You are claiming impossible things become possible in a metaphysical framework. Some do; the idea of unicorns existing, does exist. The idea of true/false propositions is incoherent in every case. Proceed with the zero division demo.

1.

Er, no. I am in the actual world claiming that in the actual world no true proposition is also false. — Bartricks

2.

I claim that it is 'possible' - metaphysically possible, not epistemically possible - for true propositions also to be false. — Bartricks

3.

That does not mean that I am asserting that any actually true proposition is also false. — Bartricks

You are in the actual world claiming there is an instance contradictions are true. — Cheshire

My statement is maintained by number 2. There is no rational qualification that removes the contradictory nature of claiming true and false are compatible values. Maybe you could demonstrate dividing by zero when you get done failing to defend your position.

I think he's a robot. I don't mean that as an insult.

I don't deny that there is a possible world in which contradictions are true (whatever a 'possible world' is - I have no idea). I claim that in the actual world contradictions are not true.

Show me how I am contradicting myself. — Bartricks

You are in the actual world claiming there is an instance contradictions are true. game set match

↪Cheshire that's the best way to think about possible worlds... as conjectures. — Banno

Shooting from the hip here; but do you end up proving the negative as a result. There is now a necessary rule about God's lack of necessity that must be false in one instance. Don't bother reading that twice. Thanks for the response, I'll mull it over.

Can I imagineer a solar system without a sun and then assert one possibly exists based on this reasoning?

Alright, I do appreciate you adopting my organization of your argument.

1) Here is more proof that emotions were built for survival. — Kinglord1090

1. Emotions were completely necessary for pre-history human survival. — Cheshire

Do you notice how your argument changed slightly in order for it to escape criticism. We do it naturally all the time to rationalize that we haven't made a mistake. The brain is full of so many little tricks. How about this as our number 1.

1. We can get rid of emotions without eliminating ourselves as a result. (I think it's agreeable)
2. Number 2 is no longer necessary because our ability to persist is covered in number 1.
3. There exist a human condition in which a person would choose to eliminate their capacity for emotion.
Do you see the revisions as an improvement in the right direction?

But i would have needed it back when lions and mammoths existed as i would have no other way to determine the seriousness of a situation. — Kinglord1090

Do you mean there was a point in our history when emotions were essential? Or do you in fact believe this statement is an accurate description of that time.

I have been using measures from correct sources and objective truth. — Kinglord1090

It's possible you may be confusing objective truth with a rapidly produced opinion.

That is how debates/discussions work, so I dont see anything wrong in this. — Kinglord1090

And thats why we should get rid of them. — Kinglord1090

Generally, there is a singular point. You have at least two or three running at the moment.
1. Emotions were completely necessary for pre-history human survival.
2. Number 1 became false.
3. Reason 2 is a good reason to get rid of emotions.
I don't think you have actually proved 1 with sufficient evidence. There is no account for when or how 2. And lastly, 3 ignores the human experience as being desirable.

Do you want to narrow it down a bit?

....specifically designed to motivate behaviors and bodily responses — Kinglord1090

Here at the end is the part necessary for survival. You have framed the discussion in terms of hard needs and then claimed the emotions accompanying survival are necessary. Do they assist; yes. Do they actually move you out of the way of a train. Well, no. So, you are arguing against your own restrictive OP. As far as I can tell.

Also, if anything being necessary for survival is an excellent measure for value. — Kinglord1090

Really, you spend 24hrs in a life and death situation?

I don't think i need to say anymore, but i might as well. — Kinglord1090

Feel free to insert an overarching point any time. The argument seems to be 'my statements are incorrect' by arbitrary measure. Fascinating stuff.

Food and shelter on the other hand are highly necessary for survival. — Kinglord1090

Are you familiar with the concept of condescending discourse and how under appreciated it remains?

This thread is about lists of arguments made against God. — elucid

Technically they are arguments against people telling you what god is or thinks. You would have to talk to God to argue.

Being subject to an appeal to logic is a matter of intelligence. It denotes the ability to see through emotional appeals that are meant to manipulate people.

