Yes, that would be weird and not what I'm doing at all. It is a logical fallacy to think that because separating a head from a living body would cause it to die that sewing the head back on would cause the body to come back to life. — Ron Cram

I think you slightly misunderstand the point of the example. It's about why cutting of the head can be labeled a "cause" even though it's only one element among many of the system. I turned your examples around to show that your "cause" is not sufficient.

False. Cause and effect are directly observable. I've given a number of examples. You have not attempted to refute the examples and so I am under the impression that you agree that cause and effect are directly observable in these cases. — Ron Cram

I think what I have written already hints at the refutation, but I can make it explicit. Let's take the example of the brick. You say that the brick shatters the window, but that's not actually a property of the brick. Rather, what shatters the window is the movement of the brick, only the movement is also not sufficient. So the moving brick must also encounter the window, which occupies the same space at the same time. But the Pauli exclusion principle says that it is impossible for the brick to be in the same place.

So it must be the moving brick approaching the window. It must be that the brick, in some instant, while on a certain vector through spacetime, is just about to occupy the same space and time as the window, on a different vector through spacetime. But that is a description of a state, followed by another state, where various particles are now on different vectors. We might call the transition from one state to another an "interaction", but where, precisely, is the cause? Is the entire state of the universe that cause, and the entire next state the effect?

I have given several examples of causation being observed: a flame consumes the match, a brick shatters a window, a decapitation causes death. I've explained that causation exists and is observable in these situations because of the physical necessity. A flame must have fuel to burn, two solid objects cannot pass through each other, to be alive a person must have their head attached to their body. These examples are simple, observable and undeniable. — Ron Cram

Yet it would be very weird to claim that a flame is caused by fuel, a window is caused by there not being a brick in the same space, and a person being alive because their head is attached to their body. In fact whenever we single out one specific factor as the cause - like the spark that lit the match, the brick that shattered the window etc., we are simplifying. This simplification is also the root of the saying "correlation does not imply causation", which is only partially true. Causation in the strictest sense only exists between the entirety of states of a system. One entire state causes another.

The crucial thing you seem to be missing is that the only justification we have for claiming that one state causes the other is that, to us, the states appear to follow each other in time. What you call physical necessity - the laws of physics, all depend on causation as an axiom. Therefore, they cannot prove causation.

For the reasons you outlined, I have started to question the validity of an "equality of opportunity". Increasingly, it seems to me that "equality of opportunity, not of outcome" has become a kind of mantra, a signal more than an actual policy decision.

Equality is a value judgement, whereby we compare different states and decide whether or not these states are sufficiently similar in their characteristics to warrant being treated in the same way. In that sense, there is no way to establish equality of opportunity, because opportunity is not a state of affairs - it's another judgement.

So what we are actually doing when we assess "equality of opportunity" is looking at outcomes - just not at actual outcomes, but of predicted outcomes. I don't see how we could arrive at a judgement of "equality of opportunity" that wouldn't include a judgement on the equality of outcomes.

If you don’t think it’s a problem I’m guessing you’re American. It’s hard to see something from within. Trust me it looks ridiculous to the point where Trump becoming president wasn’t really much of a shock - I’m just shocked someone of his ilk hadn’t come along earlier. — I like sushi

Perhaps my opinion is a bit of an unusual one, but I don't think Trump's election is a result of a cult of personality, because, to wit, his personality is shit. He is neither a charismatic leader nor a strongman. Sure he might have a reputation as a businessman and dealmaker, but that's not usually the kind of personal reputation that vaults you into the presidency.

Trump wasn't elected for what he is, but for what he has claimed not to be - a politician. In a way, Trump's campaign was focused on policy - albeit a populist version of policy. "Drain the Swamp", "lock her up", "Mexiko will pay for the wall". It wasn't really about using a strong personality, which Trump lacks, or a strong oration, which Trump definetly lacks, to pull people in. It was sending a very simple policy message. The personality cult thing, especially on the religious right, is a later phenomenon, I think.

