Not all speech is protected.

There's nothing unconstitutional about charging a former president.

Not sure of the numbers. I've watched on PBS, and that's the story they've been telling(the one I repeated).

Bullshit. Trump will be charged.

The pattern of behaviour before during and after is the evidence. It's more than adequate.

55-45 no witnesses. Presumably everyone knew that the 2/3 majority conviction was out of reach, and the GOP threatened to hold up any and all proceeding aside from the impeachment until after... So... vote on record and get it over with.

Expect criminal charges...

McConnell made the case. He needs tried in the justice system. Impeachment and conviction results only in removal from office. McConnell said that result would have allowed Trump to get away with what he is clearly responsible for, provoking - inciting - the insurrection. He is no longer president after-all.

The case needs to be made in regards to what Trump did during the insurrection. That looks like what's going to happen with witnesses. If Trump meant any of the peaceful things he said, if Trump did not want exactly what happened, he would have been just as horrified as nearly everyone else and would have done whatever was in his power to do to STOP it.

Did he?

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction?
— creativesoul

Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility. — Possibility

Not in terms of what it takes in order for something to become meaningful(existing meaningfully)?

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.

But if we can say something... — Possibility

More self-contradiction.

A bit more on the faith aspect...

It is too much to say that faith requires no justification: many religious people offer arguments not just for belief in God but for their particular creed. What is true is that the kinds of arguments they offer cannot be claimed to have anything like the degree of warrant that would justify the irrevocable commitment of faith. It is true that faith brooks no argument, not in the sense that the faithful are unwilling to offer responses to criticisms, but that no argument will make a true believer give up his faith, and this is something he is resolved on in advance of hearing any argument.

Faith is unshakable belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The saying goes "walk by faith not by sight". The key point above is the last statement. One with faith has already made up their own mind that nothing will change what they already believe, and they've done so - many times - quite deliberately, consciously, and knowingly. To do so in Christianity is held up as one of the most admirable qualities, if not perhaps the most admirable that a believer can have.

No acceptable enforcement of authority in tradition, text or community alone, no. — Possibility

To be clear...

Are you suggesting that there ought be no rules governing human behaviour? That there ought be no such thing as an enforceable clearly written code of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour?

:worry:

From the article Banno linked...

To explain the origin of life, Dawkins invokes a planetary version of the anthropic principle. He states it thus. We exist here on Earth. Therefore, the earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet is. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions of life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.” (GD, 135) On the face of it, the planetary conditions for our support are immensely improbable and call for explanation. No, says this anthropic principle, far from being improbable they are necessary; and necessary truths call for no explanation.

In order to know the odds that some particular event is going to happen one must know each and every actual outcome and all the individual particular influencing factors regarding each. The actual information is not within our grasp; those actual numbers are completely unknown. That said, we could probably be close though, in our predictions, regardless of our lack of omniscience... depending upon whether we're predicting the likelihood of past, current or future events, and perhaps most importantly... also depending upon the particular details of the prediction itself.

So, when we take the total number of planets that either currently are, or have ever once been capable of sustaining life as we know it, and we divide it by the total number of planets in the universe, we will soon arrive at some mind boggling, seemingly damning numbers.

If we then think about those numbers as if they somehow provide adequate reason to believe it near impossible that we should even be here, we've altogether forgotten that...

The odds are one hundred percent that we are, and Hume's guillotine has perhaps never been more appropriate.

He’s referring to a tradition, which in itself is not authoritative. It is the enforcing of authority, not faith - in tradition, text or community - that is the error of institutionalised religion. — Possibility

As if there is no acceptable enforcement of authority?

Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian" is relevant here.

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction?

...go back to the article... — Banno

Good idea.

Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them?
— creativesoul

Short answer: no. — Possibility

Well, I'm not sure what all this has been about then, aside from you explaining to me the limitations of your own position on meaning.

You've just said that that Trump's claims that the election was stolen is reasonable but not warranted, because it is not based on logical possibility alone. — Janus

No, I did not.

I've given several arguments throughout our exchange here. You've neglected them all. I've answered all sorts of things raised by you, only to then have you claim that those things were irrelevant.

I'm beginning to believe that you are not arguing in good faith.

Be well.

There was widespread election fraud and the election was basically stolen from Trump.<----- that is logically possible. In order for it to be believed, other things must also be believed. Some of the other supporting beliefs could be...

