ok - how about Quantum entanglement which is in direct conflict with GR. Quantum entanglement is real, has been predicted, and experimentally verified. Quantum entanglement is in direct conflict with GR. When it comes to Quantum entanglement - GR is wrong. — Rank Amateur

Both are real, it's why they are trying to reach a unification theory, not a replacement theory.

Which was one of my points...

there might be some theories from before Russel's falsification times that was named scientific theories but didn't really go through the correct procedures, but most done from the enlightenment period and forward has been very strictly tested out and named according to the terminology. — Christoffer

Copernican heliocentrism was published in 1543. Since we now have a system that strictly governs scientific work, the methodology cannot break scientific theories.

think you are missing the point. Not making a disparaging statement about science. Just making the point that much of what any particular generation believes to be a scientific truth, is often shown to be false or incomplete by future generations. Newton gives way to Eisenstein who gives way to Planck who will give way to somebody else at some point. — Rank Amateur

But neither of them disproves previous scientific truths as being false, this is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is compared to a "normal" theory. They might be incomplete, but they build on top of them without changing the facts established. You cannot prove Einstein wrong, you can only add to the theory.

If you prove a scientific theory wrong, it would mean that you falsified it and that happens way before it gets to be called a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the highest form within science, it means it's proved and predicts the behavior of future tests.

String theory, for example, is badly named theory, when it's rather a hypothesis. Higgs boson and Higgs field were also hypotheses which became a scientific theory after LHC verified the particle. You cannot disprove the particle and behavior of a Higgs particle, because it's established fact that it exists and behaves as it does. You can only provide further theories that prove these particles into a new theory which does not erase the existence of the particle or its behavior. The scientific process through this also focuses other fields, so now that the Higgs properties of quantum physics is proved, it means that scientists need to include Higgs in current hypotheses like with the work of a possible unification theory.

Scientific theories have never been proven false or changed because of new theories. Hypotheses do, because those are educated guesses based on established facts but has no truth in them until proven. If you disprove a scientific theory it means a serious screw up by the scientific community on all levels through peer reviews to verification, falsifications and duplication tests.

Sure, there might be some theories from before Russel's falsification times that was named scientific theories but didn't really go through the correct procedures, but most done from the enlightenment period and forward has been very strictly tested out and named according to the terminology.

This is why I think there is so much confusion on this forum because people treat scientific theories as "just theories" which they are never in the scientific world.

Are you essentially saying that when getting rid of "God" in the terminology, there is nothing that could be called artificial, since each artificial result is the result of what is essentially natural?

That a car is essentially natural since it was made by machines, which were made by man, which designed the car, using computer simulations designed and invented by man.

But can we distinguish things as artificial and natural by the initial state as "active thought"? That a car cannot be evolved as a natural thing in nature and might possibly never be without the active thought of making something like a car? So by thinking, we create something that isn't part of natures automatic causality, but controlled? Like I described "controlled evolution" above.

In that sense, artificial can be negative to natural in order to have a terminology outside of concepts like God.

However, the only attribute that seems achievable is omniscience and, thereof, omnipotence. — TheMadFool

Of course, I think that we become more "godlike" than by defining ourselves as Gods by the normal definition we use for "God". We also become a pantheon if we are a civilization, but we might also merge every mind into a collective, so it might be a singularity of knowledge that is hard to comprehend by us today.

What about ommibenevolence? Will omniscience lead to ommibenevolence? Knowledge does seem to make us better people. Many tough moral problems would dissolve into crystal clarity and we could achieve it it seems. — TheMadFool

Which is an interesting sub-question. If knowing all makes us understand all the consequences of every action, how can we ever make a choice that is bad? And if all make choices based on knowing everything, everyone would know if someone makes a choice that is bad and can, therefore, correct it.

I think the movie Interstellar makes a good example of my argument.

In what other way can we make sense of N? — TheMadFool

N is in concepts outside of math, the equivalent of zero.

In terms of space; if you add four walls, one floor, and one ceiling you get previously defined objects stacked on top of each other. You need to add N to these six objects in order for it to be defined as a room. The space, N, between them all is the added property for the concept of a room. Just like you add a zero to a one in order for it to be ten.

And in math, there are many definitions and calculations around infinity and just like infinity can be calculated in many ways, so could N, which is the opposite of infinity.

Then we could add how we would define the heat death of the universe. When all energy has reached its conclusion, it can no longer be defined through either M or P, it is neither of them and therefore N. It could then be used to describe the end of P and M. However, the twist to this is that the heat death is true because energy reached infinitely low values. So N is both the opposite of infinity and is infinity in this case.

I reject existence of artificial processes, that are somehow separate from natural processes. — Hrvoje

How do you define controlled evolution then? It is not supernatural and not programmed by any other, but ourselves. Controlled evolution is going to be a thing moving forward. Both in genetics and in cybernetics, so that would apply "artificial" to the terminology of "selection".

