Actually, that's an interesting statement. I tend to believe that fear can work in both directions. Some people believe in God as a result of fear while others may deny God's existence out of fear that he might actually exist. — Apollodorus

Maybe some such disbelievers can be found? An odd kind of wishful thinking?
Doesn't seem all that likely, though, or at least uncommon.
Plenty reasons to disregard the Vedic Shiva, the Avestan Ahura Mazda, the Bhagavad Gitan Vishnu, the Biblical Yahweh, the Quranic Allah, Eru/Ilúvatar of The Silmarillion, ...

the "view from nowhere" — Gnomon

a "view from wherever" — Gnomon

... is better (e.g. relativity).

Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;)

• Error, fallibility, revision, correction: We're sometimes wrong about things. What, then, made us wrong, but whatever is indeed the case?
• Agreement, confirmation, coherence: We agree on numerous things; when to be at work in the morning; where the local grocery store is; how a pawn moves in chess; this is English; ... The fly and the chameleon are in agreement about the colors of the environment when the chameleon sneaks up on the fly and catches it. As a spectator, I can understand this little drama; I also agree with the fly and the chameleon about the colors.

I thought it was Christians and Muslims and such that feared their deities. Odd.

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
If he has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?
If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest? — Percy Bysshe Shelley (1811)

However, had not the Big Bang resulted in precisely the balance of atomic forces that eventuated then there would be no matter, therefore no universe. — Wayfarer

The universe is fine-tuned to what it is? That doesn't really say much.

By the way, evaluating all possible universes with a sample size of one isn't the easiest task. (Heck, some claim that Heaven and Hell are possible.) How would we go about that?

Which is a judgement. — Wayfarer

I'd say observation.

I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle — Wayfarer

Is that "Omega Point" Tipler? *cough* Don't recall the title, but two guys authored a book not long ago, arguing opposite points. One of them at least an accredited physicist (maybe both). I can try to look it up. Might be better.

Edit: one of the two authors was Luke Barnes.

Let me just try a rephrase:

The supposition: Martinez' suffering and death was good (the unknown greater good response).
The will and sentiments of the hospital staff (and cancer researchers) are directly contrary.
Contrary good is bad, or contra a greater good is something worse.
(Incidentally also unlike following Yahweh's example (by supposition), creating/allowing cancer, no relief.)
If Yahweh is good and capable, then it takes creative story-telling to deny that Martinez' suffering and death was good.

If we cannot say that relief from cancer is good, then we have nothing. ^{(Martinez, StJude)} — jorndoe

By the way, I'm sure it's possible to find some out there that wouldn't doing anything, "God's will" or "pray" or something, ... Suffering/death follows, including in cases where we can do something. ^(Radita)

The personnel at StJude's are willing but (mostly) incapable of doing something (per se anyway).
The supposed instigator/warrantor, God, would presumably be capable, and doesn't do something about it, so apparently unwilling?

_{The examples:
• Martinez
• StJude
• Radita}

Fine-tuned universe, intelligent design, ...? Some evidence and such to take into consideration:

• life that we know of came about maybe 10 billion or so years after the Big Bang (the known/observable universe)
• by far most species that have lived on Earth are extinct
• we (homo sapiens) have been around for an insignificant amount of time thus far
• by and large, the universe is inhospitable to life as we know it, by far actually, sterile
• life will be long gone before the universe heads into heat death, which will continue on for an unfathomable amount of time
• children suffer and die from cancer, and maladies due to our makeups, and the occasional background radiation, etc
• lifeforms (and viruses which are border-life/non-life) cause all kinds of suffering to, and deaths of, each other
• we (humans) try to "fix" what we consider nature's "shortcomings" (e.g. the plague, eyesight)
• considering ourselves the apex of life, or the raison d'être for it all, is unwarranted self-elevation, incredulity, anthropo-bias
• apart from ourselves, the world seems rather indifferent to us and our concerns
• there are antinatalists and pessimists ;)

• Argument from poor design (Religions Wiki)
• Argument from poor design (Wikipedia)

lot of bad police behavior in the US — fishfry

Two wrongs make a right? Nah. Still need to address systemic discrimination.

Marxist organization — fishfry

Either way, we still need to address the social/cultural problem, systemic discrimination.

If saying that "All lives matter" is racist — fishfry

I wouldn't say it is. Except perhaps in reaction to "black lives matter"?

, the comment was kind of memerific, often seen out there, as a reaction, which seemed to be what you were doing. No need to diverge off to semantics.