Please note that this discussion talks about the 'need' of emotions on a survival basis and not the 'wants' of emotion. — Kinglord1090

Emotions aren't a survival tool that's why some people emotionally shut down or repress in order to navigate extreme stress. So, the question doesn't really make sense as emotions were never a matter of survival. However, not being necessary for survival is a poor measure for value.

Useful and interesting; I consider it an achievement. I'm not certain if silentism is a reference to sociological activism or just the general principle of not arguing without hope of some benefit to someone somewhere.

It is funny that all/many of these arguments were at one point the deck being stacked in favor of theism. It seems the bias to win made them untenable in the long run.

↪Cheshire That's interesting.

So for a theist presumably god is as familiar as that chair over there... and yet not so for others.

Not sure where to go next. My temptation is simply to say the theist is wrong, but that's a bit trite. — Banno

Did I miss a double spacing memo? In this case it follows the theist and others experience similar effects, but don't ascribe the same meaning to it. I don't have any good examples really worked out, but maybe the protective instinct that gets an atheist to step back from a cliff edge is the voice of God to a theist. Both experience a regulating effect to whatever emotions drove them there.

It's all based around the construction of the Alpha Zero AI. They made a pretty good documentary about it. But, the main point was that in order for the machine to teach itself; it needs two players and a judge. Maybe, the human mind works in a similar way.

As a footnote it would justify what we are doing here. In the sense that dialectic discussion increases intelligence.

SO you are counting god as amongst "the familiar objects whose antics make our sentences and opinions true or false"? — Banno

I'm considering god in the same sense.

I'm interested. How does this link to Davidson? — Banno

The one time I take a moment to avoid serving an undercooked argument. Davidson's quote indicates the experience of the world is evidence of the world as it is; so a theistic experience should be no different. I think people are experiencing something they are calling God and it indeed comes from the world.

delete

Your words.

Technically, I'm validating the theistic experience. Which is the world unmediated if I recall.

I'm not sure, I didn't expect to get this far. I'll think it over. Thanks for considering the position.

So you are saying God is a legitimate experience? — Protagoras

Yes, but possibly misunderstood.

I'm not sure where the implications empty into the sea, but so far God would seem to be very existent in my novel context.

Why do you say the physical brain is the mind? — Protagoras

I didn't for the sake of semantics and I'm assuming as much for the sake of discussion. It's a topic that can derail itself, so chasing every detail at once might not be necessary.

Have you ever thought that what some people call God is a personal experience not from a book or just a story? — Protagoras

Yes, in fact this is the basis for my position. Do you see how it follows? Incorrect as it may be?

OK. Is the superego not part of the psyche?

And is the superego in the physical brain?

Can not the superego be mistaken for the storybook of science? — Protagoras

Let's start from the bottom up. The last one is a bit of discomfort with the notion that we know God, because of children's stories. It's a matter of fact in most cases. Your top two questions conflict a little at first glance. The superego seems to track well to human skulls so I suppose it is in or about the physical brain. The superego would be the regulating part of the psyche that facilitates communication requested by these two other minds that sit in your brain and argue with each other. It might be a novel idea, but I doubt it.

The two parts of the mind that allow for indecision mistake the super-ego for a storybook God.

It's not coherent at all.

Notions are an expression of yourself.

Your self is not the matter of the brain,any more than your arm is your whole self. — Protagoras

It's not coherent at all? There is no way in which we can speak that we can't be misunderstood. Had you considered a generous read? Just for fun? How are you arguing against an incoherent idea?

It's coherent and hasn't been rehashed for 2000 yrs. What do you have? In support I would also offer that people seldom disagree with their God.

God is supposed to be a necessary being. — Banno

I think these definitions were more of a church public relations matter. Or the necessary starting point for debating with theist. There are a lot of people that seem to believe they have some experience of God, so maybe there is a natural phenomena that can be mistaken for the storybook God. Considering how wide spread the belief seems to persist it must be something fairly common to the human mind. I would conjecture the frontal lobe of the brain regulates and maintains the illusion of a single mind in order to facilitate social exchange while still having the physical capacity for dialectic thought. In addicts and other recovering individuals the idea of giving up power to God seems to initiate a degree of self regulation; which is evidence-flavored in support of the idea. Which is the notion of God is actually the experience of one's frontal lobe. Do you consider yours necessary?