The explanandum of a cosmological argument is not the sum of the physical features of the first cause. — SophistiCat

At this point I recommend that you actually take a closer look at these arguments, because I get an impression that you have a very vague idea of what they are saying. — SophistiCat

The explanandum of the argument just refers to the first cause...

I don't know which examples of cosmological arguments you have in mind, but the ones I am familiar with mainly trade on the one feature of the first cause that cannot be denied (short of denying the existence of the first cause): it's being first, uncaused cause. This is what's supposed to make it metaphysically special, elevating it above any natural cause that we know or can hypothesize. Everything else that is said about that first cause more-or-less flows from that. — SophistiCat

...and the explanans of those arguments aren't deductive or even inductive, they are merely wishful thinking by those using the argument to prove the existence of God.

The first cause cannot be addressed as God by the common definitions of God. It can only be what it is by the argument. It is also impossible to conclude that it will never be observed or explained within a scientific theory, that is an assumption about science that requires future knowledge of what science can and cannot explain.

Defining science by our understanding of science today is limiting when predicting possibilities of what science can explain and do in the future. This is what my argument is about, that if we try and view the progress of scientific understanding in a logical way, there is a logical possibility of the progress reaching a form of a singularity of understanding.

But such a resolution could hardly be expected from science. Science tells us what is (the brute fact), not what must be. Only logic or metaphysics can claim to do the latter. — SophistiCat

That is actually not true (you can also see the video above). A scientific theory has predictions to be tested and verified. Those predictions predict what must be. When Einstein did his general relativity theory, it predicted bending light around the gravity of the sun. The theory predicted it because the theory is a scientific theory, not "just a theory" to reference the video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919

the actual history of science is a very long line of succeeding theories - each proving the last one false, incomplete or seriously flawed. — Rank Amateur

Only theories that didn't face proper verification and falsification (even before the term was invented) were able to be considered false. Generally, scientific theories do not really end up considered "false". A theory is a proven fact about something, even if the theory appears false by new evidence, the theory has still been proven and observations are true. When new theories come up, they are applied in synthesis with other theories.

Here's a good video on the matter:

All the knowledge that "is" has always been ours, hasn't it? Who else possessed knowledge? Even when we thought that the world was made of fire, water, earth, and air, and that we were the center of the cosmos, all that knowledge was all ours. Our knowledge is much greater now than it was 2500 years ago. It is greater than it was 25 years ago. — Bitter Crank

How do we know there aren't other sentient beings in the universe that possess other knowledge? And isn't this a bit semantic? "All knowledge" is referring to knowledge of all things. Maybe need to rephrase in the argument, but that's the pragmatic meaning.

It seems like we have already evolved into a 'new kind of being'. We have been 'homo sapiens' for what... 2, 3, 400,000 years, but our evolution either took a turn, or maybe it just finally paid off, somewhere around 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. (It depends on what one uses as a sign of major advance -- cave paintings or agriculture or writing.) The last 300 years (Age of Enlightenment) is perhaps another turning point. — Bitter Crank

I'm speaking of the self-controlled evolution through the consequence of knowing all things. If we know everything, we would likely be able to control everything and that is what would make us godlike.

Godhood is generally a true diagnostic test for first-class hubris. We have quite a ways to go before we will be all-knowing, everywhere present, and omnipotent. — Bitter Crank

I'm not referring to the usual omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent type of God, but godlike. And I am speaking of the consequence of the evolution of our species into the future, not who we are right now or what our potential today is. The argument is about the logical development of humanity if not stopped by things like mass-extinction events.

My personal view -- and it is neither original nor mine alone -- is that we invented the gods. — Bitter Crank

Mine too, I'm not arguing for the existence of God with some convoluted logic, I'm talking about humanity become "godlike" if we reach the level of evolution or controlled evolution when we know all about the universe.

Gods in our culture right now, are very much invented. There are enough anthropological, historical and psychological results to back that claim up.

What has this to do with what we are discussing? Nothing! — Dfpolis

It has everything to do with this. It has been pretty clear that we've been discussing proving God's existence and to do that you need to apply scientific facts and theories. If there are none, you can't prove anything with a logic that then has assumptions slapped on top of the conclusions.

You continue to wander in the wilderness of self-imposed confusion. My meta-law argument is based on the laws of nature studied by physics, but you do not realize that because you are not open enough to even read a proof.

I am tied of wasting my time on someone who refuses to make any effort to inform themselves. — Dfpolis

I'm unable to see your proof within published scientific papers. Can you link to publications in which your "proof" has been peer reviewed?

At the moment you are doing an appeal to authority fallacy, with the authority being yourself. And as I said, if you base your argument on physics, your proof need to have gone through a peer review, verification and falsification process before it can be considered proof for anything.

It's easy to write a book and refer to it as proof, it's an entirely different beast to have actual proof that can survive verification and falsification through peer reviews. You need to step down from that high horse and realize this fact. But if you have links to your scientific publications, go ahead and link them, please.

Or else you are just doing pseudoscience and that's it.

