Are facts necessarily about things? What if things are defined by the facts about them? — BlueBanana

Exactly. Hypothetical things.

...with abstract-implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. There's no reason to believe that this phyisical world, and inf fact the whole describable world, consist of more.

Of course, to assert that that's all there describably is,, or to assert any metaphysics, would be to ask people to accept an assumption. It can't be proven, and no metaphysics can be proven.

But a metaphysics built on abstract-facts, such as abstract implications, is the unparsimonious metaphiysics, because it doesn't assume or claim the "existence" (whatever that would mean) of anything describable. There's no need for those abstract implications, and any inter-referring system of them, and this physical world, to be real or existent in any context other than their own.

Michael Ossipoff

”But then the question seems to remain as to whether objects (or things) are something over and above their relations.” — Janus

.
“Materialists assume that they are […that “things are something over and above their relations], but it's just an unsupported assumption of a brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
“Idealists would say they are not, but it's just an unsupported assumption of a brute-fact.--Janus
.
“That isn’t an assumption, and it’s supportable and supported, and it doesn’t entail a brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
“Of course it is an assumption, and of course it would entail the brute fact, (if it were true) that objects are not anything over and above their relations. It would be a brute, i.e. inexplicable, fact either way.”—Janus

.
Yes, I didn’t say what I meant.
.
No metaphysics can be proved, because an unfalsifiable proposition like Materialism can’t, even in principle, be disproved. (...because that’s what “unfalsifiable proposition”means.)
.
So yes, any claim asserting a metaphysics asks you to accept an assumption.
.
That’s why I’ve repeatedly been admitting that I can’t prove that the physical world doesn’t have some unspecified “objective existence” or “objective reality” that isn’t had by the hypothetical logical system that I describe.
…and that’s why assert only that an assumption of that “objective reality” or “objective existence” of this physical world is an assumption of a brute-fact.
.
But:
.
It’s important to distinguish between an assumption implied by the assertion of a metaphysics (I’m not asserting one), as opposed to an assumption that a metaphysics itself makes or needs, or a brute-fact that it entails.
.
Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism doesn’t have or need any assumption or brute fact.
.
It has, as a premise, that there are abstract-implications, in the limited sense that they can be mention and referred to. I don’t make, and my metaphysical proposal doesn’t need, any assumption that the abstract-implications, or the complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications, or anything in the describable-realm, is “objectively-real” or “objectively existent”, whatever that would mean.
.
…or that a complex system of inter-referring abstract-implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is real or existent in any context other than its own inter-referring context.
.
I merely ask:
.
1. What reason there is to believe that our physical world is other than such a system.
.
2. …and, if you say that our physical world is “objectively-existent” &/or “objectively-real”, then what do you mean by that (…in a way that the hypothetical logical system that I propose isn’t those things)?
.
3. …and in what context you want or believe this physical world to be real and existent, other than its own context and that of our lives.
.
4. What physics experiment can a Materialist cite that establishes that the physical world is other than the system that I’ve described?
.
5. What assumption do you think is needed by the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing? …and what brute-fact do you think that it entails…when it doesn’t claim the “existence” (whatever that would mean) of its abstract-implications, or anything else describable?
.
[end of those 5 questions]
.
None of the Materialist critics of my metaphysical proposal have answered those questions. Their silence has been conspicuous, to say the least.
.
When I ask those questions, that’s when the discussion always ends. …angrily on the part of the Materialist.
.
I don’t assert that Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism is true. …only that alternatives to it, such as Materialism, unparsimoniously depend on assumptions and brute-facts.
.
I assert that the metaphysics that I propose, Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism, is the parsimonious metaphysics.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”Materialists think that all of Reality consists of the physical world.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Structuralists would take an expanded view of physicalism - one in which information becomes part of the picture. A context or history is the information that bears down to constrain the possibilities of what might happen at some locale.

.
Yes, it’s very fashionable to bring "information" into philosophy. And don’t forget entropy.
.

So it is Wheeler's "it from bit". Materialism believes that substantial, already in-formed, matter sits at the bottom of physical existence. An informational or constraints-based ontology flips it around so that the material is whatever is left as a concrete possibility after a context has restricted its variety.

.
See above.
.

”It recognizes that there’s no reason to believe that experience isn’t the fundamental reality of the describable world.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
If your idealism rejects physicalism,…

.
Is there an Idealism that doesn’t? They’re mutually-contrary by definition.
.

…then you won't have any interest in OSR as a species of physicalism.

.
That’s right.
.
(But, by the way, Ontic Structural Realism (such as Tegmark’s MUH) isn’t a species of Materialism.)
.