1. Observer/activist: "black lives matter"
2. Responder: "all lives matter" ← doesn't really say much (except perhaps to ignore 1)

If the commies are taking advantage of the situation, then that still doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Wasn't it Obama that once said something about cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, something like that, a lingering problem that needs addressing...?

All lives matter. — Apollodorus

Sure, I guess.
And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi?

Right, .

So, with the cancer example, if we suppose it's for an unknown greater good, then the right thing would be not doing anything about it.

There seem to be weird absurdities along this line of inquiry, which makes me think it started out wrong.

The thread took a turn. :)

Since 4 is false or so we believe, there is suffering/evil, — TheMadFool

If we cannot say that relief from cancer is good, then we have nothing. ^{(Martinez, StJude)}

In case there's some unknown greater good at play, somehow justifying the suffering, instigated/warranted by God/gods, then such relief isn't actually good.
This would then stop efforts^(StJude) dead in their tracks, or at least their warrant/justification.
"Everyone stop what you're doing!" :cheer:

I can stop my crack habit — unenlightened

(y) Maybe there's a "can" ambiguity?

Modal can: it's possible to quit the nasty habit
"Free will" can: you don't will it so

one can want things that conflict — unenlightened

Yeah, neurotic apes, unreliable we are, unlike...

God — unenlightened

Might be moving more towards homo sapiens psychology.

Hey, it's not really about me, just what the syllogistically styled argument looks like to you folk.
I guess it could be written as: if 1 ∧ 2 ∧ 3 then 4.
Might be outlandish, might be right, might be something in between (which is where I'm leaning, but my personal leanings aren't relevant, just the argument).
Suppose x doesn't happen, then maybe Q didn't want it after all, or maybe couldn't make it happen, or forgot, which may or may not fall under 1/2/3, or whatever, ... Or, there could be something ambiguous about "want" that could be elucidated, ...
Doesn't take more than a counter-example, yes?

Depends on the context, doesn't it? Whether or not it's indefinite.

Via John Watkins, where the domain of inquiry is indefinite:

(∀) empirical universal statements are falsifiable but not verifiable
(∃) existential statements are verifiable but not falsifiable

If you make a ∀ statement, then falsification is applicable. If you make an ∃ statement, then verification is applicable.

Claim (example): all swans are while
Burden (general): sufficient/relevant evidence is tentative/provisional/proportional falsifiable justification (unless the contrary is impossible)

Claim (example): there are evil-doers that cast magic spells on others
Claim (example): the Biblical Yahweh is real and intervenes
Burden (general): verify (unless the contrary is impossible)

I guess that also reiterates where the onus probandi is placed. Theists have to provide verification (when they wish to convince others), and when they fail (and have kept failing for centuries on end), others, including nonresistant nonbelievers, are equally justified in disregarding their extraordinary existential claims.

If the domain is local, like 180 Proof's elephant example, then it's a different matter.

Surely it's not such an exclusive either/or thing?

Individuals go about their business in societies all the time.

So, there are some thresholds in whatever direction, where things go extreme or unacceptable.

We surrender some freedoms (don't murder), worry less about others taking your freedoms (don't get assaulted), do yours (contribute), utilize commons (infrastructures, hospitals), act responsibly, employ some to carry responsibilities (military, schools, politicians), ... (long list I guess)

We then discuss where reasonable thresholds are, find examples of overstepping or insufficient responses or whatever, so as to continuously improve, yes?

There are all kinds of inter-dependencies in societies; it's not like we'd get as far without some cooperation.

immigration — NOS4A2

No need for that nonsense. Just make your own way there.
No one will care. Unless you travel by (Iowa-class) battleship?

Moving to Greenland and occupying land there is a problem because I’d have to contend with the Danish state’s monopolization of it all. I wager that had the Danes left the Inuit alone there wouldn’t be this problem. But they meddled and claimed the land as their own. — NOS4A2

No one would know. (Hence the location.)
Greenland has been autonomous for half a century or so (from unreliable memory).

Not bad. But I fear it will be prime real estate once you’ve had your way with the rest of the world. — NOS4A2

In your lifetime? Doubtful. You'll be meddle-free.

, I hear Baffin Bay, Greenland, is good.
The Sirius Patrol doesn't cover the area.
You could run into the occasional polar bear and Inuit hunter/fisher (the former might be more likely to "meddle"), but otherwise good.
No one's gonna' bother you, it'll be you and freedom. (y)

What's up over in Trump-land?