Machine make mistakes. People don't like Trump. Some of those Trump haters have had it out for Trump since before he was elected, and they worked in the election counting votes or loading machines that count votes. Those people would have done whatever it takes to get him out of office. Some people are dishonest enough to try to steal an election. Some of those people did make such an attempt. I mean, Trump was clearly winning by a mile all night long while we were all watching. Then - while we were all sleeping - suddenly there were all these hundreds of thousands of votes all being reported at the same time, early in the wee hours of the morning, after everyone else had gone to bed...

All for Biden.

Clearly something was fishy in those voting counts.

Much of that rhetoric about the election being stolen from Trump is logically possible(if all sorts of other things were different). It is all based upon, reasoned from, and further reinforced certain strongly held belief about Trump and the United States government. That belief system is held by tens of millions of people. If one believes such things(as above), then it's also quite reasonable to strongly believe that something needs to be done about it by someone.

Stop the steal.

That's reasonable, but not warranted based upon what can be known.

In any case, religious beliefs, the subject of this thread, are not based on logical possibility alone... — Janus

Sure they are.

You haven't explained... — Janus

:brow:

How many different ways does it need to be explained to you?

You are yet to explain what you think the difference between warranted belief and reasonable belief is. Perhaps an example of a belief that you think is reasonable, and yet is not warranted, would help. — Janus

Any and all belief that is based upon logical possibility alone.

I've explained.

My claim(counter) is that things that only exist in the presence of a self-conscious subject cannot possibly exist without being in the presence of a self-conscious subject, because they ONLY exist in the presence thereof.

Your 'argument' was that it could be said(we could say either).

You're right. We can say that something exists only under certain circumstances and yet can exist in other different circumstances. It renders the notion of only meaningless to do so. I mean, if that's what we're saying, then the term isn't adding anything at all to our understanding except unnecessary confusion.

"Only" means under some specific sets of stipulated circumstances and no other.

...there is no way to prove it either way, because proof requires the presence of a self-conscious subject... — Possibility

Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them?

All meaning is attributed to things that already exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things.

Sometimes some of those things are already meaningful(to others), because the aforementioned others have been drawing correlations including those things(between those things and others). That's how language acquisition works(when language use is a part of the correlation). One learns naming practices by virtue of drawing correlations between names and their referents(what they pick out of this world to the exclusion of all else). One learns how to use language as a means for getting what one wants by drawing correlations between language use and what happens afterwards. One learns how to talk about the world and oneself by virtue of language acquisition. One does not construct one's own native tongue. Rather, one learns it.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to an individual's awareness(language use, for example).

Other things exist in their entirety prior to becoming part of any meaningful correlation ever drawn by a human; prior to any and all human awareness of them. Causality, spatiotemporal relations, etc.

All marks become meaningful solely by virtue of becoming part of a correlation drawn between them and something else by a creature capable of doing so.

That's how all things meaningful become so, by virtue of becoming a part of a correlation.

Some existence is prior to meaning(Some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a creature capable of drawing correlations between them and other things).

It can be said to exist - if something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it possibly exists in the absence thereof - and also possibly doesn’t exist. — Possibility

Nonsense.



When it is the case that something exists, it is not possible for that situation to be any other way. Things don't do both, exist and not exist simultaneously. The ONLY possible way to not exist is...

...not existing.

That's what it means to say those things. Saying otherwise ends in self-contradiction. Saying both that something exists, and that that same something possibly doesn't exist is self-contradictory.



What would it take for something to both exist and not exist simultaneously?

Nothing.

There is no possible way for that claim to be true.




Would you care to readdress the OP? It may read differently.

...beliefs presuppose truth (are considered truth-apt...

This needs attention. It's got something wrong that's rather important...

"Truth-apt" is the name for things capable of being true.

Some thoughts, some belief, some statements, some positive assertions, some negative assertions, some accounts of what happened and/or is happening are capable of being true. Some thoughts, some belief, some statements, some positive assertions, some negative assertions, some accounts of the way things are; the case at hand, or reality are capable of being true. Some thoughts, some belief, some statements, some positive assertions, some negative assertions, some accounts of the world and/or ourselves are capable of being true.

Some. Not all.

All presuppose truth, somewhere along the line.

A false statement cannot be true. It can be believed. When one believes a falsehood, they do not know it's false. To quite the contrary, they believe it is true. Thus, when one sincerely says "I believe 'X', where X is a statement about the world and/or ourselves, they believe that the statement is true. We cannot knowingly believe a falsehood. As soon as one realizes that something they once believed is false, they can no longer believe otherwise because they know better. False statements, when sincerely spoken still presuppose truth.

False statements are not capable of being true.

All belief and statements thereof presuppose truth. Not all are capable of being true.

Being truth-apt has nothing to do with the presupposition of truth within belief and/or our statements. 

Be well.