No, no, and no. Before you object, consider the form of your questions. — tim wood

I don't think those questions are asked in any problematic way, those were questions to you, not an argument. By saying "no", you are actually disagreeing with psychology, how people influence behavior and others intentionally and unintentionally. So saying no is a bit irrelevant, since the premise which this connects to has support and isn't up for an opinion on the matter. This is why I think some criticism doesn't really work since many seem to disagree out of opinion and not the actual premise.

"I would characterize." Indeed you would, and you did. Without finding out what it was you were characterizing. — tim wood

According to whom? I said I have a clear and unassailable understanding of God, which just might be of interest to some people, but you just blew right by it. — tim wood

Really? However I define God? — tim wood

An exercise for you. What could God be, that in it's being is unassailable as being. That is, my claim counters yours. Either I'm a complete wackdoodle, or you have some thinking to do. — tim wood

The problem with all of this is that people invent personal interpretations of the term "God" and use that to counter any type of use of the term "God" within an argument. So to propose that no one can use standard definitions of the term, the definitions that are common within language, you can claim truth to any argument and distort the actual communication that is established. Like using the ontological argument to reach the first cause of causality, in which people claim the first cause to be God by using a distorted definition of the term as it is used commonly.

It's like me saying that a table is not a table for me, I define a table as a fire extinguisher so if someone is trying to convince me that a regular table as everyone else defines it is a normal table I will dispute that it isn't because of my own interpretation of language.

This would mean that any defined things in language cannot be used in arguments since people can dispute them by redefining words as they seem fit.

"God" as defined in common language, refers to a sentient entity, spiritual or similar, which is responsible for the creation of the universe.

That is the common definition in our language. If you define God as say a teapot, it doesn't matter for the premise. Because if, within the ontological argument, the first cause is an inter-dimensional rock of a specific material that caused the Big Bang it's not God, it's an inter-dimensional rock of a specific material. So, if we, through science, solve what was before Big Bang and it turns out that it is just an inter-dimensional rock that caused everything, no one would call that rock "God", even if everyone before it, who agreed with the ontological argument proving God's existence, called it that. All those people would then change their focus onto something else where there is no evidence at the time, and call that "mystery", God.

What I mean by this is that it becomes irrational to have such a wide definition of God since you would change what it is based on the situation. When the inter-dimensional rock is proved, the first cause is no longer "God for all those who wanted to prove the existence of God through those arguments.

So in the premise, to use "God" is through the standard definition. If you have the opinion that "God" is a fire extinguisher in order to dispute the premise, that is a bit absurd.

I also find your strict definition of how a premise should be written in an inductive argument to be not only limiting but not really correct either. Not every premise in every argument needs to be formulated like a modus ponens. I might need to rephrase them to better make their points, but as with the questions I asked above, which you answered "no" on, the truth of them doesn't come out of opinion, but out of truth in psychology research, so the premise of behavior influencing others is based on scientific logic, so if disputed you need to dispute the results in psychology. The premise is true.

Consider these definitions:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

Inductive arguments can take very wide-ranging forms. Some have the form of making a claim about a population or set based only on information from a sample of that population, a subset. Other inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence, or authority, or causal relationships. There are other forms.

So the problem you have with the argument seems to be that you have your own definition of the term "God" and that the first premise doesn't apply to your own definition?

This is a little out of control - maybe more than a little. — tim wood

See past that, I relate to the argument I made as I ended that segment with that it's not an attack.

1) a premise in an argument is or should be a simple statement of the form all/some/no P is/is not Q. It may take work to get it into this form, but good arguments are work - any other kind of argument is a waste of time. — tim wood

Yes, it's work and that is what I'm doing, therefore I've modified it since the first post was written, according to the objections. This is part of a larger moral ethics piece I'm working on.

But as most arguments aren't really deductive, isn't this an inductive argument? Isn't "all/some/no P is/is not Q" strictly for deductive forms? Even if it is, also used in inductive arguments?

2) "personal belief is an illusion of keeping belief to yourself": apparently you have a problem with personal belief. Um, your problem, that's a personal belief, yes? — tim wood

• Do you agree that personal belief is unable to be contained as it influences both how you communicate and how you behave?
• Do you agree that eventually, your personal belief will influence others around you and/or even be communicated as an idea to others?
• Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a belief is rational or irrational, it still follows the above two points?

What is your conclusion on personal belief based on these three points?

I made a claim about my idea of God. Without having even a remote idea of what I mean, you projected your own critical notions on it. — tim wood

I would categorize a belief in God to be irrational, type A, since it does not have rational or evidential support, i.e unsupported belief. Since God hasn't been able to be proven, no one can claim it to be proven. If personal belief is that God is proven through a personal logic that cannot be applied outside your subjective reasoning, it is not supported belief, it is an irrational belief.

How is this a personal opinion on it? Personal logic doesn't apply to outside logic. The logic is, God hasn't been proven to exist, personal belief in God and any personal reasoning about it is strictly subjective and therefore is personal belief unsupported by external rationality and evidence.