As I say, I don't take idealism seriously. It's a joke.

.
Thank you for repeating your unsupported personal opinion.
.

And It has nothing to do with the OP. So it is off topic.

.
What a funny thing to say. No, it has everything to do with the OP. In fact, the Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism that I propose directly addresses the issue that the OP’s subject-line asks about.
.
Michael Ossipoff

You're assuming that God is omnipotent, and created this physical universe. Not all Theists agree with you on that.

You're making an unsupported claim that the good doesn't outweigh the bad.

i've posted a lot about that, so I'll be brief: A life, or a long finite sequence of many lives, is temporary. The sleep at the end of lives is final and timeless (perception or knowledge of time is soon gone in the ever deepening sleep at the end of lives).

The peaceful quite rest and sleep at the end of lives is therefore final and timeless.

So our temporary life, or long finite sequence of them, is a brief anomaly, a blip in timelessness.

Yes, it can be bad in a particular life. It's inevitable that, among the infinity of hypothetical experience-stories, there will be some bad ones. God didn't create them. God can't contravene logic, as by making there be (for example) a true and false proposition.

You've only proven that there can't beyour God.

Michael Ossipoff

1. In many sad events, we can’t see what good features outweigh the bad features.

2. Therefore it is likely that there are unjustified sad events : the good features don’t outweigh the bad. (from 1)

3. Therefore it is likely that: If God exists, the. He allows unjustified sad events. (from 2)

4. God would never allow unjustified sad events.

5. Therefore it’s likely that: God does not exist. (from 3 & 4 via MT) — Yajur

”But then the question seems to remain as to whether objects (or things) are something over and above their relations “— Janus

.
”Materialists assume that they are, but it's just an unsupported assumption of a brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Idealists would say they are not, but it's just an unsupported assumption of a brute-fact.

.
No, not really.
.
I merely point out that, as Michael Faraday said in 1844, that there’s no particular reason to believe that there are those “objects (or things) that are something over and above their relations”.
.
That isn’t an assumption, and it’s supportable and supported, and it doesn’t entail a brute-fact.
.
The alternative explanation, that abstract implications are all that the describable world consists of, doesn’t require an assumption or a brute fact. No one denies that there are abstract implications, at least in the limited sense that they can be mentioned and referred to. Nothing new, controversial or un-supported, or brute-fact, is being posited by Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.
.
As I always disclaim, I can’t prove that Materialism’s objectively and fundamentally existent physical world doesn’t exist as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable, unparsimonious brute-fact.
.
I’ve replied to those who claimed that there could have not been abstract implications.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”You seem to agree with Ontic Structuralism, but why Realism? it's an obvious truism that all we experience is our experience. Then why make up a Realist metaphysics? I suggest that what makes sense is Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Well, I do take reality seriously.

.
No one’s suggesting that you not take reality or Reality seriously. It’s just a question of what you think it consists of. Materialists think that all of Reality consists of the physical world. In general, “Realists” think that describable reality is objective rather than subjective.
.
Sure, take it seriously, and we can disagree on what Reality or describable reality consists of.
.

And so that motivates a concern to arrive at its best model. Idealism doesn't make any sense. It doesn't address the central fact of experience

.
It recognizes that there’s no reason to believe that experience isn’t the fundamental reality of the describable world.
.

... which is that it seems divided into a part that is recalcitrant world for some reason.

.
I don’t know what you mean by that. Maybe you’re referring to our experience of a physical world that isn’t exactly how we’d choose for it to be if it were really custom-made just for us.
.
As I’ve said, the one requirement for experience is consistency. …because there’s no such thing as mutually-inconsistent facts or a true and false proposition. I’ve told, elsewhere, why that’s tautologically true.
.
Your experience-story is the story of a physical animal’s experience of its physical world, the world in which its experience-story is set. That world obeys logic, and its own laws, which aren’t always the same as our preferences.
.
And the infinity of such hypothetical life-experience stories must inevitably include some that aren’t so good, or are really bad, at least in parts, but sometimes in the (at least near) entirety of their worldly-life part.

.

So as I say, I already accept it is about our pragmatic models of something that actually needs explaining.

.
Metaphysics is about explanation of the describable realm. I’ve described such a metaphysics, one that differs from others, such as Materialism, by not using or needing any assumption or brute-fact.
.

Just saying "everything is experience" explains neither the "we" that is doing the experiencing, nor the "world" that resists our wishes.