Why is it incoherent? — TheMadFool

Everything physical behaves according to the laws of physics. If the laws of physics are "order", then everything physical is thus ordered. You were asking for examples for order arising out of Chaos. But since everything physical is already ordered, where would such examples come from?

In terms of tactics, I think one puzzle piece is to not alienate roughly half of the US population( of voters.) If you begin with an attack, the person will get defensive. — csalisbury

If we agree that this is about tactics, then not alienating Trump supporters is a contingent goal, right? Something we do in order to change the outcome of the next election. The question then is what the correct tactics are.

This is the same reason leftist attacks on moderate liberals, like Obama, tend to fail. If voting for Obama means knowingly supporting everything he did, then you're in trouble. There are, I'm sure, many people who voted for Trump who are queasy on certain policies. That's the populace you need to sway. If you write off the entirety of active voters who votes for trump, you automatically hand him the win. — csalisbury

I see your point. But, like @Maw, I don't agree with your tactical assessment. I don't think swaying Trump supporters is the goal. I think the goal is mobilizing the already existing majority for a better candidate with better policies. Of course, locally, in swing states, swaying Trump voters may well be important. But as far as the overarching narrative goes, I think you can leverage the "we are the resistance" sentiment.

[the cheeky meta stuff: your post is too bogged down in justificatory nuance. You make these conceptual distinctions between how you actually see things and how you need to argue things from a tactical standpoint. For me, its handier to categorize you as what I, hypothetical responder, already did from the get-go, namely : [Someone who acts as though he thinks all trump voters are actual nazis] ] — csalisbury

Perhaps. I admit it is difficult to order my thoughts on this issue. On the one hand, I agree with treating people fairly and focusing on the actual details of their positions. On the other hand, I have the feeling people hide their racist, sexist, nationalist etc. views behind a pretended nuance. The whole, "I don't have anything against X, but..." method. I think there is a lot more outright "us vs them" thinking guiding people's decisions than most people like to admit.

The US, for as long as I’ve been alive, has voted based on personal popularity not policy. — I like sushi

That isn't really unique to the US though. I also think it isn't necessarily a problem. After all, I am not an expert on every policy question, so focusing on policy doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes.

And do notice that this is exactly the strategy of Trump too and this isn't anything new. What is new is how headlong Americans fell for this and how the "silly-season" of the election 2016 never went away. This creates the toxic and vitriolic political environment where the US is now in. This is the way you erode social cohesion and divide the people into separate camps, which then you legitimize by saying that they belong to separate 'tribes' and explain that people are tribal. — ssu

The problem I see, from a pragmatic perspective, is that you cannot avoid this unless both sides are playing "by the rules". Trump's divisive rhetoric should already have disqualified him for a second term. The fact that it hasn't indicates there is already a lot of division. You cannot easily overcome that, and you cannot sway the core base anyway. Hoping that positive messages on the campaign trail will somehow bridge the gap strikes me as naïve.

Hillary Clinton's gaffe of speaking about the deplorables was one of the contributing events that helped Trump (apart from the FBI's October suprise). Making accusations about the voters of your competitors is basically a taboo in a democracy. Yet it can be very, very successful strategy and can get divisive politicians elected who have absolutely no desire to keep the country together. — ssu

True, but then the damage has been done. What the opposition needs to do now is figure out how to deal with a divided country.

I wouldn't be so worried if this was only an American phenomenon. Unfortunately this is mimicked in Europe and a similar process is happening here too. — ssu

Difficult times, indeed.

I actually hated that scene in the movie itself. For some reason it really left a profoundly bad taste in my mouth when I watched it originally. I still can't articulate why (maybe its a class thing?), but I suppose I'm not surprised by the appropriation. — StreetlightX

Ditto. I seem to have grown sick of gratuitous violence in action films sometimes in the last couple of years.

I also feel that this story isn't news. I actually kinda agree with Nosferatu. It's not really worse than the original movie.

You could even interpret it in a subversive way given the context of the scene in the movie.