This isn't about proving Gods existence, it's about defining personal belief that is either unsupported or supported, rational or irrational.

And this is a great problem with discussions about God: that people do not know what they themselves are thinking when they talk about God , but they suppose they do, and they add to that, that they suppose they know what someone else is talking about or thinking when that other is talking about God. Both make the same set of mistakes. The only outcome of a discussion between two such people is nonsense. — tim wood

I agree and I think I need to revise the first premise in some way to include a better definition, I'm of course working on this. But is God a teapot? Is it an ocaen beach? Is it my neighbor? The purest definition of God in language is, of course, neither of these but a sentient entity that is responsible for creating the universe, the world, and man. We can of course use dictionary definitions as well, which doesn't really change my argument: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

However you define "God" it is still based on an unsupported, irrational personal belief about something not proven to exist. If your personal definition of God is your neighbor and that you rationalize like this: My neighbor is God, My neighbor can be observed to exist, therefore my neighbor exist and since my neighbor is God, God exists. However, this isn't how language defines "God". Using the possibly infinite, personal interpretations of words as a defense against the first premise seems, therefore, like a form of circular counter-argument, because if anything can be defined as anything, then we cannot form any communication or understanding of anything when changing definitions always alter everything, even arguing that definitions alter arguments.

The only outcome of a discussion between two such people is nonsense. — tim wood

How do you define God? (not proving, but how do you define God)

So far, to my way of thinking, you're expressing some opinions and trying to make an argument from them - but it cannot be a good argument until you can write your first good premise. — tim wood

I think the problem with the premise is that it rubs religious people the wrong way and forming all sorts of defense mechanisms against the God-premises. The argument is about belief, any sort, religious and otherwise and the conclusion is not about proving Gods existence or not, which some seem to believe. However, there's no evidence for a God, if there was, why hasn't society accepted it? Because some doesn't accept the evidence? What evidence? In order to actually counter argue that first premise, you need to show that it is false, i.e that God exists and therefore it is false. If the premise is false because of interpretations of God is almost infinite, then how can anyone prove the existence of God when no one can define a definition of God in language? It seems to me that the first premise is true because for it to be false, the existence must be proved first and if proven only by personal logic and not external, it doesn't make the premise invalid.

Maybe it's formulated wrong, but the point of the premise isn't really false.

Clear enough: you apparently define "God" in way that serves your argument. Now it's up to you to offer some rigorous definition. In particular, I believe in God, and it (my belief) is well supported by both evidence and rational deduction; beyond that, my belief is unassailable by either doubt or rational argument. To be sure, though, there are lots of people who prefer the supernatural God supported by irrational beliefs. Do you begin to see your problem? — tim wood

In case of premise 1, I might need to add the definition of the classical concept of God through Christian theology or theology in general. Maybe even add a new premise to generalize irrational belief.

The point is that there isn't a conclusion that can be supported by any evidence or rational argument. I've seen many trying on this forum and throughout history, but they do not apply with real-world science in mind and they always jump from their logical conclusion to an assumption instead of ending at the actual conclusion. I.e God is the unmoved mover, which is an assumption about the unmoved mover, which could just be a very high dimensional rock since we don't know anything about events before Big Bang.

You see what I mean here? The argument is about irrational belief which distorts reality for the self and others, intentionally or unintentionally since personal belief is an illusion of keeping belief to yourself. Your writing now is an example of this, in which you point to a personal belief and in writing it out you are projecting this personal belief into the mind of others. If someone reads what you write and this influence their concept of reality you have unintentionally pushed a belief that has no support in evidence or rational arguments (a personal concept of evidence or rationality is not valid in proving God).

This is in no way critique against you, just to be clear. I'm just making an example.

To be sure, though, there are lots of people who prefer the supernatural God supported by irrational beliefs. — tim wood

And this is the problem that I found unethical in the world because it distorts people's reality. Irrational belief is not a healthy foundation in society and because personal belief is an illusion, we cannot just accept that some are able to divide their personal belief from their rational ideas since the personal belief will eventually be expressed vocally or through behavior and choices.

This is why I argue for epistemic responsibility or the form of it in which people need to move away from defending their irrational belief and accept it as irrational while keep questioning ideas and never accept what doesn't have good support in evidence or rationality. The argument shows how irrational belief is dangerous and how rational belief (type B and C) should be held up higher than type A. There is no priority in the world today, which might be why people confuse personal belief with rational belief and proven truth so much, even on this forum.

Banned user - Goodbye

if time was infinite — Devans99

Stop persisting with an argument you have no initial proof for.
You have no argument.

We can still use statistics to find out about what happened — Devans99

No, we can't, learn physics. You ignore actual science and you just keep going. It's frustrating that you just don't get it.

Your argument is not working. Period.

I believe time is finite — Devans99

Then you are not doing a philosophical argument, you are just believing without proof and you are just having an opinion, no argument at all.

