There you go again, the false dichotomy of either you are right, or Trump is a great man. Not the only two choices in assessing the man, not at all.
To answer your question, Id have to know what standards for greatness you have.
For myself, no I wouldnt call Trump a great man, or even a good man. It seems pretty clear to me he is a bad actor, a con man at best...though sometimes its difficult to see a distinction between a con man and your run of the mill business man.

FYI, most people do. To be sure, most people do it automatically. — tim wood

That wasnt very convincing, sorry.
So you think that anyone who doesnt think Trump is extremely and unusually evil is dumb or ignorant? No one of at least average intelligence and well educated on the subject would disagree that Trump is extremely and unusually evil? Is that your position?

Im not familiar with your system of measuring where he is on the spectrum so its hard to answer your question.
For myself, id reserve “evil” for the most extreme end of the spectrum and I wouldnt say Trump belongs there, not based on the information I have.
Wouldnt be all that surprised though. I wouldnt call most people “good” either, I dont think most people put much more thought into ethics or morality than Trump does.

Thats a false dichotomy, that because Trump is mot a good man, that he is an evil man. Surely you recognise a sprectrum?

Ok, I understand.

...ok then you are saying you have a coherent account of all thought and belief, aren’t you?

So its an ideal, not something you actually have or use, but something you strive for?

So you are claiming you have a coherent account of ALL thought and belief?

“Universal criterion”, built upon “all thought and belief”, taking account of something in its entirety before being aware of it...pretty much that whole quote is full of lofty, impractical requirements for whats “proper”.
You are talking about infallible knowledge, and saying basically nothing less is acceptable.

Whats perplexing to me is terms like “acceptable”, which I take to mean nothing less will do, its your minimum standard and it doesnt even seem possible...but ok, I suppose I understand your criteria at least. Thanks.

So...your philosophy? Are you claiming to have achieved this standard with your own philosophy then?
Your philosophy is all this:

“One that is rendered in evolutionarily amenable terms. One built upon universal criterion. One built upon knowledge ofall thought and belief.

One without exception. One that is capable of taking account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness. One that is capable of taking account of that which is prior to our language. One that is capable of setting out a coherent account of all thought and belief.”

Bolded a couple of important words that highlight the magnitude of your claim.
Is that right? Is that your claim? If not, then can you help me connect the above with your statements? (And if youre inclined, how the above is NOT the claim you are making about your own philosophy)

You didnt answer the question sir. What are some things that you have this kind of account for?

That seems like an incredibly high standard of whats “proper”. What are some things you have this kind of account of?

Why are you using math if you reject its rules?

Its like you are fishing, and your friend catches a fish and says “i caught the biggest fish, 3 feet!”
And you say “no mines bigger”, but your friend protests after seeing your fish “its only 2 feet!” To which you reply “I dont use feet when measuring my fish, its way bigger”

Thats what you are doing here, propping up your argument using math but not using math when it shows your basis to be incorrect.
Is there another way of framing things not using math? If not, might be time to reevaluate.

Ok, and what is meant by “properly”?

Can you elaborate on what you think this broad consensus is? I think most people would agree you can take some sort of self account of thoughts and beliefs...so Im curious what you mean.

I understand, thanks.

Interesting. How do you know god has anything to do with it? It sounds like its your own thoughts that are helping, an act of meditation.

So prayer is just thinking about god, essentially?

When you pray, does god respond with confirmation or commands? In what way does he do that exactly? (A voice? A feeling he creates in you?)

Are they really that disparate? They seem closely related to me, types of knowing.
It is a bit strange, the way we have so many senses of the same word instead of new ones. Im under the impression english is very bad for that sort of thing but I speak only english, so nothing to reference for me. Language thing or english thing?

In what way was he refusing moderation?

8. Therefore prayer is useless. God only answers the prayers for things he was going to do anyway, and only to those who already have a relationship with god would pray, leaving the only remaining reason to answer the prayer (cultivating that relationship) not applicable.

Well ya, if I had all the data I wouldnt need probability. I don’t think we disagree significantly here.

When I mentioned the probability of life I was speaking from a normal, probabilistic sense. I wasnt using this “probability after the fact” version, though I can see now I could have been more precise. I should have said “for life to have formed” or “for life to come to exist” instead of “for life to exist”. My mistake, but my points still stand.

Well it depends on what you mean by probable I guess. Typically people use it to describe something that could happen, not something that did happen.
There is no probability after the fact. For example there is no probability that I wrote that previous paragraph, I DID write that previous paragraph.

Never.

Being rational is using reason and using reason is providing reasons to support some conclusion. If you don't have reasons to support your conclusion, or your reasons to support some conclusion are improbable, then you aren't being rational. — Harry Hindu

You can have rational reasons for believing the improbable. Its highly improbable that life exists on a rock floating through oblivion but none the less that's what happened. In fact, highly improbable things happen all the time, its not irrational to believe those things actually do happen.
You are right that if you dont have reasons to support a conclusion then you arent being rational but I do not think its correct to say that if your reasons support a conclusion thats improbable you are necessary being irrational. Probability is not the same as the fact of the matter of what is.

What is the fundamental difference between these two examples? And is there a principle on deciding whether or not it is rational to accept the improbable? — Wheatley

It can be perfectly rational to believe the improbable, you just need rational reasons for doing so.
Whatever the probability of something, there is a fact of the matter of that something. For example, it might be highly improbable to be dealt 5 cards and 4 of them are the same card, Four of a kind but there is a fact of the matter about what cards are going to come up based on the order of the cards in the deck.