I get banning the racist and the guy selling books on vague creationism. The 3017 ban seems less obvious from outside the radar room. Thanks for all the posts of mine that slid by; I have definitely benefited from the service provided over the last 20 odd years.

So hopefully your estrogen levels will level out soon — MAYAEL

Endocrine burn

To put it another way: the rate of space creation in the universe is greater then the rate of entropy creation, so as a percentage of the total space, entropy is decreasing. This permits "order", where order is created by self organization, which relies on information integration — Pop

I have to admit, that's actually a better answer than the one I had. I'll check out the website.

Oddly compelling.

Before anything can exist at all, information has to be integrated. So in this universe things exist as self organizing things that integrate information. All things posses a modicum of this facility, the more complex the thing is, the more developed is its information integrating ability. — Pop

At first glance this would appear to defy entropy.

Which of course is of no interest if there is no problem. — bongo fury

A problem remains if the question/puzzle is subject to context. If the heap amount has any future purpose or supposed representation of value. You can't sell 1 grain heaps and expect to keep a good business rating. So, the conclusion is true in a vacuum, in reality we rely on what is reasonable. Pretending irrational things are true for the sake of pretending objectivity isn't doing philosophy any credit. Or maybe it is; I never owned the gate keys. Fun though, well played sir.

Every other part of your latest post you would have to help me further with, I'm afraid. Including the imputation of bad faith. — bongo fury

I think you have the core of the matter highlighted. I may have misunderstood the intent, so I don't think bad faith is really in play.

I don't quite get the 'very nearly exact' but never mind that. The puzzle (for an enthusiast of the heap puzzle who recognizes here a classic case) is — bongo fury

"very nearly exact" sounded funny, but I see injecting subjective satire is probably not the best strategy for navigating this puzzle.

exactly where (along a reasonably long line of arms positioned in ascending or descending order of length) does the distribution of cubits end, and the distribution of non-cubits begin? — bongo fury

According to non-Bayesian statistics if the value is continuous there isn't one. There are some very unlikely cubits and the limit of observed cubits, but by definition both extend to infinity. Or said another way, the 1 micron cubit is very unlikely, but not excluded by the definition on an impractical yet technically accurate level.

How about now, any clearer? — bongo fury

I think you might have removed some context to create the appearance of inconsistency. In present day measurement 'a standard' is a fixed value. In this context a standard is a definition. So, we do not in fact change the length of a thing to meet a physical value in the cubit system. It's simply a comparative measurement to one's arm. There is no micron equivalent that holds true across cases. I imagine there's a distribution of arm lengths and as a result a very, nearly exact distribution of cubits.

In a sense the arm "asserts" the length of a cubit.

It is what it is. An astonishingly simple argument for a profound conclusion.
God can make mistakes. Did Russell demonstrate that? No. Bartricks did. — Bartricks

I want to say Russell specifically demonstrated "it is what it is" as the third law of thought. Which is a bit too ironic.

Dumbartonshire: isn't that just a collection of piano noises? Didn't Beethoven already make some of those? You're just doing Beethoven piano noises, that's all. Same noises, different tune. Yawn. — Bartricks

I have never suspected anyone of being a linguistic AI before, but the combinations of content and positions don't seem to be possible with a human who has both sides of their brain connected.

Isn't this just Russell's rejection of the basis of set theory. No set contains the set of things that do not contain themselves. Something to that tune.

Having spoken of philosophical mysteries on a previous thread, I think that the idea of mystery in philosophy is considered open to criticism. — Jack Cummins

The idea of "mystery" as it's being used isn't really found in philosophy. I remember hearing it every time I asked one too many questions in a religious setting. It's a tactic to baffle the inquiry. If you simply replace "mystery" with "we made this up and know it doesn't make sense", it works about the same.

Would you hire a detective that told you God did it whenever the answer wasn't apparent?