It appears that he thinks that Cyber Ninjas will find many thousands of votes for him in Arizona. Then they will move on to Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin where they will also find many thousands of votes for him. Enough votes to overturn the election in his favor. — Trump Thinks That He Will Be Reinstated In The White House (Caren White, May 2021)

What’s really scary about this is not just that Trump is obsessed with this recount but that he thinks that it will lead to Biden being thrown out of the White House and Trump becoming president instead. — Trump Thinks That He Will Be Reinstated In The White House (Caren White, May 2021)

This is why I am convinced that Trump will run for president in 2024. In his reality, it makes sense to run for a second term and believe that he can win. — Trump Thinks That He Will Be Reinstated In The White House (Caren White, May 2021)

Is White exaggerating?

Water comes out of my faucet and H₂O is our model of a wee bit of that.
I guess the word "water" and H₂O shares reference.
Does that work?

With the "innocent until proven guilty" rule we favor the risk of not punishing an offender over punishing an innocent. (y)
With the death penalty, we add a finality into the mix.
Doesn't seem quite right, for a legal system having to deal equally with everyone.
At least, I wouldn't vote the death penalty in, unless I was prepared to face the music myself — killing of an innocent by a death penalty that's on me, thus rendering me guilty with finality.
Maybe I'm just culturally biased.

What good is a definition of good, when, in some given situation, you still have to figure out if following it is the right thing to do?

Sure, we can come up with things like the golden rule, yet, from there to have them be universal and unconditional doesn't seem right.

It's easier to come up with examples than definitions.

in that case which parts of scepticism do you think are right? — Amalac

I guess that's where the harder work lies.
I don't see any particular reason to doubt we're chatting in English here, for example.
Some trivialities demand less doubt than other (perhaps more sweeping or less clear or evident) claims.

The problem is, we need justification in order to avoid having to randomly guess which beliefs are true and which beliefs are false (and which are neither true nor false). — Amalac

Right, so justification is typically where the work is.
Why doubt and why uphold? Both could take justification.

Anyway, the usual philosophical drive/search for unqualified principles has just failed in this case it seems.
There's more to the story of skepticism, some sort of demarcation?

If all skepticism is wrong, then anything goes.
Since that's not the case, some skepticism is right.

You might doubt anything, but not everything.

If all skepticism is right, then doubt about skepticism is also right.
Hence, unjustified belief can be right.

Seems the problem is the universal (or unqualified) statements.

(y)

(T), you make an existential claim to others ...

• if you're referring to something extra-self, then show us something
  ^{(existentially mind-independent, objective, applicable to both of us)}
• if you're referring to something you have on your mind, then tell us about it
  ^{(typically existentially mind-dependent, subjective)}

What do you have, (T)?

A mind is a thing. An object. — Bartricks

Don't think that can be right.
Objects tend to be breakable (under conservation), whereas things associated with mind are interruptible (experiences, thinking, etc).
So, processes, occurrences, though maybe memory is an exception.
The quote looks like a category mistake, and that's going by evidence mind you.

I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online. — The Opposite

How about Nitrogen, Oxygen, water, and pollution?

Atmosphere of Earth

Wind is moving air. :D So, I guess it's "made from" air and motion?

innate ...but so is science! — Todd Martin

I'd say a development of our natural way of learning.

We learn from accumulating experiences, interacting with it all, ...
We might then extrapolate (induction) and formalize (for deduction), systematically do away with errors (or demarcate domain of applicability), ...

A cat doesn't type weight, wind angles, force, gravity, etc into parabolic formulae and calculate, to jump onto a prey just the right way.
We might by formalizing the scenario, taken all the way to self-guided missiles.

In principle at least, it doesn't really matter exactly and exhaustively what it all is, as far as the methodologies go.

Is belief in God innate?

Most certainly and obviously. Religious fervor is just as strong today, after thousands of years of science, as it was in the most ancient of times. — Todd Martin

I'm not so sure it's "belief in God" that's "innate".
Rather, we're prone to a variety of known cognitive biases or "features", like apophenia, patternicity, personification (abductive), autosuggestion (and the reiteration effect), knowledge-gap-filling, confabulation, wishful/magical thinking.
Taken together with childhood impressionability (indoctrination), this stuff easily leads to superstitions, "seeing faces in the clouds" as it were, etc.

Ah, Frank - I love you more than words can say. — Banno

But...you just did. :)

Would he be that pesky?

Mr. Esper and General Milley worried that if they even raised their names — Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost of the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson of the Army — the Trump White House would replace them with its own candidates before leaving office. — Promotions for Female Generals Were Delayed Over Fears of Trump’s Reaction (The New York Times)

My 2 cents for now.