If time is finite then time must have been created by God (so I can rest my case and just address the time is infinite case). — Devans99

You are not listening to the objections of your argument. You have no support to the claim that time is infinite, therefore your argument is not working. Case closed.

Prove time is infinite before the rest of your argument. It's that simple.

If time is infinite and entropy increases with time, what else could happen but entropy reach a maximum? But we see a low entropy universe so if time was infinite, entropy reset events must of happened. — Devans99

How do you know time is infinite?

If time is infinite and the Big Bang is a naturally occurring event; it should have occurred an infinite number of times already; but we have evidence of only one. So we can conclude that the Big Bang was a non-natural event caused by God. — Devans99

You do not know that time is infinite. You do not know the nature of Big Bang since physics has not been able to verify everything about the event. We do not have evidence of "only one".

So we can conclude nothing and certainly not that it was caused by God.

I ask again, what evidence within physics support your claims and conclusions?
You are making assumptions about physics that simply do not have any support to them. If you make things up about physics you do not have a solid argument. Period.

How else would you propose to reset entropy? It requires the contraction of space; IE the big crunch; there is no other way to lower entropy. — Devans99

What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset?

Well we have half of the evidence — Devans99

So your argument fails right there, right? You need more evidence to end up with a conclusion that is true, right?

It was not a naturally occurring event — Devans99

How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this?

a non-natural event caused by God. — Devans99

This conclusion is based on nothing, you have no evidence in physics and you make assumptions about what hasn't been proven at all.

What is your knowledge of physics? Are you using any physics to support your premises and a conclusion?

Entropy only increases with time. If time was infinite entropy would be at a maximum. — Devans99

How do you prove time to be infinite? Why would infinity be reached at this time?

It is not; so if time is infinite there must have be 'entropy reset' events. — Devans99

This demands that your first statement to be true, which you haven't proved and no physics provide support for a definite conclusion to this as well.

These would be Big Bangs/Big Crunches. — Devans99

"Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physics.

But there cannot have been an infinite regress of these in time; then there would be no first Big Bang so the system as a whole would not make sense. IE a creation event. — Devans99

You have no true premises for this conclusion.

I notice you avid addressing my actual argument and resort to generalities. — Devans99

I refer to the actual science and physics that do not support anything of what you say. You might need to wait until physics have given you proof that supports your conclusion and premises.

You cannot deduce anything about God at this time, there is neither data or enough evidence to prove anything. You make an assumption before making the conclusion, meaning your argument is flawed.

Think about this: why do you think no one has been able to prove the existence of God for thousands of years? Do you think you are able to do it in here easily? You might, but you need to be rock solid in your argument, you cannot have any flaws and if you put blame on criticism of your argument you are not helping yourself in reaching a conclusion that makes sense.

You might need to research physics before making claims on your premises being true because they aren't by current physics.

I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time. — Devans99

There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas.

(else entropy would be at a maximum by now — Devans99

Why would it be maximum by now?

Christoffer, a basic premise of philosophy is asking questions and reviewing answers to glean a better understanding. You seem to miss some basic principles. — papaya

You still need to be clear on what premises you are referring to or in what way you counter-argue the conclusion. You cannot be vague, that is trolling.

Father - is the symbolic equivalent of God - Mother is a more contemporary symbolic equivalent of God. — papaya

This is irrelevant to the argument.

So far you have evaded answering any questions about your Mother and Father — papaya

Irrelevant to the argument.

Particularly your belief in them - be it symbolic or literal. Perhaps if yous started examining some of these metaphors you would glean a better understanding of the metaphysical. — papaya

You are answering an ethics philosophy argument, not metaphysics. You are also not clear on how it relates to either premises or conclusion for the argument presented.

Make your case clear in relation to the argument presented.

ah - but you have evaded answering the simple question that a child could answer! — papaya

give it a shot Christoffer and help human kind - is your mother your mother? — papaya

I understand you are new here, maybe you don't get the rules of this forum?
Stop trolling and do the discourse correctly.

I ASK AGAIN AS AN EXAMPLE - do you believe your mother is your mother and your father is your father, and what is your evidence? please do not evade the question — papaya

What is the point of this question? Make a counter argument that has a relation to the argument presented. I cannot evade what I do not understand as related to my conclusion, ok?

Belief 1, my mother is my mother with no evidence = bad things = false
Surprised you didn't make that simile! — papaya

This isn't a clear counter-argument. What premises or what about the conclusion is problematic. You are too vague in your criticism.

Undefined terms, therefore this premise is DOA. In particular, because you do not make clear what you mean or what you wish to be understood by your use of "God," you make of it an unqualified term. You may as well have said, "Whatever anyone means or understands or ever did mean, or will ever mean, or understand by the word "God," is based in 'something unsupported by evidence by evidence or rational deduction.'" — tim wood

Not sure what you mean here, it seems clear, there has never been any clear evidence or rational reasoning behind the existence of God. That's the premise, meaning there is nothing but faith and belief behind the "existence" of God.

What is the actual problem with the premise here? What is not clear? Is there evidence for a God you mean?

