exists for the greater good. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that the "best explanation" (i.e. applying abduction) for the evil in the world is that there is no 3-omni God. i.e. based on what we can know and perceive about the world, it appears unlikely that such a God exists. As I've said several times, I don't suggest this will change the mind of a committed believer - and that's because of the possibility you bring up. However, if someone is willing to entertain the possibility of God's non-existence, then this constitutes a reason to think God might actually not exist.

" Red does not exist in the Physical Universe. That which gives rise to red being seen by a human definitely does exist in the real world. "

Humans are part of the physical universe, so this suggests redness (that thing we perceive and contemplate) is part of the physical world.

There are two general elements that give rise to red being seen by humans:
1) the physical characteristics of the surfaces that result in certain wavelengths of light being reflected
2) the human physical capacity to see, and remember, this aspect of physical objects

I assume you're claiming there to be something about #2 that is non-physical. Is that correct? If so, then what makes you think this can't be physical? I realize that the quale "redness" is not something that can be fully described with propositions, but that just suggests it is a sort of non-propositional knowledge. It is not epiphenomenal, because it contributes to the way we interact with the world. Conscious awareness of redness is just a memory of the past perception, and memory seems reducible to the physical.

"Somewhat of a pointless exercise. But hey, whatever grabs your interest."

Is it completely irrelevant to you if Trump actually committed a serious crime?is it that you simply think it is so extremely unlikely that he committed a serious crime? is it that you think all politicians are criminals, so it doesn't really matter as long as Trump does the things you want done? I'd really like to understand where you're coming from.

Although I think it's a good idea to refrain from hyperbolic statements against Trump, and at the risk of committing a reductio ad hitlerium fallacy, it is rather interesting that some of his tactics are consistent with the advice of Adolf Hitler regarding propaganda (see these two quotes from Mein Kampf). I bring this up because Adams has frequently extolled Trump's talent as a "master persuader".

Trump's tactics seems consistent with the following:

"The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another...

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side... The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.

I don't know if Trump's behavior is consciously intentional. It might just be an evolved trait that sticks around because of a lifetime of positive reinforcement. Nevertheless we need to remember this is just style, and it is the substance to which we should respond, and I'd like the response to be analytical rather than emotional. As an example, it's worthwhile to continue exposing the various ways he strays from the truth (e.g. normal political spin, naivete, hyperbole, as well as bald-faced lies), and distinguish these from mere differences of political viewpoint, and show why this is not a good thing in a political leader (to his supporters: would you tolerate this behavior in a liberal?)

Not sure what you mean by this. I’m most interested in what others think of Adams application of cognitive dissonance theory to Trump derangement syndrome.

I strongly disagree with Adams that cognitive dissonance is at play. Things only seem different because Trump makes so many problematic statements that rile people up, in evoking backlash. However the reactions are the same as always: demonize those you disagree with by assuming the most sinister of motives. For this reason, I propose a more analytical response, which includes the avoidance of hyperbole, because that just turns too many people off.

"Adams says that liberals can't believe that someone like Trump could be elected "just by having policies people like" and so they're forced to contrive a narrative that includes things like rampant racism, Russian election interference, etc."
A portion of the response to Trump has been hyperbolic, but hyperbolic response is normal political reaction by a portion of both sides. For example, see this, and this

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon.

.

I have not persuaded anyone on TPF (so I voted no) but I did persuade someone on a forum once. The issue was: should we allow foreigners to come to the US to attend college. He was only thinking of the cost of education, and the absence of a ROI since most return to their native countries. I pointed out something that he had overlooked: we benefit by exposing them to our culture, our values, and our political system.

It was a minor victory, but it demonstrated the need to establish common ground, and that is important to respect the other guy and his position.

"I suggest that what Putin wants Trump to do is to not want war."
Putin does not want war, but he wants to gain advantages (economic and influence) with other countries. Putin got his money's worth these last couple weeks by Trump's treatment of allies.

Again, I'm not declaring he's necessarily guilty, but here are a few of the laws that he might have broken:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

As a reminder, my question was: can you conceive of the possibility he broke the law or did something unethical (even if not a violation of the law)?

"None of this is really defensive of Trump as much as it's just an acceptance of politics being politics. "

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but keep in mind that "politics being politics" includes the negative political impact to Trump, both domestically and internationally. This has hurt his ability to do his job (it's astounding how much time and effort he expends with his crazy tweets degrading the investigation and about the intelligence agencies that are under him), it may impact Republicans chances in the midterms, and it may hurt his chances for reelection. All these are also "politics being politics." Had he simply acted like an adult and accepted that an investigation was under way, then with his full knowledge of being innocent, he could have simply ignored it and concentrated on the job of being President.

"Relativist: that you can't even conceive of the possibility he did something wrong"


raza: "Wrong with regard to what? Everyone has done something wrong whether caught out or not."