Note: this isn’t my opinion. Kant’s use of the term ‘intuition’ is nothing like how we use the term today - it catches a few people out from time to time. He says, very clearly, there are ‘two pure forms of sensible intuition’ referring to a prior, these being ‘space and time’. Just to be clear he doesn’t mean physical space and time. — I like sushi

This is mostly on point, I just wanted to note that Kant doesn't use the term "intuition" at all. He uses the term "Anschauung". There is a german term for "intuition" - it's "Intuition". Another possible way to translate "Anschauung", would be "perception". This would clash with other terms, but it may be easier to grasp what Kant means - the basic ability to perceive things at all.

“Intuition” & “representation”, in proper & strict Kantian terminology, are interchangeable words, i.e., synonyms; accordingly, there are different three kinds of intuitions or representations, namely, “pure”, “empirical”, & “intellectual” or “categorical.” — aRealidealist

In the section in question, Kant does use two different german words - Anschauung (intuition) and Vorstellung (representation). We could perhaps say that the representation is a specific kind of intuition - one that represents an object.

I think it's just that we're horrified by the way they achieve peace. — frank

Well, why shouldn't we be?

If we go looking for allies in the region, of course we'll find them, just as Russia and Assad would find allies in the US or the UK if they had the power to intrude. But by intruding in the US, Russia would be ripping open old wounds, and then: surprise! the US falls apart. "It's just like those people to turn on each other" the Russians would say.

Aside from the occasional civil war and mob protest, Americans actually get along really well (because we're left alone to discover our own balance.) — frank

Eh, I don't know. Germany was invaded by 3 powers, split into two countries for 45 years, and yet still came out as a mostly coherent country. Sure prolonged struggle can rip a country apart, but the problem in the Middle East is that there is no shared history of being in a nation-state at all.

There was never a natural progression of institutions that led to the formation of the modern states. Instead, the state boundaries were imposed, and then meddled with by foreign powers. Not a great starting point.

There's nothing like a Norwegian peace-maker to settle things down. But some conflicts have to play out. Putting it off doesn't solve anything. Or does it? — frank

But who knows which conflicts have to play out? Sometimes violence cannot be avoided, I'd agree. Plenty of historical developments are difficult to imagine without violence. But these things are usually only clear with hindsight, and ususally quite a lot of it.

I don't really see a conflict that "has to" play out in the middle east. There is plenty of religious strife, and plenty of regional jostling for power, with a fair bit of proxy war thrown in. Situations that "require" violence are, I think, ones where you have a very stable, but dysfunctional system, and that system cannot be overcome apart from simply tearing it down. But there has been a lot of change in the middle east. I don't see the equivalent of a "cleansing fire" somehow changing the basic problem - a bunch of weak states being jostled around by a few stronger states, which themselves are jostled around by mahor players.

The Iraq war was about democratizing the middle east. Bush's strategists made that clear. What followed was one three-stooges style error after another, giving rise to ISIS and then the cherry on top was Obama's apparent promise to Syrian rebels that the US would give them aid.

Years later. Holy fuck. Yes, American engagement was largely about fostering western values such as exhausting your energy in democratic bickering rather than in blowing up world trade centers. — frank

No doubt it was a collossal failure. But I don't think this is because the region is somehow not "fit" for western values. I think it was simply the wrong approach. I think the strategists simply did not recognise how different, say, Iraqi society is. Western Europe and the US are uniquely individualistic, with comparatively very weak family ties and a long history of a rule of law. You cannot simply implant these things into another culture. You have to let them grow.

Prior to British colonization, India did not look all that much different than the middle east does now. There was no unified indian state. There were a bunch of small states with different religions. Yet after independence, India became a successfull democratic state. There, western values "worked".

Do you think it's possible that Assad and the Russians know how to maintain an organic peace in the region better than Americans do?

Is it possible that the American alliance with the Kurds may have been partly about fostering western values in the region?

I'm asking genuinely. I'm not a Trump defender. Just looking at the situation mechanically. — frank

It's possible. I wonder if they're interested in peace though. Both don't seem particularly concerned with how they reach their goals.

