I posted the above elsewhere, and now here for your target practise and/or bananas as per Baloo.
Should perhaps have been posted in the Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics section, but the inquiry here is more ontological.

The overall impact of such pollution is hard to say [...] — Rich

Yep. Given the potential stakes, it's probably a good idea to not just dismiss it then.

I incidentally came across this recent conversation where politics and science met:

Bill Nye And Bernie Sanders Discuss Climate Change (Full) (youtube, 33m:4s)

Nye sure pleas for everyone to take the science serious.

Ignoring scientific findings is kind of like burying the head in the sand. Incredulity?
Can we afford simply claiming that climate changes aren't due to human activities (going against consensus among subject matter experts), or that we can't do anything anyway (not particularly substantiated, anti-proactive)?
It seems the potential stakes are too high, for future generations in particular (not just humans), to simply dismiss.
Besides, what bad might come of limiting everyone using the ecosphere as their own sewer?

If the politics doesn't follow up on the science, then it's kind of useless in this case.

Well, in that case, I'd answer "No".

(And most likely in other cases as well.)

GMT. — Sapientia

(y)
So, 1930 hours GMT, presumably 2017-03-03.
Unless you've tricked us by "next Friday" always being from the present here-now (indexical)?
Just making sure.

God will exist at precisely 7:30pm next Friday. — Sapientia

Hang on, what timezone is that?

Someone suggested that my original formulation may imply both real and fictional, which (in the use here) contradicts.

So, I tried this alternative:

1. define Ariel as a maximally grrreat mermaid
2. a real mermaid is grrreater than a fictional mermaid
3. therefore Ariel must be real, since otherwise 1 is contradicted

Here 2 gives a partial metric on grrreatness, where a real mermaid is independent, self-aware, sentient, alive, which a fictional mermaid is not.

Antinatalists not included; they'll just say that independent self-aware sentient alive is bad. :)

a hypothetical 100 pound weight is actually weightless because it isn't real — Wosret

2 Quixflooper would be more zanquacious if not just gonksploosh — VagabondSpectre

:D You guys crack me up. Love these posts (whether intended as funny or not).

There's no criterion for what 'maximally great grrreat' means in respect of fictitious creatures. There's no way of adjudicating what 'maximally great grrreat' might be. (Mermaid beauty contest? Who would be called on to judge?) — Wayfarer

The intent here was a metric on grrreatness that spans fictional and real.
Moreover, so that grrreatness(real) > grrreatness(fictional).

So, no such thing as a fallacy then? — TheMadFool

There is. (See @aletheist's response, or look up examples, or I could post some I suppose, once time permits.)

Whatever we/you think and echo-chambers postulate, has little bearing on the comets/asteroids.

The Internet age has created a false democracy, where people say, ‘That’s my opinion,’ as if all opinions were equal.

In age of misinformation, Denial exposes dangers of a false democracy (The Globe and Mail)
Johanna Schneller
Oct 2016

Conspiracy theories are considered to belong to false beliefs overlooking the pervasive unintended consequences of political and social action. Social media fostered the production of an impressive amount of rumors, mistrust, and conspiracy-like narratives aimed at explaining (and oversimplifying) reality and its phenomena.

Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation. (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)
Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation (Public Library of Science)
Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Michela Del Vicario, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, Walter Quattrociocchi
Aug 2015

Forgot:
I'm using "fictional" and "real" as contrasts here.
And fictions also exist, they're just not real.
Sorry for any confuzzlement.

Right, it's just another ontological argument.

1 defines and names Ariel — what's meant by Ariel here — quiddity (definitions are often demanded in arguments).
2 gives a partial metric on grrreater, so that Ariel also can assert (her grrreatness) herself, independently of human fiction writers, self-aware sentient alive, perhaps even has "free will" (though a bit circular here).
3 then follows from 1 and 2 by reductio ad absurdum.

Roughly the usual format of ontological arguments.
Would proponents of Anselm also have to accept Ariel (or vice versa)?

That Ruth is stranger than Richard is itself a happy fantasy. No! Fiction wins every time, and on every measure. It is more potent, more satisfying, more congenial, more complete and more consistent. You have been deceived by fake news. And there is the proof of it. — unenlightened

Hrmph. Ariel might slap you for reducing her to animated fiction if she weren't so grrreat.

I would suggest the obvious, that "greatest" "grrreatest" here has to just be an evaluation, and can't be a quantifiable difference in affectiveness or potency, or ability, as the capabilities of a thing are implied in its very essence. — Wosret

Just pointing out the subtle difference here. :)

Existence isn't a predicate. — Wosret

OK OK, I concede. (Logicing, reification, predicate ontologization, ...)
Unless there are any defenders?

Ariel is still grrreat though. And you can meet her, too.

