thanks for the reply. Yes, I also was worried that some of the supposed answers are just abuses in language.

2 = 2 is true without 2 being a real entity.

Yes, I was wondering how anyone could still be a Marxist or Freudian after Popper. It seems like the only way to do that is to challenge falsification as a necessary condition for science.

I'm sorry, but no. Plomin's book makes it clear that there are no policy recommendations made on the basis of his work, which is very contrary to Murray's questionable nonsense which does make direct, racially directed policy suggestions — MindForged

Andrew never made the claim that Prof. Plomin was in favor of Prof. Murray's policy recommendations.

The idea that you'll reduce intelligence down to some set of genes in isolation is silly. Their akin to a template, a passive one. — MindForged

Prof. Plomin doesn't disagree with you there either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lev8dGnxvdw&t=71s

Yes, it is a great book.

Yes, people like Robert Plomin and Richard Haier should be cited instead since they specialize in the field of genetics and focus on intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A48zsMFodG4

Here is a debate between Prof. Ahmed and Prof. Feser over two different arguments for God. The first half of the debate goes over the argument of change; can anyone tell me what the definition of "actuality" and "potentiality" are? In the first half of the debate, time is spent trying to answer that question and it was still hard for me to grasp the definition.

No, mathematics would still be something that mathematicians could engage in. Numbers don't have to exist for a mathematician to say that the square root of 2 is irrational or that 2 is equal to 4 divided by 2.

If numbers didn't exist at all, it is hard to see where any logical contradiction would arise.
Mathematical fictionalism would be dead in the water if they were.

I am guessing that you want to say that we can only judge a society by its own social-cultural-moral standards?

Pick a standard normative moral theory — MindForged

The problem is that one must also be ready to explain why the chosen moral theory is correct. Thus, the question of moral epistemology and moral ontology are not easily separated- even though they are logically distinct.

The field of political theory and economics are their own academic disciplines and if you are not a specialist, then you will make mistakes- just look at Alexandria Cortes or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.

if determinism is true, then (a) knowledge isn't possible — Terrapin Station

Okay, so is his argument hiding a hidden premise? Is it the case that he believes that for knowledge to be possible that one must be able to have libertarian free will?

The original prime mover argument was about a non-contingent changer, who was unaffected by anything, who was responsible for the secondary changes in the world.

I think that these kinds of arguments can be undermined by asking for evidence about the kind causation they adhere to.

Suppose one, like Hume, challenged the very notion of causation, then the proponent of the argument needs to argue about what kind of causation exists and defend their position.

Well, thanks for your input, I am sure others will come in and add their own commentary soon.

yes, it is hard to see how his argument works, even if we grant him whatever theory of the mind he would like. If all thoughts and actions exist tenselessly and eternally, then how can our thoughts and actions be uncaused causes- which is necessary for libertarian free will to be possible.

I am sympathetic to this argument.

It sounds like your argument is the following (but correct me if I am wrong):
1. The past, present, and future are ontologically equivalent.
2. If the past, present and future are ontologically equivalent, then humans do not have free will.
Therefore, humans do not have free will.

I think that if eternalism is true, then free will can't exist since eternalism entails that becoming is not a real feature of reality and if becoming is not a real feature of reality, then whatever thought that occurs in our mind has always existed, along with any act we engage in, since our thought and our action both coexist eternally and tenselessly.

However, can you tell me what you make of this particular theist's response?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P90/does-the-b-theory-of-time-exclude-human-freedom
He tries to argue that just because the past, present and future exist that determinism is not necessarily true. Do you think his argument succeeds?

Okay, so can you explain what you mean?

Yes, and the theist will respond in this manner: Just because God knows that you do X, does not mean that he determines that you will do X.

Maybe this video will be to your liking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sWHd3b8Y68&t=456s

It is by an atheistic philosopher who makes an argument similar to yours.

There are two responses that I can imagine that the theist will respond with: just because you create something does not mean that you determine its actions and that this line of argument commits the modal fallacy.
A summary of the modal fallacy can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL10VLLgvGQ
A fuller explanation of the modal fallacy can be found here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#H6

That last question doesn't make sense.

I highlight that God is claimed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything logically possible, and since there does not seem to be anything illogical about changing from one state to another, then God should be able to enter into time and become temporal; thus, if God can do this, then we are still left with a question as to why God does not enter into time?

what is the standard for a belief to be rationally justified anyway?