That said, I'd not be against leaving building an organic peace to regional actors. That's not really what either the US or Russia are doing though. And it'd take a lot more of an international framework.

I am not sure how much the American engagement was about "fostering western values". I am not in principle against fostering western values. Some western values are pretty rad. Fostering them takes patience and a light touch, though.

A bit of context for that passage would be helpful. Otherwise I'd have to check the text myself to really answer.

Note that Kant says he "cannot rest in" the intuitions, which could simply mean that intuitions are not yet knowledge - something else is required.

Imagine I responded to your post like this: 'Oh here's another person who thinks every one who voted for Trump should be treated as a literal nazi. Big surprise.'

That's not what you were saying, but it does certainly make categorization easier. And it prevents me from getting bogged down in nuance.

I pose this challenge to you. Reject my hypothetical response to you, while defending the substance of your post, and all without using undue nuance. (As an added challenge explain how your rejection and defense is different than what I was saying when responding to Maw.) — csalisbury

I don't advocate treating Trump supporters as literal Nazis. I advocate treating them as literal Trump supporters. That is, treat them as if they knowingly support all the things Trump is doing, insofar as they are a matter of public record or otherwise obvious. This, of course, only applies to current Trump supporters. But it applies regardless for their stated reasons for intending to vote for Trump again.

Voting for Trump is voting for Trump to continue what he has been doing. Trump's policies and behaviour are bad. To argue whether it's fair to claim Trump supporters are racist is, IMHO a distraction from the actual issue - that Trump is a bad president that supports bad policies. If all you worry about is whether or not your support for Trump is wrongly interpreted as evidence for racism, you're already part of the problem.

So, I don't think it matters whether or not it is entirely fair to every Trump supporter to call them racist. Because if you support Trump, you're so obviously supporting "bad things" that it's not a debate worth having. The only debate worth having is how to get enough people to vote for someone who will do less harmful stuff.

I'm a deplorable. you may talk to me. — ozymandias11111

Will you vote for Trump again? What policy has decided you for or against that decision?

However which is really the best form of punishment? Is punishment a good idea altogether? — Fruitless

I don't know if there is a "best" form of punishment. Incarceration is practiced around the world and, if properly managed, seems to work ok, though it is not without it's problems.

As to whether punishment is a good idea, I'd say yes. There are two main arguments. One is that, psychologically, humans demand punishment for rule breaking, and so punishment has positive social effects. The other is that punishment equalizes the victim and the perpetrator by inflicting a commensurate harm on the latter.

What is your definition of punishment? — Fruitless

A harm inflicted as a reaction to a preceding violation of norms.

Why is punishment considered an effective method in controlling someone's actions? — Fruitless

Are you asking about folk psychology or actual research here? The actual research indicates that punishment is not an effective method in controlling a single person's actions via deterrence. Rather, it's the belief in a working and equitable criminal justice system, with a significant chance of solving cases, that has a "deterrence" effect.

So, in a move that several posters have predicted, the Kurds have now struck a deal with Assad, and the Syrian army is moving into the contested are and clashing with the Turkish army.

Trump has thus managed to hand control over the situation entirely to Russia, Iran and their allies. In addition to supplying them with a new ally, the Kurds.

What a great job.

This isn't a good example because the water molecules are chaotic to observers without complete information. To those who possess the right information the molecules will be behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. — TheMadFool

Given that definition of "order", there is no chaos at all in the physical universe, since everything physical behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. In that case, your question would be incoherent.

I can see the connection to idealism, but not pantheism.

Your video alse spend a lot of time briefly touching an eclectic mix of philosophers (some of which you misrepresented) and talking about God, without any apparent goal.

1. Every event must have a cause.

That's called a synthetic a priori judgment. It's a synthesis of two concepts: experience and innate or what psychologists would call, intrinsic intuition. — 3017amen

This seems contradictory. A-priori means prior to experience. I cannot be a synthetic a-priori judgement if it contains experience. Kant uses the qualifier "synthetic" to denote judgements that "synthesize" new information, as opposed to "analytic" judgements.