What's the basis for this? Is a real detective greater than Sherlock Holmes? I think not! Is existence not more so a limitation and an impediment? — unenlightened

She does exist, though, at least. (Check link in opening post.)

Venture into a seaside grotto, where you’ll find Ariel amongst some of her treasures. She has gadgets and gizmos aplenty, and she’s always happy to make new friends – especially human ones!

^{Source: Meet Ariel at Her Grotto}

Surely real is grrreater than fictional. For example, it means she can also assert her grrreatness herself, independently of human fiction writers.

_{(PS, should this have been posted elsewhere?)} :D

Challenging anti-Ariellean sentiments, pending refutation.
Goes way back, to 1078 I think, hence why I posted it in this group.
Take it with a smile. ;) Or not.

Do we ever identify or hypothesize that something exists regardless of what? — jkop

I think multiverse hypotheses categorize roughly as

• defining what something is → now let’s found out that it is (or not)

though the hypotheses may have come about from established theories.

And dark matter more like

• showing that something is → now let’s find out what it is (and/or what it is not)

At least in the sense that we already know there's something "missing" to account for.

Say, for The Black Death, the that was the malady/suffering, or what we'd call symptoms (regardless of any micro-organisms per se).
The Flagellants had their own ideas of what the malady was, much different from later medicine.
I suppose the history here is an example of

• showing that something is → now let’s find out what it is (and/or what it is not)

eventually giving means (or an understanding) of how to relieve the malady/suffering/symptoms.

But, does there really need to be a ‘versus’ between ontology and taxonomy? — TimeLine

The two are definitely related (maybe "co-dependent" or something), yet propositions sometimes fall into one and not the other.

This was a note I'd typed in elsewhere, but wanted to run it by the grumpy forum'ers (yes you) for trial-by-fire. :D
Perhaps not so much for the history of the words (e.g. Scholastic use of quiddity or whatever, though that's cool too), but for more contemporary use.

Is that versus what a valid, legit or useful vehicle for analysis of claims, statements, propositions?
If yes, then what might be good examples (excluding the Sun, aliens, round apples, and running elephants)?
Or is it all just humbug and feeble nonsense?

Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning (TIP Sheet; Butte College)

Our natural modus operandi involves lots of "unsafe" reasoning (induction, abduction).
In fact, we wouldn't get far if we insisted on "safe" reasoning (deduction) only.
Yet another reason that justification (like evidence) is important in knowledge claims.

↪Metaphysician Undercover
No; because history shows you cannot understand mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_⋯ — Banno

(Y) Though the proof is a bit short. :D

There's a difference between moving from the starting point to the end point, and reciting all the distances moved along the way.
Especially if every such recitation takes the same amount of time (or longer than some specific non-zero amount of time).
Of course, if every such recitation took a duration proportional to the corresponding distance, then the moving and the reciting would be more alike.

Anyway, either both distance and duration are discrete, or both are not.
Modeling both with the continuum works, and has the bonus of numbers like π and e. (Y)

I once tried to round up some of the usual arguments:

• Pros:
  
  • retribution (or "justice")
  • an eye for an eye, punishment fits the crime
  • deterrence (except for places where shown ineffective)
  • cost (except for places where execution is more expensive than alternatives, depends on legal system)
  • permanent incapacitation (e.g. prison escape and subsequent recurrence avoided)
  • practical
  • modern science grants higher certainties (DNA, genetics)
  • everyone dies eventually in any case [aligns with opening post]
  • closure to victim's family and friends
• Cons:
  
  • wrongful execution (seemingly faced with faceless/anonymous executioners) [also see argument below]
  • finality [also see argument below]
  • consistency [also see argument below]
  • slippery slope; plus potentially setting dangerous precedence
  • sending wrong messages (why kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong?); two wrongs don't make a right
  • human rights, value of human life, "inhumane" societal action, international trust/acceptance
  • execution may be painful and accompanied by emotional anguish
  • somewhat "barbaric", "brutal", a "primitive feel", or otherwise uncivilized (two wrongs don't make a right again)
  • capital punishment makes it easier to ignore in-depth understanding, e.g. social causes
  • edge cases (like mental illness)
  • victims cannot be brought back to life in any case
  • impact on convict's family and friends

I'll admit to being biased...

An argument con:

Given the irrevocability, voters-gone-executioners-gone-killers ought be held accountable and responsible, and face their own music. By appeal to logical consistency (well, plus one more life irreversibly gone, by design):

• wrongful capital punishments are known to have occurred (even youngsters); who's responsible?
• in such cases, those that endorsed death penalty have (knowingly) caused wrongful deaths (ultimately like murder in nature)
• those that endorse death penalty should not hide behind legalities as a means to justify death penalty, while (cowardly?) sitting safely back in their chairs
• the similarities among allowing wrongful capital punishments and murder cannot be ignored, especially taking the severity (and irreversibility) into account
• in case of wrongful capital punishment, the endorsers should be subject to their own sentiment
• are you (the supporter of the death penalty) willing to stake your own life thus?