All belief presupposes truth.
— creativesoul

Yes but not all warranted, — Janus

All warranted belief are belief. All belief presupposes truth. Ergo...

All warranted, unwarranted, justified, unjustified, all well grounded, all purely imaginary, all true, all false...

ALL belief presupposes truth.

I think that the point of the paper was that Dawkins' ad hoc had the same justificatory ground(or lack thereof) as many of the religious arguments he was aiming at. None were warranted. All were based upon logical possibility alone(all were/are rightfully called "reasonable").

How can a belief contradict itself? — Mww

Indeed. It's takes a plurality thereof.

You are losing the distinction between truth and belief. — Janus

Not at all. All belief presupposes truth.

I'm pointing out the difference between being reasonable and being warranted. The former is satisfied by coherency alone. The latter also considers correspondence to known fact. It is when we consider that that coherency is found lacking for warrant. An argument can be both coherent and contradictory to known fact(current knowledge base). Thus, coherency alone does not warrant belief.

A belief doesn't have to be true to be warranted

Agree.

...and it doesn't have to be warranted to be true, even if, according to the traditional JBT model, it has to be warranted to be knowledge.

JTB talks in terms of being justified, not warranted.

The aquarium is meaningful to you as an aquarium, but is now meaningful to your cat NOT as an aquarium but as a water source. From your perspective, it’s both an aquarium (existing as such in its entirety prior to becoming meaningful to your cat) and a meaningful relation as a potential water source for your cat. — Possibility

I would agree. That's good improvement.

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence... — Possibility

If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought. — creativesoul

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’. — Possibility

Ok, I think I get what you're saying!

You're drawing a distinction between something existing and that same something existing meaningfully. So, in the case of the aquarium, it existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. Only after it became significant and/or meaningful to her did it exist meaningfully to her.

I think we are close.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a capable creature(setting aside what counts as that for the time being).

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning? — Possibility

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’. — Possibility

These two contradict one another otherwise, because you said what you claimed could not be...

You began by asking and/or imploring - and rightly so - about my position on all meaning. Just a reminder that the OP is chock full of statements any and all of which are about what I've come to strongly believe about all things meaningful. You picked one of those statements out as something objectionable(a quibble). You've since failed to offer a valid objection to that statement. You realized this and admitted mistranslation. I've acknowledged that admission and found it quite understandable given the different acceptable senses of the term "emerge". No problem...

Now however, I've allowed you to ask the questions. They are supposed to be about my position, or at the very least, about my claims here. Unfortunately it seems we've arrived at a place far away from that. It seems clear to me that the very questions and claims we're considering at this point are so far removed from the OP that a 'reset button' is needed, if I may speak so loosely.

Either you've not understood the OP, or you had far more than a quibble. I suspect it's the latter.

To be clear on the revisitation...

I'm not "defining a meaningful relation with a word"(whatever that is supposed to mean). I am picking several kinds of meaningful relations out, to the exclusion of all the others. Sometimes I do this with a word(the name of a distinct kind of relationship) and sometimes I do so with a description thereof(to tease out the nuances between the kinds).

Some relationships exist in their entirety prior to any of them ever becoming meaningful to any individual creature. Again, some of these are spatiotemporal relationships, others are causal relationships(causality).

The key here - is of course - getting a good grip upon exactly what it takes for something to even be capable of existing in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful; a need to establish a criterion setting out what it takes in order for something to exist in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to any individual creature capable of attributing and/or misattributing meaning.


One more thing...

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning? — Possibility

If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought.

When we say that something "exists meaningfully", aren't we're talking about something that is meaningful to some creature or another? Some things exist in their entirety prior to even becoming and/or being meaningful to a creature. Some of those things are relationships. Some are not. None of things are meaningful prior to becoming so. All meaningful things become so solely by virtue of becoming and/or being part of a correlation drawn by a creature capable of doing so.

The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful(significant) to her.

Causality existed in it's entirety prior to ever becoming meaningful to a creature capable of the attribution, misattribution, and/or recognition of causal relationships.

Do we at least agree on that?

But we were considering what makes beliefs reasonable, and whether all reasonable beliefs are warranted, not what makes statements true. — Janus

Warrant involves truth. Being reasonable involves only coherency.

No revisions from me... — Possibility

Must've been my skimming too quickly...

It looks like there's been some substantial revisions and/or additions to the last few replies...

I've yet to have re-examined them. Need to prior to saying much more.

The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference... — Possibility

I'm not following. Are you referring to the word? Mentioning the word's earlier use? Are you talking about the word or are you using the word as a means for talking about the referent of the word(what the word picks out)?