Ya, you are still misapplying terms, trying to cram formal logic where none was intended or needed. Your objections do not apply to my statement.
Nice try but Im not buying it, so its a hard pass from me.

Whats fallacious about that statement, because it isnt that its affirming the consequent. You are misusing that term in your comments, hence I immediately asked what YOU mean by affirming the consequent. You confirmed that you use the standard definition, but then you again misapplied it (to my lies for lives example) so Im confused.
Did you mean that some other fallacy is being made in my lies for lives example? What fallacy?

So for example if I justified lying to someone in order to save 1 million innocent peoples lives...thats a fallacy?

Right, using my phone so auto-correct got me in that.
So you going to answer the question? It would have been pretty easy to make a pedantic correction AND actually answer the question. Give it a try, I believe in you.

Hate to disagree with you again considering your gentlemanly response but I dont think your argument is void. I think there is some interesting things to say about the end justifying the means.

What do you mean by affirming consent?

-Actions are considered good or evil (right or wrong) based on their goal which is being accomplished by the consequences of that particular action. — Lawrence of Arabia

This is actually just a reformulated way of saying the ends justify the means, so it doesnt work as an argument/premiss. This is your conclusion disguised as a premiss. Someone could just as easily assert the opposite, that actions are good or evil independent of the goal.

-If the goal being accomplished is good then something is considered right. — Lawrence of Arabia

No, the goal being good only establishes that the goal is good. Individual actions towards any goal (be that goal good or bad) can be moral, immoral, or amoral. Walking for example is something you might do as part of the process of something virtuous (work at a charity or a soup kitchen maybe) but that doesnt make walking morally good. Its amoral. By your model, anything done towards a good goal is likewise good, but again this is just asserting your conclusion as part of your premiss.

- As I stated earlier, we need context to judge an action. — Lawrence of Arabia

While I tend to agree, there are moral systems under which that is not the case. A principal based approach is like this, for example.

-That context is a goal, which shows why someone did something. — Lawrence of Arabia

Just including this for completeness sale, this could be merged with the previous one, very nearly redundant.

-Therefore, we measure actions based on the goal being accomplished. — Lawrence of Arabia

No sir, “therefore” nothing. This doesnt and shouldnt pertain only to morality and so its not part of a moral argument. Your previous premisses do not establish this, so no “therefore” for you Im afraid.

-The ends justify the means. — Lawrence of Arabia

So obviously I do not agree with your conclusion here. The ends CAN justify the means, but I dont see how thats always the case.

Well youre no fun, I dont disagree with any of that. Rude ;)

Does that include those whose happiness is born of other peoples suffering or impeding their pursuit of happiness with consequencial unjustified murder of their lives, livelihoods and status?

Or what about those whose greatest joy is in hoarding happiness away only for themselves on the backs of stronger individuals than they whom they allow to live in severe hardship? — Mark Dennis

Well then you have competing pursuits of happiness, and unless you want to embrace conflict then some kind of agreement between the people involved will have to be made. Not that you asked me but I had an answer ;)

Ok, it seems like you have a different, more specific idea of what suffering is.
You said suffering is what makes people want to kill themselves. That seems pretty stringent. As I said, there are certain kinds of suffering, you are just describing the most extreme kind. Would “extreme suffering” or something like that perhaps be more accurate for your purposes?
Thats under the purview of #1.
Your response to my points about 2 and 3 are about the truth of determinism, basically.
It could be that the body doesnt reduce to physical laws or something, that there is some unknown or supernatural part of living things but just because its possible doesnt mean we can build anything on that idea. I have no good reasons to think that is the case, so Im not going to accept it as a premiss for anything else I believe.

Well first of all I don’t think a world without suffering would be better, so I disagree with your metric for a better world. Some suffering is necessary, adversity is needed for growth, catharsis etc. Rather I think its just certain kinds of suffering that leads to a bad/worse world.
Your #1 cause of suffering, competition of life, is very broad so I couldnt agree with it. Some things about competing life could or should be eliminated and others cannot or shouldnt be prevented. I think you’d have to break this down a bit more for it to be a good metric.
#2 - i do not understand how this causes suffering except in the sense that someone suffers because things are not the way they want them to be. The truth hurting is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated.
#3 - same thing as 2. This is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. If the truth is we do not somehow live on through the sorcery of a soul or somesuch, then so be it. Not being comfortable with the truth is not the kind of suffering we could or should get rid of. Depending on how this “afterlife” works, it could very well lead to more suffering and of a kind much, much worse than the mere suffering of the truth about life.

So before we get to your solutions I think that you have problems in your premises. Those are my thoughts.

I disagree, I think that what he is interested in is preaching, not discussing. Ive watched him interact with others, and he doesnt listen or engage, he repeats the exact same talking points over and over and changes the angle of approach just enough so he can throw up a facile claim that he’s actually doing philosophy. Its obvious to me what he is doing.
Here is a test for you to try: do not engage him in any anti natalist posts or threads. Take note of any threads/posts he tries to subvert into an antinatalist thread and do not engage those either. Then, observe how the threads/posts left over for engagement equal 0. Thats how you can tell when its preaching, and this is.