Is the retentionist willing to stake their own life on the death penalty?



Weighing pros and cons, my preference is to live in a society that does not practice capital punishment.

To contrast the opening post:

I'm guessing (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that the most common intellectual reasons for atheism, are that, in the scheme of things, the arguments for the various gods of theism are woefully insufficient.

• they lack in proportionality among claim and justification (we're not just talking The Loch Ness Monster here)
• they lack in uniqueness; there isn't much pointing specifically at their god, and nothing else
• there's much more evidence for directed indoctrination, cultural dependencies and magical thinking, for example, than for any of the gods of theism
• they tend towards known cognitive biases (personification of the unknown, etc)
• sometimes there's a degree of narrowmindedness, incredulity or gullibility involved; broader horizons warranted (including history, science, biology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, etc)
• inconsistent epistemic standards (like evolution versus scriptures)
• some definitions/arguments (like definitions from theism → problems of suffering → unknown greater good defenses → extraordinary appeal to ignorance → …) quickly turn wholly "academic" while remaining sufficient cause for existential doubts
• there's no clear demarcation of what warrants devoted worship, and how to differentiate such worship, and other religious practices, from obsession
• ...

Note, these may be intellectual reasons, whereas beliefs in general are not mere matters of exercising "free" choice.

Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds (Kathleen H Corriveau, Eva E Chen, Paul L Harris; Cognitive Science; Jul 2014)

Something not spatiotemporal would be kind of inert, though.
Couldn't interact, couldn't be subject to causation, or be an effect (in part or whole), couldn't change.
A bit like Platonic abstracts I suppose (assuming Platonia is coherent).
The other way around might be conceivable, that there could be effects thereof, though there would be additional implications.
Causation could, at most, be uni-directional.
Odd.
I don't think this could be mind, at least not in any ordinary sense.

I don't think substance dualism really "solves" the mind-body problems, or the explanatory gap, as such.
Well, apart from simply asserting that the hypothesized "mind substance" somehow derives qualia, I suppose, though that doesn't seem like much of an explanation.
If "mind substance" isn't spatiotemporal, then it certainly doesn't account for the fleeting nature of phenomenological experiences.

As the old saying goes, you can’t misplace your body, but you can lose your mind. :) — jorndoe

Stole (and remembered) that from @Bitter Crank, and forgot to credit.

I’d say “mind” (as the umbrella term) is spatiotemporal.

Observations:

• mind: comes and goes, starts and ends, un/consciousness (anesthetic) — temporal
• body (of which brain is a part): left to right, top to bottom, front to back — spatial

Evidence:

• mind without body: no credible examples — “mind moving among bodies”, “free floating minds”, “possessions”, …
• body without mind: examples abundant — the deceased, rocks, body persists (structurally) throughout mind, …

Reasoning:

All minds are uniquely associated with, and localized to, bodies. Therefore, by abduction, mind is contingent on body, mind is something body can do, and body is “moved” by mind, alike.

• mind is process-likes that change object-likes
• body is an object-like doing process-likes

As the old saying goes, you can’t misplace your body, but you can lose your mind. :)

Are there any significant reasons to think otherwise?
Does the above and (some sort of) physicalism contradict?
(Chalmers style mind-body problems, and the explanatory gap, aren’t so much contradictions, as they are “partitions”.)

every physical effect (i.e. caused event) has physical sufficient causes † — Agustin Vincente

† On the Causal Completeness of Physics (Jul 2006)

Trump is merely molotov cocktail in the face of neo-liberalist capitalism and mass-consumption democracy for me - he's a cleansing of the scene — Agustino

Isn't it fairly obvious that Trump is an (almost Machiavellian) opportunist? *shrug* ¨\_(O)_/¯
His campaign set up a magnet for dissidents and anti-establishment folks, and perhaps Pence helped rail in a good lot of Christians.

Peter's Choice (Rick Perlstein; Mother Jones; Feb 2017)

That "Peter" there, is that you @Agustino?

What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class (Joan C Williams; Harvard Business Review; Nov 2016)

Bill Nye compares Trump to people who believe in astrology: They’re so invested in belief they ignore facts (Tom Boggioni; Raw Story; Jan 2017)

Seems Nye suggests the present post-truth.