Even within this, your conclusion is unjustified. At this point you ought to take stock of just what it is you're attempting to do. Your argument is suggestive but not conclusive, and it's an injustice to you to decide for you what you're doing. What are you doing? — tim wood

What is your objection? What is the problem with the conclusion? Unsupported belief is unethical, supported belief is ethical, that is the conclusion.

I'm seriously interested in your points, here but I'm not sure if you are criticizing out of fear for the conclusion or by the logic not holding up. I want the logic to be solid, it's part of a moral theory.

I prefer you to make your counter-argument clear. Stop being intentionally difficult. This is philosophy.

Perhaps if you try to answer the question, you will see the relation.
I repeat:
do you believe your mother and father are your mother and father and can you evidence this? — papaya

This has no relation to the argument. This is an ethics argument. Make your point clear please.

demands evidence for something being true. — papaya

No, it demands examining your belief instead of accepting it as truth without reason.

Or to put it more bluntly do you believe your mother and father are your mother and father and can you evidence this? Likewise can you evidence that someone loves you — papaya

What does this matter to this argument? I see no relation

This is a very confused claim. First, physics uses the hypothetico-deductive method, not strict deduction. So, physics never knows with the kind of certainty that strict deduction brings. Second, we are not doing physics, so what physics does or does not know is totally irrelevant. — Dfpolis

Physics has proven theories and they haven't proven anything to support any unification theory.
If you can't combine physics with your conclusion, you are essentially ditching science for your own belief. Physics is not irrelevant, your claim is irrelevant since you are supporting it with your belief, nothing more.

(2) show that a logical move is invalid. — Dfpolis

Your logic is invalid since you base it on an assumption that hasn't been proven yet, i.e what happened before Big Bang.

Again, if you read the proofs, you would know that this entire line of objection is equally irrelevant. As I said last time, these proofs use concurrent, not time-sequenced, causality. So, as I also said last time, the nature of time and the history of the cosmos are irrelevant. If you actually read the proofs you would see that no assumption is made about how the universe began, or even that it did begin. — Dfpolis

No physicist will agree with you because you are working with belief, not science.
You cannot prove anything because science demands much more strict focus on actual proof and logic, but you act within the realm of belief. So there is no truth to your argument, you claim there to be but have nothing to back it up with.

Since you are still not making proper objections because you have not read the proofs, I will wait until you have read the proofs to continue. — Dfpolis

You are not making proper arguments that actually proves a truth so there's nothing to object to. You cannot demand counter-arguments to arguments you haven't proven.

Prove that you know what happened before the Big Bang before demanding counter-arguments. You say you have the truth about the start of causality but you haven't shown it and no physicist would ever accept your claims just because you "say you are right".

You cannot demand people to object to you before you have followed burden of proof. You need to realize this fact first. You cannot prove your conclusion because people can't object when you haven't even presented a clear case for your argument and science shows you are wrong.

Prove your argument first and stop avoiding your obligation to do so, jeez.

Point being?

There are also various raw materials that get rarer. And we are still not making concerted efforts to get off this rock. — Echarmion

Elon Musk is developing astro-mining. It's a several trillion dollar-industry calculated as of late.

Which makes the focus on jobs as the ultimate end of all policy making even more perplexing. — Echarmion

Exactly, but the reason is that politicians are demagogues who follow the will of the people or manipulate the will of the people in order to have more power and money. A politician that actually fights for the people and for rational decisions in face of the future are rare, or non-existent. Politicians only make decisions when they face a problem that is critical.

This is why they are politicians because they focus on one thing they want to change or do and they have no education with other things. So they try to combine expertise help with holding on to the power that they have, instead of figuring out the best course of action.

In essence, I agree with the need for philosopher kings, but I would use it within a democracy. Don't let anyone be able to become a high-level politician if they have not undergone philosophical training and learned how to research issues themselves. Then they can figure out together with experts, the best course of action and we are less susceptible to rich narcissists taking over entire countries.

No, I am deducing attributes from the little that the proof shows us about the end of the line. We know that it is, In Aristotle's proof, the ultimate cause of change, or, in my meta-law argument, the ultimate conserver of the laws of nature. We also know that, to be the end of the line, it must explain itself. These are things the respective proofs allow us to know for a fact. So, no assumptions are involved. — Dfpolis

You are making conclusions based on data that proves you "to know the truth", when in physics we still don't have data to complete a unification theory. You claim a deduced truth when there is no data that can support your concluded truth. We know that the universe expanded quickly, referred to the Big Bang, we don't know what came before, we have no data to conclude what the cause was so we don't know what was before. This is facts, real facts about the current state of knowledge about the causality of the universe. Your deduction is based on the interpretation of some data, cherry-picked to fit the narrative of your argument and its logic.

If you are going to prove, without a doubt, a truth about the causality before Big Bang, you need to solve the physics that has not yet been solved and you need data that hasn't been gathered yet about Big Bang.