1. With regard to the law (prime importance)
2. With regard to ethics (not all unethical activities are illegal).

What facts support your claim? Is it just faith in the virtues of all things Trump, and faith in the evil nature of all things Democrat?

"I think desire plays a role, for sure. But it has to be a certain kind of desire. "
We often choose to believe things despite an absence of rational support. Is that only a lie if for virtuous purposes? Is it never a lie?

What is a lie? I tend to consider it the deliberate telling of a known falsehood. Did Trump lie when he proclaimed the inauguration crowd biggest of all time, or did he actually believe it? Did Obama lie when he said you could keep your doctor under the ACA?

"Lie" may be too black and white a term.

"Mueller is the current face of a protection racket. To protect "business as usual"."
Do you have any facts that support your claim?

What about the many indictments? Are they fiction?

I can understand why you might like Trump's policies, but I cannot understand why anyone would have such faith in his character that you can't even conceive of the possibility he did something wrong. I, for one, don't assume he's personally guilty of a crime - and won't until (and unless) facts support it.

You didn't answer the question. You referred to entrapment.

What must be the case in order to successfully lie to yourself?

Quite simply: motivation.

I want something, so I manufacture reasons why I should have it or why I should believe it.

I'd love to believe that, but I don't think it's realistic. Trump does not like to be pushed around. I expect he'll use every tool imaginable: challenging a subpoena in the Supreme Court, pardoning the folks who might testify against him, and even pardoning himself. All this in the name of terminating the "witch hunt."

AND his son’s meeting with Russian operatives in the Trump Hote — Wayfarer


That was set up. Typical entrapment attempt by opposition which had, and was only designed to be, for media optics. — raza

How does this make sense? The meeting was not arranged by the Democrats, so who is it that was trying to entrap him? For that matter, what's the relevance to guilt/innocence?

Michael Ossipoff: “I suggest that a physical world is a logical-system, consisting of abstract logical implications that just 'are'.”
Relativist: “That doesn't make any sense. Logic is an epistemological tool; it applies to propositions”
Michael Ossipoff: “No, it doesn’t make any sense in terms of Materialism.”
My statement doesn’t depend on materialism being true – e.g. minds can exist as immaterial entities without entailing logic having an ontic status. It’s undeniable that logic is an epistemological tool since it provides a means to infer propositional truths from prior truths. That fact doesn’t preclude it being something more than that, but you need to make a case for it.

Michael Ossipoff: “Uncontroversially, there are abstract facts, in the sense that we can state them or speak of them.”
100 years after the big bang, no one was around to state, speak, or contemplate any such abstract facts. Did abstract facts exist at that time? My point is that these “facts” of which you speak are merely descriptive, and reality exists with or without it actually being described. If you have a different view, then make a case for it.

Michael Ossipoff: “There’s no physics experiment that can establish or suggest that this physical world is other than that. As Michael Faraday pointed out in 1844, physics experiments detect and measure logical/mathematical relational structure, but don’t establish some sort of objective reality for “stuff “.
Physics pertains to physical relations among ontic objects, relations that are describable in mathematical terms. These physical relations do not exist independently of the objects that have them.

Michael Ossipoff:” there’s no justification for claiming that all of the true abstract facts would suddenly become false if all conscious beings were to somehow vanish.”
Relations exist as constituents of states of affairs, and we can think abstractly about these relations but that doesn’t imply the relations actually exist independent of the states of affairs in which they are actualized.

Michael Ossipoff: “What it means is that you needn’t worry about it, complain about it, or agonize about it.”
Your assertion isn’t the least persuasive, and in fact it merely seems dismissive – since you aren’t actually confronting the issues.

Michael Ossipoff: “I take it that you’re referring to the God that you believe in”
No, I’m referring to a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It seems unlikely that such a God could exist given the gratuitous suffering that exists in the world.


Michael Ossipoff: “Don’t glibly make statements about the indescribable, as by attributing those inevitable abstract implications to God’s will or making. Don’t be so quick to blame God for your being in this life that you wanted or needed.”
I don’t blame a God for anything. What I do is to draw inferences about what sort of God makes sense. Given the nature of the world: a 3-omni God doesn’t make much sense.

Michael Ossipoff: “… however bad this planet’s societal situation is (and it is bad), worldly incarnated-life is just a blip in timelessness. …so you’re making too much of it.”
It seems to me that you make too little of it. You haven’t really addressed the issue of the problem of evil, you just assert it’s not a big deal.

Omnipotence entails that God can lift all objects that can possibly exist. An object that God cannot lift is therefore (broadly) logically impossible. Therefore his inability to create something he can't lift does not constitute a problem because omniscience does not entail doing that which is logically impossible.

God can't do something that humans can do (i.e. humans can create things that they can't lift). i.e. God can't make himself non-omnipotent. No problem here either: Omnipotence is part of God's nature. He can't be both omnipotent and ~omnipotent - that would be a contradiction.

"The UN was FDRs idea as far as I know."

Nah. The UN is "League of Nations" 2.0. It was Wilson's idea.