"You're partisan hacks who twist facts until they cohere to a pre-existing viewpoint. All whilst hiding behind the seemingly respectable label of academic. I despise you and people of your ilk on both sides of the aisle."

It seems to me as if a lot of debates in the public arena are stupid. — Andrew4Handel

Most of them are. Most people are more interested in advancing their agendas than honestly exploring the issues. Reality is complex and often murky, so when you see two polarized perspectives banging it out it's usually the case that each has some validity but overall both viewpoints are broadly erroneous.

Is there any reason why actual leftists and liberals can't be as comfortable loving and serving their personal nation-state as the typical conservative? — Bitter Crank

Nation-states are arbitrary, universal ideals that promote the greater good are a a much more rationally and ethically sound basis for political commitment. Loyalty to country should depend on how faithful a country is to those principles. Another thing to keep in mind is that of all the countries that have existed throughout history not many were worthy of any sort of patriotic devotion, most were barbarous and brutal and built on bullshit and savagery.

Adnan Khashoggi, pimp, thief, fraudster, international arms salesman, has just died. He said:

What did I do wrong? Nothing. I behaved unethically, for ethical reasons.
— Khassoggi

Is that even possible? — mcdoodle

It's necessary.

Whatever, I've tried to explain and you seem to just want to argue nonsense. Maybe you can get away with it on this board but people who know what they're talking about aren't going to take you seriously.

You seem to be operating under the erroneous opinion that I have said that all brute facts are necessary beings. I haven't said that, so you are arguing against a paper tiger. — John

I'm not really sure what you're arguing? I'm just pointing out that metaphysically necessary existence and brute existence are mutually exclusive, that broadly logically necessary beings by definition cannot be brute facts.

You are confusing efficient causation, which has no inherent connections with reasons for actions, with other conceptions such as formal or final causation, which do necessarily involve reasons for actions. — John

Now you're just playing semantics and muddying the waters with irrelevant concepts. In this context reason simply means explanation. That could include causation but it is not limited to it. A broadly logically necessary being is a being that contains the reason for its existence within itself and exists in all possible worlds if its existence is possible. Brute facts are not self-explanatory and could have been otherwise.

Something cannot be its own sufficient reason simply because in that there is no possibility of any relationship whereby one thing is the cause of, or reason for, the other. — John

You're confusing reason and cause, they're not the same.

Something being its own sufficient reason is no less coherent than a brute fact, neither make very much sense and it would be biased to accept one and dismiss the other.

You base your personal assessment of porn use off your personal use of coke, then? — Noble Dust

Most people aren't addicts, or do you have some numbers to dispute that? I just don't think we should base social policy on protecting of a small minority of dysfunctionals from themselves.

all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit — Noble Dust

Where in the hell do you get that from? I've used coke many times throughout the years and I've never become addicted. I'll do it for a day or two if it's around and not even think about it for years. I can always get it, but usually I have better or more important things to do. Porn is the same, I look at it every so often but it's not a obsession, there's probably only a small percentage of people that are porno-maniacs, most of us can self-regulate. I'm not in favor of banning stuff just because a small minority can't control themselves. The vast majority of people that own guns will never shoot anyone, the vast majority of people that drink alcohol won't become addicts or do anything to endanger anyone else, and the vast majority of porn viewers won't develop an unhealthy fixation.

How does the content agree with what you said? Brute facts have no reason, necessary beings are their own reason, there's no equivalence. One has sufficient reason the other has no reason.

So there's nothing on Trump, he's clean. So then what's the rumpus?

It explains itself, it's self-explanatory, that's the principle of sufficient reason - for every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case.. The first premise of the argument from contingency is that everything that exists has a reason for its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. Brute facts don't have sufficient reason for their existence, they just are.

The only brute that I can think of is the contingency of everything, the fact that what is, could possibly be otherwise. — Cavacava

So the way you see it something must exist but anything will do? Could have been a pickle, could have been a particle, anything from a mite to a unisivre would do?

Swinburne is a careful, competent thinker, he doesn't make any obvious mistakes. You can only dispute his conclusions by disputing his premises, and his premises are controversial. I think his argument against metaphysical necessity is weak, but it's still the best argument going.

if you bring God into the discussion as a brute fact then, I think we are no longer having a rational conversation, and while God may work for many as the brute fact of existence, I am not one of them. — Cavacava

Swinburne takes God as a brute fact, so it's not irrational, but the claim that necessary existence logically reduces to brute fact is just facile thinking.

"Nuh-uh", really?

"everything must have a reason" is going to wind up either being or resting on something that one accepts as a brute fact, anyway. — Terrapin Station

Necessary beings aren't brute facts. I think of necessary existence as an infinite chain of explanations, there's the reason, then there's a deeper reason, and yet a deeper reason, and so on to infinity with each explanation being just a greater depth of that same reason. Only an infinite omniscience could really, truly, fully fathom that sort of metaphysically necessary existence.

What we need is heavy direct investment by government in infrastructure and green tech R&D.

total R&D makes up just 3.6% of the US budget in 2015, and spending on renewable energy makes up less than 4% of that. That’s a little more than US$5 billion out of the total US$134.2 billion R&D expenditure. Compared to the effort and outlay to put a man on the moon, this is orders of magnitude smaller(NASA’s funding peaked in 1966 with the organisation employing 400,000 people and consuming more than 4% of the US federal budget).
But the problem today is much bigger. Governments must be more proactive and, in line with recent research, we should use public money to direct millions of scientists and engineers towards solar power, electric transport or better batteries. It won’t deliver a “man on the moon” moment, but this investment is the only way to truly end our dependence on fossil fuels.