Before this, you don't have an argument that can claim itself to be true, because you don't have the facts that support it.

You seem to have no idea that the proofs involve concurrent, not time-sequenced causality, so that the nature of time and/or the history of the universe are totally irrelevant. If you read the proofs, you may be able to make relevant objections. — Dfpolis

What proof/data in physics are you using for your conclusion? I want references to the science that support your definition of proof. Without it, you are doing pseudoscience nonsense.

So, if you think the proofs fail you need to show either (1) they have false premises, or (2) they involve invalid logical moves. As you refuse to read the proofs, you can do neither. — Dfpolis

Do you have data to prove something beyond what current physics don't have data to prove? If so, that is your flaw. You shoehorn some data into fitting your narrative, you do not have a deductive argument, you have a belief and you use flawed logic and insufficient data to support that belief.

Please get back to me when you've read at least one of the proofs and think you can do (1) or (2). — Dfpolis

Please get back to me when you can combine your concluded truth with current understanding of the physics data we have to explain the universe at this time. You also need to prove what came before Big Bang in such a way that it combines all theories of physics into a unification theory.

If you do not do that, you cannot claim God to exist, because you don't have sufficient data to explain what came before Big Bang, therefore you cannot explain the start of causality or the attributes of it. And you can also not dismiss other possibilities because you cannot prove any possibility without a unification theory and data that proves which possibility is true.

What I said here, breaks your argument. You have burden of proof on your shoulders. You need to prove, without a doubt that your conclusion is true. If physics cannot prove it because of insufficient data at this time, then you cannot do it either. Period.

everyone seems to be going with the assumption that technology will provide the necessary improvements in time. — Echarmion

But we are living in a time when technology is in a whole other place than back then.

The problem we face now is that technology will outperform us, that automation will render blue-collar workers (first) irrelevant for work. We are facing a mass unemployment-era in which most are out of a job, but industries need consumers in order to survive. It might possibly be the largest collapse of the economy the world has ever seen and if no one is establishing a new model of economy, we will not be ready for it.

Was it Hume who said human has a natural tendency to believe everyone, but should not believe anyone. — Hypnos

Does this even apply to the era we are in at the moment? It seems that we have flipped this on its head and that we now have a natural tendency to not believe anyone because we now only believe our own belief.

That the narcissism of this era has made everyone skeptical of everyone and through the love of their own belief and a bias to that belief, never accept anything, even if it's proven true?

For myself, the idea of being responsible for what is happening now is the most interesting thing.
Whether that happens through the register of religion or something else is not as interesting as the idea by itself, that individuals influence what is happening now.
So, how does one get to that place? — Valentinus

I would say that epistemic responsibility is the first thing. That is a virtue to follow in the now. That responsibility demands that you do not make choices lightly and you are responsible for bad outcomes if you didn't think them through. But per my argument, that would mean that if you believe in something that you cannot support rationally, you are breaking epistemic responsibility and therefore you are responsible for negative outcomes of that. I would also argue, as I do in one of the premises, that if your belief affects people into doing bad things you are responsible for spreading that belief. Just like if someone is confusing someone into murder.

Supported belief has a lower probability of distorting reality for you and others, and is, therefore, the ethical choice. Unsupported belief has a high probability of distorting reality and could lead to negative outcomes for you, others around you or influence people after your death to do things according to that belief. It's unethical to be the source of such causality. You cannot know the causality, but you can minimize the probability of it happening.

This applies to all belief, not just religion. My example is anti-vaxxers who by justifying their belief in defending personal belief while not caring to rationalize their belief according to evidence, spread their ideas willingly or unwillingly to others susceptible to those ideas. This has caused almost eradicated diseases to come back and threaten the lives of children or even kill them.

If we destroy the idea that "personal belief" is sacred because it rather intentionally or unintentionally has a high probability of causing negative outcomes when that belief lacks rational reasoning; And make epistemic responsibility a virtue while condemning belief that lacks rational reasoning, we have a system of ethical thinking that at a large scale has a positive effect on society and people.

It may sound complicated, but it's really about changing how we handle day to day thinking. If we accept that current morality is positively limiting us and our freedom in thinking so that we function better towards other people instead of harming them, then we can also positively limit our way of handling the freedom and concept of belief in order to prevent harm as a result of distorting reality with that unsupported belief. We follow common morals to the best of our ability, like: not killing, not stealing, not harming others. We can therefore also follow epistemic responsibility as a moral guide towards our handling of knowledge in life, not accepting an unsupported belief that could distort our and others way of looking at reality.

For me, that is a responsibility of what is happening in the now.

I don't know if we can so categorically say that religious faith is a bad thing. Religion has been a cause of many atrocities but they also kept the flame of morality burning until philosophers took the responsibility of studying it in earnest. In fact I'd go so far as to say that moral theory arose from religion, faith based as it is. — TheMadFool

I'm more with Sam Harris when it comes to moral, in that we can find parameters around moral that does not have anything to do with the reasons found in religious text. At the same time there are some obvious truths about what not to do in a society with people within these religious texts, like "thou shall not steal". To say that this idea derived from the religious text seems like an after-thought on moral theory when the idea itself does not need religion to be found sound, as a moral thing to do.