The rest doesn't really make much sense to me.

You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample? — TheMadFool

Snowflakes, for example, are fromed from chaotic water molecules.

There is also a good post about order from chaos here: https://www.quora.com/In-the-natural-world-can-order-arise-from-chaos-Are-there-examples-of-this

Sure...Kantian intuition... or some other Reformed Epistemology? — 3017amen

I am not sure what you mean by Kantian intuition, but I do at least have some idea of Kant's epistemology.

Why does there have to be only one love? I feel that there are kinds, or maybe degrees, of love.

I don't think you can choose to love someone, but you can "learn" to do so. And you can choose not to love, or suppress it.

In any case, it doesn't seem like atheism has the answers...( to the deep questions of existence). — 3017amen

If you cannot explain the rules of chess to a pigeon, that doesn't mean that you don't know them.

Surely you're not acquiescing to the fact that atheism is untenable are you? — 3017amen

Do you know the saying about playing chess with a pigeon?

Yeah, just like a watch is a natural occurrence. You know, the principles employed by modern scientists tend to break down the division between artificial and natural. Human beings are considered to be a "natural occurrence", so all things which human beings create are also natural occurrences. So it's really meaningless to say that the universe is "a natural occurrence", because this doesn't distinguish it from anything else; all things are natural occurrences, even watches. — Metaphysician Undercover

That, however, renders any talk of a designer moot as well. Design is eliminated as a category, there are only physical laws.

Now let's say there is tons of political nuance that's being missed, institutional racism, etc. (In fact, I would agree that this is the case.) By collapsing an entire spectrum of problematic views w/r/t race, into Racist (bad) versus woke (good) and placing everyone you disagree with all the way on the end, you guarantee that they will never listen to you. In fact, they'll, slowly, begin to doubt other, more nuanced, more apt, accusations of racism. The significance of 'racist' will begin to be devalued. Accusations of racism they would have agreed with you on before, now seem to become suspect. Eventually they'll stop listening to you altogether. They won't become literal nazis - as in your cartoon - just as Hanover didn't say he was going to become a literal nazi. They'll see enough cartoons like yours to realize there is no chance in any conversation but for themselves to be caricatured and they'll just stop listening to you. — csalisbury

I see your point, but on the other hand, a certain amount of categorization is important for social, political action. If we look at everyone's exact position and exact reasons for that position, there is no way to effect social change. Winning an election, changing a society's general outlook, are social problems. You cannot solve them without some categorization into people who are on the right side and people who are not.

Accounting for every nuance will bog you down, and allow less scrupulous people to take the initiative.

Are you saying this particular inference - design ergo designer - is an erroneous tendency and unwarranted? — TheMadFool

I am saying the inference isn't justified. Upon reflection, there is no actual evidence that the universe is designed.

Name one instance of design without a designer. You can't say it's the universe because that would be circular. — TheMadFool

That is circular. Calling it a design presupposes a designer. The question is: is the universe a design?

That's an ideal scenario we're asking for. However, I think the critical deciding factor is the resemblance between a watch and the universe - a certain set of principles which determines how each works. In that there's no doubt and so the inference to a designer isn't mistaken. — TheMadFool

Would it be possible to discover anything at all that does not work "according to a certain set of principles"?

Normal people, including people who make the above counter-argument, actually think the exact opposite. We can run an experiment with two rooms A and B. A is in disarray with things in no particular order and B is neat and objects have been arranged in a discernable pattern. If someone, anyone, were to be taken into the two rooms and asked which room probably had an occupant then the answer would invariably be room B. I don't think anyone will/can disagree with this deduction.

If so, how do we make an exception for the universe? Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool

There is a difference between a human tendency towards certain interpretations and such interpretations actually being warranted by the evidence / supported by arguments.