Maybe truth will replace post-truth after all. :)

Poll: Trump reaches majority disapproval in eight days (Jennifer Calfas; TheHill; 2017-01-29)

Some key points of the recent initiative of the Trump administration:

• suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
• an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
• a 90-day suspension on anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen
• some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension
• priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries, in an interview Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria ^†
• a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
• a suspension of the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows consular officers to exempt some applicants from face-to-face interviews if they are seeking to renew their temporary visas within a year of expiry
• exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis

Regarding ^† (and mentioned in a parallel thread), something like 8/10 ISIS/Daesh victims have been Muslims (might be more, it's from memory). There's been refugees fleeing the onslaught with small children, walking the highways of Europe (and (at least) one drowning in the Mediterranean). Children that instead should be learning how to read and write and add numbers, in a stable environment. That's kids, even infants. I'm sure there's a ... non-zero chance of a terrorist hiding among them ... apparently to the bad luck of the remaining majority. Muslims are both the most numerous (murdered) victims, and the most numerous refugees, yet they're also obviously targeted by the initiative. Yep, that's blatant discrimination (indecency and disrespect) being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation. The US president can do lots of things, but this is about what ought and ought not be done (i.e. moral), and hardly about security of the US. Some Christian organizations in the US have spoken out against the initiative, on moral grounds.

This article suggests the same (though I'll take it with a grain of salt for now):
Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’ (Amy B Wang; The Washington Post; Jan 2017)

Don't recall the details (my memory is getting about as good as my note taking abilities), but I'm guessing these moves are questionable according to the 4^th Geneva Convention (and related protocols/policies), and the 1951 Refugee Convention.

In the present case, the argument can be made that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East are the most in danger and in need of assistance, so I see nothing wrong with privileging them as refugees over and against others from the region. — Thorongil

From memory, something like 8/10 ISIS victims have been Muslims. More?
There's been refugees fleeing the onslaught with small children, walking the highways of Europe. Children that ought be learning how to read and write and add numbers, in a stable environment, instead.
I'm sure there's a ... non-zero chance of a terrorist hiding among them ... apparently to the bad luck of the remaining majority.
Might as well admit that discrimination is being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation, culture, or whatever.

Let me just be a bit dramatic for a moment. :)

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. — Animal Farm by George Orwell

The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. — 1984 by George Orwell

To die hating them, that was freedom. — 1984 by George Orwell

On a lighter (and funnier) note:

"INAUGURATION DAY" — A Bad Lip Reading of Donald Trump's Inauguration (4m:26s youtube)

Part of larger initiatives, that may have some historical ... precedents:

What's with all this welcoming refugees nonsense. Send them all back, they'll only create problems and undermine our civilisation. — unenlightened

We must build a big firewall!

"There's nutn' in the fridge" just means out of food.
Like empty.
Your thoughts when unconscious, the sound of clapping with one hand, ...
The word "nothing" has plenty uses in everyday language.

0 is the cardinality of {}.

Maybe you're thinking of the topic of this SEP article?
I suppose that's more like the (missing) complement of anything and everything.
Such "nothing" isn't something that can be, isn't anything at all.
Just referent-less word (hence quoted), making a stage entry as if it were.
In that sense, a linguistic curiosity, expressing absence of anything and everything.

I was briefly a mod on the old philosophy forum about 11 years ago (as notquitethere). It's remarkable how the new owners could mess the place up so much. Maybe the residual ad revenue covers their costs? Goes to show that a community discussion group shouldn't be run for profit. — jojo

forums.philosophyforums.com sure seems like a ghost town now.
(Think I may have joined in 2008 or thereabouts.)

For-profit or otherwise, regular maintenance/attention is required.
@Paul and the admins/mods did a pretty good job of that.

Welcome @dclements, 'bout time you got here. :)

Differently expressed objection:

Craig implicitly extends causation beyond the universe, and thus have to justify this before applying the 1^st premise to the universe.

Craig does not delineate the "whatever" (wild-card) in the 1^st premise thus, but it seems you do.
I'm guessing Craig would hang causation on his deity of choice all the same (God "caused" it all).
Can you specify accurately how you delineate the "whatever" then? (The universe yes, spatiality ?, time ?, causation no, "whatever" else ?)

A per this old post, we know plenty concrete about causation already (including quantifiable).
In terms of ordinary ontology, the "whatever" part would, presumably, apply not just to object-likes, but also process-likes, collections of causal chains included.

Compare the kalam/cosmological argument:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause of its existence

And:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. causation began to exist
3. therefore causation has a cause of its existence

The 1^st premises are the same. This latter argument is clearly nonsense, violates identity (the 1st law). Causation is one more cause than causation...?

So what's the difference anyway? Well, the difference is the application of the 1^st premise, and the implications thereof, of which 3 is wrong here. The "whatever" part is a generic wildcard. The analysis, then, is that the 1^st premise must be delineated, it's applicability is not unconditional, not just anything can replace "whatever". Before applying the 1^st premise, the application to whatever it's being applied to, must be justified. (And, towards that, keep mentioned quantum phenomena and expansion of the universe, in mind.)

As shown, if spacetime and causation are aspects of the universe, then 1 cannot be applied to the universe, the universe cannot take "whatever"'s place.