I agree that without religion it would be hard to keep morality in check throughout a history where people needed to make sense of a world that didn't make sense. But I think that as a contemporary argument, with the knowledge we have today, it has lost its reason for existence and is so inferior that it would more likely cause harm than do good. Even when trying to do good, because it's so easy to find different perspectives today, when a parent tells their child "do this" and they ask "why?" and that parent just tells them, "because I say so", this can lead to a fierce counter-reaction, even later in life when that child gets knowledge of the thing not needed to be done as the parent asked. Such unwillingness to explain or justify their belief by the parent, religious or otherwise does no good for the child, both then as an adult.

I would argue that as a sense of calm, meditation, pillow of comfort towards the complexities of life, especially for people who lack the intellect to examine their own ideas, religious belief can be a positive effect. But it can also lead to those people hiding in that comfort and never interacting with the rest of the world, ending up in a negative position both for themselves and others around them. So I think the problem lies more in that we haven't figured out how to find comfort in the meaninglessness of life outside of religious belief.

We need more than just a moral system outside of religious moral theory, we need an entire framework of living without God that keeps our sanity and empathy. This is essentially what Nietschze feared, that we would fail to create such a contemporary framework and everyone would instead become narcissistic assholes. Well, safe to say that he was right about that thing in a if we look at the world today, but he was wrong that it would collapse our society. The most peaceful nations with the highest quality of life are the ones with the highest level of atheism, primarily because they truly separate the church and state. The US, for example, doesn't really have God separated from the state. The president needs to be a believer in God, at least on paper, so that's how corrupt that "separation" is

I think there's a good reason to move away from religion altogether. To create a new foundation for the entire society that is based on rationality rather than doctrines. That realize the long term dangers of unsupported belief and its effect on people.

This is what my argument is about, that the belief itself is causing anti-intellectualism, causing pain and suffering because it focuses our attention on wrong things and distort reality to make monsters out of people. It's also the reason why people like anti-vaxxers keep popping up.

Why do these people hold onto their belief and dismiss everyone's counter-argument and all the evidence around them? It's not only because of cognitive bias and a lack of rational intellect. I think that religion has taught us that personal belief is sacred and that we can believe whatever we want.

I think this is wrong. We always affect other people with our personal belief and that's why the anti-vaxxer movement grew and became a danger to all children. The fine balance, however, is to find a way to steer people into thinking "correct" without going Orwellian 84 on society. It's not about thought-crime, but "thought-virtue".

To make unsupported belief to be unethical and supported belief to be ethical, we have a foundation of thinking about everything that will always focus people on trying to be right rather than just believe. Instead of teaching people that their belief in their own and their religious ideas are a good thing to have, show them that it is wrong to hold on to a belief that is unsupported because it can affect many people down the line, even if you can't see that causality at the moment.

Instead, teach children to think critically, have foundational teachings in school to be that of how to rationally think about things. How to examine your own thought and belief. We don't teach children to think for real, we just fill them with knowledge and leave them to figure it out by themselves or let parents do all the teachings of how to understand life.

It's flawed. That's why my argument demands unsupported belief to be unethical because it will eventually lead to negative outcomes, maybe not for you, but someone else, sometimes even whole societies and nations. Epistemic responsibility should be a virtue for all and unsupported belief should be a sin.

If my observation is not interesting, just forget it and carry on. — Valentinus

No, it is of interest, maybe this far I've seen too many objections without any relation to my actual argument, so I'm a bit on a defensive side. Though I knew belief and religion always rubs many people the wrong way, I feel there are a bit too many apologists on this forum who have another agenda than philosophical discourse. I've seen it plenty of time in the personal inbox of this forum.

Which premise (I presume the one about Pascal and Kierkegaard again?) is it you have a problem with and why? I changed it to pinpoint closer to their ideas. As I understand Kierkegaard, his leap of faith is about taking that leap because faith relates to something unknowable and cannot be reached without that leap. I do not criticize it in this premise, I criticize how people use it to justify not needing to prove some belief, even though it doesn't have to be about specifically God. They use ideas like leap of faith as a "cop-outs" to get out of any reason to explain themselves. Be it a distortion of his ideas, but I've seen it, even if that recall is anecdotal. Pascal's wager is also on point with this premise, people use it to justify not needing to explain their belief in anything. They simply use the wager to argue that there is no other reason not to believe what they believe and therefore they don't need to explain themselves.

So I'm referring to the use of these ideas, it's not a critique of them in their entirety.

The premise's point is that people use ideas like these to justify their unwillingness to prove or explain their belief. This is the premise's point. Maybe Kierkegaard and Pascal might be wrong examples, but I've seen first-hand people using them specifically. So, since you seem to have read them a bit more in detail, you could maybe give me some more insight into what's gone wrong in that premise?