Guy yells in pain when his hammer misses and hits his finger instead.
Other guy notices, recognizes, points, and grunts "Hammer", "Pain".
When the grunts, the words, grow common, they're used for hammers and pains.
I'd think most have experienced the unpleasantry of pain, some by hammers.
That doesn't mean anyone has another's pain, and apparently that isn't required either.
At least hammers can be shared.
I guess, once word use stabilizes across, nuances may be discovered, and shared meanings eventually become auto-assumed.
Something similar could be said of the audio itself, saying and hearing words and phrases, plus writing and reading.
Language is social; it seems natural language can give lots of insight into others' personal experiences.

The pain is subjective (existentially mind-dependent and process-like).
The hammer is objective (existentially mind-independent and object-like).

But if it is reasonable to believe in God, why would it not be reasonable to believe in revelation? — Janus

Belief in revelation is evidently unreasonable either way. Put differently, personal revelations are unreliable.


• Did Jesus Really Visit the Americas? (Carlos René Romero; Jul 2008)
• Argument from inconsistent revelations (Religions Wiki)
• Argument from inconsistent revelations (Wikipedia)

With 100 total:

Guilty: 57 (67 required)
Not guilty: 43 (34 required)

I imagine Trump saying "he's a good guy, I like him" to various non-guilty'ers, and swearing and name-calling on various guilty'ers. :D

Ultimately, theism [...] — Wayfarer

If so, then Protestantism, Sunnism, and many other religions, are no longer theisms.
Redefining theism like so, doesn't really do much here (except rhetorically perhaps).
Not sure you can speak on other people's behalf so cavalierly.

By odd verbiage, Eagleton abstracts away semblance of common religions, and takes off into the clouds.
I suppose that may be fine in lofty theology, and your faith perhaps.
(I might take it one step further, and say that Eagleton conjures up strawmen to replace Dawkins by misrepresenting what he's on about; don't know that much about Dawkins, though he seems to care less about, say, panpsychism and Spinozism than common religions.)

"Ultimately [...]" and Eagleton doesn't represent typical faiths of people on the ground.
Not sure what Anthony Kenny would have to say; maybe this is an indication (emphasis mine):

If we reflect on the actual ways in which we attribute words such as “know” “believe” “think” “design” “control” to human beings, we realize the immense difficulty there is in applying them to a putative being which is immaterial, ubiquitous, and eternal. With a degree of anthropomorphism we can apply mentalistic predicates to animals, computers, institutions; to organisms that resemble us or artefacts that are our creations; but there are limits to anthropomorphism, and an extra-cosmic intelligence appears to me to be outside those limits. It is not just that we do not, and cannot, know what goes in God’s mind; it is that we cannot really ascribe a mind to a God at all. — Knowledge, Belief, and Faith* by Anthony Kenny, 385-386

"Acting" isn't really in atemporal's vocabulary.
We'd be talking strangely inert and lifeless, more like abstract objects.

In any possible world, a triangle will have three sides.

Hence, it is necessarily true that a triangle has three sides. — Banno

Strictly speaking, shouldn't that be:

In any possible world with triangles, a triangle will have three sides.

?

Otherwise you might inadvertently have populated all possible worlds with triangles.

Ed: was implicit

Madness on display:

Revising God's Prophecy! (16m:47s youtube)



Greg Locke has substance-free demagoguery nailed to a T. Sid Roth laughs in tongues, too. :D

Do not pay attention to the news, to the headlines, to the reports — Hank Kunneman Prophecy (Omaha, NE)

And there are people following just that — "lying left media", "news in the pocket of evil socialists", "'they' suppress or censor opposing views", ... And so a problem emerges. Problems. Popularization of "free" "alternate" (and extremist) "information" sources, isolation, echo chambers, mis-dis-trust, ... QAnon is more of the same madness.

The Bill of Rights grants freedom to such stuff, and maybe that's fine, after all, it equally allows those "Holy Koolaid" people freedom to expose the madness. A minimum of generally available, mandatory/expected education (and skills in critical inquiry) might be better. That takes resources, though.

sold out in less than 30 minutes — Olivier5

That's awesome.

In the scheme of things, it's nice to know that some politicians are actually doing something right down to hungry children on the street.
Child poverty is an awful problem (as far as I'm concerned), but often dismissed by tax-phobic politicians.

, there have been other..movements/trends as well. :sad:

Holy Hate: The Far Right’s Radicalization of Religion (2018)

Accompanied by a hyperbolic "red scare"...

, sure. I just meant that conspiracy theories haven't replaced Christianity. Rather, going by evidence, it seems more like Christians have been more prone to running with conspiracy theories.