It sounds like that word "rational" needs to be defined before we even talk about whether determinism is self refuting.

Here is a theist that thinks God is temporal.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-eternity/timelessness-and-omnitemporality/

I don't think that many epistemic positions can provide absolute certainty about anything though.

okay, well I think that many people treat empiricism and science as identical things, but they are not; science is a method of studying the universe and empiricism is an epistemic position of how one comes to know something.

I know, but is that what you are trying to prove that naive empiricism is self-refuting?

Is this your argument:

1). Empiricism is the only way to learn about anything.
2). But empiricism can't prove that empiricism is the only to learn about anything.
Therefore, empiricism can't prove that empiricism is the only way to learn about anything.

The thing is why is bringing absolute certainty a job of science?

Science should be understood as a method to learn about the universe; science's job is to describe the universe's behavior, why do you think that science must prove science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDKDuvhXNME

Genes have the primary influence on intelligence.

Well, I figure that this is how they will respond to your objection: God's thoughts are eternal and unchanging and therefore timeless; all of God's thoughts are not occurring in time in the way our thoughts occur, but instead they have always been.

However, even this response doesn't make sense if God is the creator of time. The very act of creating space and time, ex nihilo, is a change; even if God is eternally creating time and space, then God should be described not as unchanging, but as eternally changing.

However, this objection would not explain why God chooses to remain timeless as opposed to entering in time. It doesn't sound like a logical contradiction to say that a timeless being can enter into time so if God is omnipotent, then the issue remains: why is God timeless instead of temporal?

A changeless thing would be like numbers in mathematical Platonism. Numbers literally do nothing and thus are timeless in the fullest sense of the word, but God is not timeless in the way numbers are in mathematical Platonism so it is a weird description to call God changeless if God is eternally creating time and space.

He always had created time, and hence was not changed by it... — Banno

If God creates time and even if he always in the state of creating time, then God is eternally creating time.

Just like a person who is eternally creating a sand castle is eternally changing so too is God if God eternally creates time.

Well, I imagine that some theistic philosopher has tried to make sense of it and I was curious to know how god remains changeless if god also creates time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sWHd3b8Y68&feature=youtu.be

This too is a good video to spark some thought.

It's not just when it creates, but when it thinks. If god thinks (has a mind), its thoughts change. — Harry Hindu

Also, in most faiths, God interacts with humans and this would seem to suggest a God that is in time; consider the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth or the second coming of Christ, are all these "timeless" actions? It would be very strange to suggest so...

https://youtu.be/5P6dQy9NmM4

This video and some of its comments sparked my curiousity.

It was probably said already, but science assumes methodological naturalism and actively tries to answer questions with natural explanations, but methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism so I don't think it is correct to say that science is inherently atheistic; perhaps, it would be better to say that science is inherently non-theistic.

I didn't assume there were eye-witnesses, you said there were eye-witnesses. — Empedocles

Nope, I said that there is a claim that miracle x occurred while many eye-witnesses were present. Never did I say that miracle x occurred and many eye-witnesses saw the miracle.

If 500 people said that they saw a UFO, then I would think that that is too many people for nothing to have occurred, but I wouldn't start believing in aliens. I would challenge their interpretation of what they saw; likewise, if 500 people told me they saw a man right from the dead, then I would ask if they had hard evidence that he was really dead?

Do you have anything to say in defense of your argument I laid out against eye-witness testimony? Or are we agreed that eye-witness testimony can be a decent source of knowledge — Empedocles

Eye-witness testimony is not as good as physical evidence. If someone accused you of being a rapist and they had DNA evidence, then the DNA evidence settles the question of whether you are a rapist or not; suppose that the DNA evidence turns out to belong to someone else, then the DNA evidence proves your innocence.

Finally, the statistic video seemed self-explanatory, but can you tell me which part confused you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rz9J6qXIzc

The statistics argument for the belief in miracles is refuted by this mathematician here.

The burden of proof is always on the person making claim x. Since christians and muslims try to convert skeptics, they carry the burden of proof of proving their respective beliefs.

Finally, you syllogism assumes that there are indeed witnesses for a miracle, but why even take for granted the claim that there were witnesses to a miracle?

My point is that just because x is irrefutable, it does not mean we should believe it.