Examples include the fundamental attribution error (attributing behavior to character flaws when it might as well be based on circumstance), or the way humans tend to judge the probability of an event based on how easy it is to recall instances of said event. These are false assumptions, but "normal" humans will nevertheless gravitate towards them.

It's the same with the designer. Humans are toolmakers, so they see purposes and tools everywhere. Humans also have a tendency to anthropomorphise - attributing human like intentionality to everything from pets to natural disasters. That doesn't mean these tendencies actually represent reality.

For the same reason I don’t speed around police. If an action is likely to lead to negative consequences we are less likely to do it. If the penalty for illegal entry is jail and deportation, one is less likely to do it. — NOS4A2

Are you familiar with any actual research on deterrence or is this folk psychology? You said deterrence was necessary. To justify that claim, you'd first need to establish it's effective (a tall order, given that illegal immigrants regularly risk death), but you then also need to explain why it's necessary in the strict sense - that it's a proportionate response with no alternatives.

I thought it went without saying that God is not a physical entity but spirit. — Wayfarer

Depends on who you're talking to, I guess. I agree insofar as God is incoherent as a physical entity anyways. But I tend to bring up the possibility just in case.

My argument here is basically that what we nowadays understand as 'what exists' comprises the 'domain of phenomena' - those things, forces, entities, that are knowable by scientific means, the realm of naturalism, and so on. So, most often, when the question is asked whether God exists, it presumes that God is part of that domain of phenomena. Hence the 'flying spaghetti monster', the 'celestial teapot' and all the other memes that you encounter in internet atheism. — Wayfarer

I have a bit of a different view on the matter. I think that a problem of the theism/atheism debates among laypeople is that whatever is meant by "existence" is not properly defined at all. This means that people tend to mix physical and metaphysical perspectives, in addition to mixing epistemic, ontic and normative perspectives. More often than not, you end up with a big mess with everyone talking past each other.

I don't think there is a general trend among people towards dismissing the metaphysical. I think that, now as in the past, people who aren't familiar with the philosophy of epistemology tend not to make a clear distinction between the two.

All the 'new atheists' (in particular) don't understand what it is they think doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

Do you think that, if they understood, they wouldn't be atheists? I think I understand, at least the basics, but I am not convinced.

The vital perspective that has gone missing is that of degrees of reality. This is related to a worldview grounded in the idea of the chain of being - that reality emanates from or is originated by a transcendent intelligence, and cascades down through various levels of being, of which matter is the lowest level, i.e. most remote from the origin or source. — Wayfarer

That perspective too requires justification though. How do we judge whether this perspective is, for lack of a better word, true?

And as our culture sees matter as being the only reality, then obviously understanding or coming to terms with that outlook is quite a difficult matter. — Wayfarer

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of our culture. Materialism is not quite the same as physicalism.

It will point out that whilst all phenomena are compound and transient, there is something that the intellect can grasp that is not, and that is the reality of number and geometric form. So represents knowledge of a different kind to sensory knowledge - it's direct intellectual apprehension, dianoia. — Wayfarer

Right. I agree that such a-priori apprehension exists. But that alone is not sufficient to establish a platonic world of intelligibles.

I do believe that justice without mercy is not justice at all, but is simply revenge. — Hanover

The question is why you are looking at this from the perspective of justice first, and not, say, from the perspective of a problem to be solved. Sure entering the country illegally is a crime, but just calling it a crime solves nothing. It's an administrative crime, too, so there is no victim looking for justice.

So why bring up it's criminality, stopping at a label, rather than looking at pragmatic solutions?

But deterrence is necessary to quell illegal immigration. — NOS4A2

Is that so? How do you know?

If you decided to immigrate to Germany and you knew their laws strictly forbade it, and you knew there was increased enforcement of its immigration laws currently in effect, do you not think it criminally negligent for you to bring your kids directly into your criminal enterprise and subject them to law enforcement measures? — Hanover

That rather depends on the alternative, don't you think?

An important point from classical theology - that God does not exist, or rather, surpasses existence, and so cannot be said to exist or not to exist. — Wayfarer

What do you mean when you say classical theology? A specific time period?