Here's an idea, tax the shit out of the carbon intensive non-essential consumer goods and luxury items that make up like 50% of the economy. A 50% tax on luxury cars, designer clothes, fast food, infomercial gadgets, home furnishings beyond the essentials, etc. If we taxed consumerism, cut the military budget, and ended offshore tax havens we wouldn't need a carbon tax, we'd have more than enough to fully subsidize the transition to a green economy and boatloads left over for R&D on new green tech.

Manamana...mm.mmmm.mm.mm.mm

3) Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. — Galuchat

That's​ not right, beliefs can be based on evidence or not. Aside from fideists, most religious believers base their beliefs on various lines of evidence.

the fastest way to do it. — Rich

That sort of expediency comes at a price and it's effectiveness is questionable to begin with. Also in context of the bigger picture it's just bad strategy, it's a bad idea to polarize society with deceitful tactics.

How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? With a "meh, it happened; but I can't turn back time, so it's useless to dwell"? That's pretty sociopathic. — Michael

I don't get any more worked up over that than I do over the 15,000 or so murders that happen every day in the world. Do you just walk around perpetually horror​ stricken and if not why are those people more important to you than the rest? I keep rationally detached from the horror of the world by keeping in mind that while most people don't deserve it hardly any of us are inculpable either. We all collectively have created this world and if it's a bloody horror show then we're all in part responsible for that.

If you think that, you must not live in the United States. — Srap Tasmaner

I've followed most of the major conflicts fairly closely and it's clear to me that there's dishonesty and delusion on both sides of these issues. Climate change is probably the best example, one side is claiming far more certainty than is warranted and being alarmist while the other side idiotically denies that there very well may be a serious problem developing. Both sides are mightily steeped in bullshit and neither side is coming off it any time soon.

in these times, the word "science" is a fighting word — Srap Tasmaner

Science is a method and the body of knowledge established by that method. As far as I can see there is no opposition to science as such, the disputes are mostly over what qualifies as science. Everybody wants science on their side, unfortunately not too many of us are actually on the side of science. Science is mostly abused in our society, some claim the science is settled when it isn't and others bastardize the method to produce convenient junk science or pseudo science. It's all a big farce really and it shows that science can't save a species that is fervently devoted to bullshit.

Talk changes nothing. It may even be good for smart dictators. — Agustino

The reason dictators suppress talk is because that's how revolutions get started. Sometimes active resistance is necesary, but the only way a resistance gains support is through talk. Are you aware of any smart dictators who allow free speech?

[

One of the main things citizens do is talk to each other. If your government does something you disagree with, it is important to talk about it. That doesn't have to be some big public display. You talk to your family and friends, just like you talk about anything else you care about. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, in a lot of cases active opposition isn't required, we just need to reduce support for bad policies or bad actors and talking sense to people is the most effective way of achieving that.

It's clear from your post that you're​ not exactly up on the subject and yet apparently you hold some strong opinions on it and that's​ not promising for productive dialogue, so whatever.

How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness? — Harry Hindu

Classic.

I'd deny that there's a single Christian who doesn't believe in God. I consider that contradictory — Terrapin Station

Then you just don't know what your talking about. I think we're done here.

That's what I figured.

So you're denying that there are millions of atheistic Buddhists and liberal Christians that don't believe in God? There are tens of thousands of atheist and agnostic Untiarian Universalists, thousands of nontheist Friends, cultural Christian atheists, and that's just the Christian tradition. In Holland there are tens of thousands of Ietists that don't believe in God, and in the Western world alone there are hundreds of nontheist religious sects and atheistic spiritual philosophies. Are you interested in good faith dialogue or are you just arguing on the internet?

What about it? Anyway you look at it there's a mystery to it.

That's not really necessary if we're being reasonable, most people have some kind of spiritual life, only a tiny minority are complete nihilists.

What more did I say?

that made my eyes roll completely around so many times. — Terrapin Station

So you don't believe myth and religion have any impact on the psyche? You don't believe people have transformative religious experiences?

what could it mean for Jesus to be either real or not? — John

The actual existence of the deity, but I take your point. The myth by itself has transformative power so it's real enough, and that's pretty much the basis of moderate religion.

Millions of Buddhists fit in that category, there are the many academics and philosophers(Sam Harris, J.L. Schellenberg, Stuart Kaffman) doing work in this area, and then there are all the liberal theolgians like Paul Tillich and John Shelby Spong who have a significant following. There are millions and millions of people who fit that description.

It seems like some sort of phenomenal experience that's often interpreted as religious experience is fairly common. But it also seems like something that not everyone has. Or at least not everyone has it in a manner where it's at all plausible to them that it's religious experience. The closest I come to it, for example, is maybe an ineffable resonant/ecstatic feeling in response to some artworks, romantic encounters, environmental immersion, etc. — Terrapin Station

Those experiences rarely occur spontaneously, you have enter into the mystery, you have to psychologically commit. And what's interesting about that is even if Jesus isn't real the idea of Jesus can still save your soul. If allowed to work, the mythology can lead to sublime experiences of catharsis and renewal which can effect radical change within the individual. Mythology is powerful, but in order to access that power you have to activate and engage the mythological imagination.