Ergo, belief in God is not a belief about something that exists or doesn't exist. It's a belief about the meaning of what exists. A theistic philosophy posits that the nature of the Universe is such that it means or implies the reality of a source of order which cannot itself be understood on the level of phenomena. — Wayfarer

That seems to describe a metaphysical concept. So, you're saying God should not be understood as a physical entity, but as a metaphysical concept?

What would you say are the epistemic rules concerning metaphysical concepts?

Accordingly, this source of order cannot be said to be something that exists, because existing things (1) have a beginning and an end in time and (2) are composed of parts. (Any objectors, please provide an example of something existing that doesn't satisfy those conditions); and also because 'what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary. — Wayfarer

Which would be the correct attribute or relation to describe metaphysical concepts, if "existence/nonexistence" cannot be used? Truth/Falsehood?

Based on the sum total of my experiences (which may not coincide with yours) I have sufficient evidence of connectivity which transcends the domain of ordinary scientific discourse. — Pantagruel

This does sound quite a bit like faith, though. I think faith in concerning metaphysical concepts is perfectly fine. I just don't think it obliges me to adopt an agnostic position.

Trivially, neural networks operate by leveraging 'hidden dimensions' of connectivity also, so while this may not rise to the standard of scientific proof, it is evidence, nevertheless. — Pantagruel

But evidence for what, exactly?

And I certainly extend my hypothesis to include the strong possibility of there being forms of consciousness far more advanced and therefore toto caelo unlike ours. Possibly not limited in space and time like ours. And I conceive this to be 'close enough' to the most general form of the notion of God — Pantagruel

I think that, by definition, a consciousness toto caelo unlike ours would be unknowable to us. We can recognise consciousness that is significantly similar to our own, but only by comparison to our own behaviour. I see no way to ever establish totally alien consciousness, though I think it's fine to fantasize about them (I do, too).

As was said, it all depends how you define "God," doesn't it? — Pantagruel

Given that you could define "God" in a way to refer to your pet goldfish, sure it does. But of course people refer to traditional notions of God when they call themselves atheist.

We agree. But you failed to discuss induction. — 3017amen

I did refer to the scientific method, which is inductive. If you have a way to inductively reason about the non-physical, I'd like to hear it.

That is just Daniel Dennett's argument and I didn't find it convincing when he delivered it. Reasons for believing are ultimately contingent on the entire body of an individual's knowledge. If I find a good reason to believe it is sufficient for me. If Dan Dennett (and you) don't, then you speak for yourself. — Pantagruel

Right. But we can exchange reasons and debate them. It's not a matter of faith, after all. If you have an argument for God that you find convincing, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

The whole debate hinges not on the actual existence of God, only the possible existence of God. — Pantagruel

The question was "does God exist". Possibility is not actuality.

Great. How can you prove it? — 3017amen

I am just going to quote what I said before:

Usually, "existence" denotes physical existence. To make the argument that God, or gods, do not exist as physical entities, I merely need to point out that they have no predictive value, and as such are not part of any theory about the physical world. Since the proper epistemic procedure for establishing what exists physically is the scientific method, that is all that is required to answer the question.

Of course, you could be using "existence" to refer to some other reality. But in that case, I argue that the proper epistemic procedure is a null hypothesis. Since non-physical reality can only be known a-priori, anything that can be known about it is deducible from a-priori knowledge. Therefore, all I need to point out is that there is no valid deduction of God, or gods, from a-priori principles. Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist. — Echarmion

1. God does not exist.

(True or false just asking) — 3017amen

True.

Atheists must assert that they currently possess adequate knowledge to be able to comprehend everything that is possibly knowable right now, before declaring that God does not exist. Which is of course absurd! — Pantagruel

I don't see how that follows.

Usually, "existence" denotes physical existence. To make the argument that God, or gods, do not exist as physical entities, I merely need to point out that they have no predictive value, and as such are not part of any theory about the physical world. Since the proper epistemic procedure for establishing what exists physically is the scientific method, that is all that is required to answer the question.

Of course, you could be using "existence" to refer to some other reality. But in that case, I argue that the proper epistemic procedure is a null hypothesis. Since non-physical reality can only be known a-priori, anything that can be known about it is deducible from a-priori knowledge. Therefore, all I need to point out is that there is no valid deduction of God, or gods, from a-priori principles. Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist.

No E! What I'm saying is that it is LIMITED. I'm not dichotomizing. — 3017amen

But what follows from it's limitation? The God of the gaps?

Sure, like blonde versus brunette. There's no reason (I know of, correct me if I'm wrong) for one to be more attractive than the other, yet people often have strong preferences.

Fun related fact: red hair does make sense to be considered less attractive, because it is correlated with a higher rate of genetic abnormalities. — Artemis

Damn, looks like I selected the wrong partner....

Anyways, it seems we mostly agree. I just find it curious that, apparently, the idea that this sort of sexual selection plays a (significant) role in evolution is highly debated, when it seems so obvious.

What I don't quite get is what rational process you aim to follow here. It has already been pointed out that disproving the theory of evolution wouldn't affect atheism, though it might affect the view of individual atheists.

But apart from that, you cannot actually poke holes into a scientific theory by pointing out phenomena it cannot (fully) explain. You'd have to point to examples that explicitly disprove the theory, that is things that cannot possibly happen under it's framework.

If what you mean to do is to argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because it doesn't offer a compelling account of all phenomena, your problem isn't with the theory of evolution but with the scientific method itself.

When I say reproductive mechanism, I mean sexual selection. And, yes, I think it's just as important to understanding evolution as mere survival. — Artemis

I refer specifically to the idea that traits with no, or even negative, survival value are selected for due to the sexual preferences - attractiveness, if you want - of the species. Like a peacocks feathers not being selected for because they symbolise a strong male capable of "wasting" resources, but rather because long, colorful feathers are attractive to peacocks. Of course what's attractive is also determined by evolution, but it's possible that something that originated as a survival advantage stops being one, without a corresponding change happening in the species' own logic for selecting partners.

While I'm in agreement with your description of how the survival mechanism of evolution happens, I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition. — Artemis

What do you think about sexual selection, for example? I have always found it weird that there is such a focus on survival advantage when what really matters is not surviving, but passing on your genes.

Concerning the subject of higher cognition, it's possible that higher cognition had a survival value in general, but specific results, like mathematical abilities, are accidental byproducts.

Millions and millions of Kurds live in Turkey and call it their home. Turkey has not been kind to the Kurds, sure, but they are not the enemy in this battle, despite your propaganda. — NOS4A2

The target are Kurdish forces wishing to establish their own state.

The PKK is a terrorist organization, at least according to Turkey, NATO, the EU, the US, and UK. — NOS4A2

Yes. The YPG isn't though. Of course Turkey correctly identifies a strong Kurdish presence in the region as a threat. That doesn't mean the Kurds are entirely in the wrong either. In reality there are usually nuances.

It’s not so simple. I’m speaking about the current rebellion at the southern border.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(2015–present) — NOS4A2

Which is nothing other than the continuation of a decades long struggle. It's indeed not so simple.

This is a far-left rebellion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_United_Revolutionary_Movement — NOS4A2

It's a nationalist movement. Left wing ideas have little to do with it. It just so happens that if grew out of left-wing militas.

This isn’t our conflict, and we cannot align with terrorist forces as they attack our ally. — NOS4A2

So, what about all the aligning the US did before Erdogan's call? Care to point out at which point YPG forces attacked Turkey?

The consequence of American soldiers being killed in this Turkey-PKK spat would be worse than Benghazi, with far worse geopolitical implications. — NOS4A2

But of course they wouldn't have been killed, because Turkey wouldn't have attacked.

The spin about future alliances, soldiers feelings, and optics is all nonsense. — NOS4A2

What about the possibility that what Pompeo says is nonsense?