.
Sure it does, and I’ve described how it does.
.
Why is there you? Because there’s a hypothetical life-experience-story with you as its protagonist.
.
Why is there that? Because there inevitably is every consistent life-experience story.
.
Why is there the world that resists our wishes?
.
There’s the world, because an experience-story necessarily has a setting.
.
Why does that world resist our wishes? Because, as I said above, consistency is the one requirement of an experience-story. A consistent life-experience story, one that obeys logic and its own laws, isn’t always going to obey our wishes, as I discussed above in this reply.
.
Why were you born in a worse societal world instead of in a better one? You’re born into a world that’s consistent with the person that you are. …one whose inhabitants are the kind of people who’d beget someone like you. You’re in a life because of yourself, and you’re in a societal world like this one because of yourself.
.
Michael Ossipoff

And (as the Beetles sung) things are getting better all the time... — Devans99

Well, things were certainly getting better for the Beatles (...in spite of "The Tax Man").

...but not societally. But nothing can be done about that. I just meant that things are good overall, though not societally.

Michael Ossipoff

I am having trouble agreeing with the fine-tuning argument. It makes sense that the world is designed so perfectly for our living that it would seem as if there was a Creator that designed it for us, but at the same time, it would still be possible in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis that we live in a world created by chance. There would be many universes that could exist that could sustain human life. — Play-doh

Creation is an anthropmorphic notion. Theism needn't include a belief that God created this physical world. The Gnostics don't believe it, for example. Neither do I, though I'm a Theist. Theists feel that there's reason to believe that Reality is Benevolence, but the existence of the infinity of possible physical universes and hypothetical experience-stories needn't be regarded as part of that Benevolence....but rather as an inevitability, while, overall (even if not in every one of the infinity of experience-stories), things are good.

Things, overall, are pretty good. As good as they can be, given the infinity of hypothetical experience-stories in all sorts of hypothetical physical universes. In fact I suggest that things are very good, overall. ...in spite of the local not-so-good-ness in some of the hypothetical life-experience-stories.

Building off this thought, could God or a god exist in a many-universe hypothesis? Could one universe have Buddhism to be the major (and very real) religion, but in another universe, God exists to rule over that universe? Or—if there is a deity—if it exists in one universe, must it exist in all universes as well? But would that then take away from the idea of many universes in the truest sense of the idea—that there must be a universe where a god exists and another where it does not? — Play-doh

But don't all Theists agree that, when God is referred to, Reality itself is being referred to? ...Reality being benevolent...Benevolence itself?

All of Reality doesn't refer to some subset consisting of a particular possibility-world, a particular hypothetical physical universe such as ours.

Michael Ossipoff

I agree with substance dualism. I am a theist

.
Speaking for myself: Theism and Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.
.

, and I think it presents itself as a strong choice for believers—believing the mind (tied with identity) is separate from the body. This belief would allow for heaven or spirituality or religion or an afterlife, and there's something comforting in that.

.
…and none of that depends on mind separate from body. There’s no such separateness. We’re each a unitary construction. We’re animals. Animals are biologically-originated purposefully-responsive devices.
.
Our experience is that of being a physical animal in a physical world, a purposefully-responsive device. Our experience is of the “point-of-view” of that animal, which consists of the purposefully-responsive device's surroundings in the context of its purposes..
.
Is there more to it than just the above physical description? Of course it’s more than that. As I said, it’s experience. It’s an obvious truism that experience is fundamental. …in our experience.
.
And there’s no need for the world of our experience to be other than hypothetical. Our experience is fundamental, then, in an ontologically-meaningful sense. It’s what the whole describable world comes down to.
.
There’s no reason to believe that the world of our experience is other than hypothetical. Our experience is a hypothetical life-experience story, with us, the experiencer, the protagonist of that story, central and fundamental to that story. …as its essential component, without which there wouldn’t be an experience-story.
.
People want there to be an objectively-existent material world to grasp onto. No need.
.
A number of physicists specializing in quantum-mechanics say that QM lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world. But the academic philosophers, and their followers here, are more conservative, and tend to be quite unwilling to give up their cherished Materialism.
.

Off of that, though, I don’t know how somebody who believes that the mind is tied to the physical comes to terms with death.

.
What’s the problem there?
.
At the end-of-lives (or the end of this life, if there weren’t reincarnation), there’s sleep, which of course becomes increasingly deep sleep. What do you have against sleep? You experience it every night.
.
People speak of a fear of “Nothing” at the end. But there’s no such thing. Even at death at the end-of-lives, you never experience a time when there’s no experience. There’s no such thing as “oblivion”. Some fear oblivion, some long for it. The ones who long for it are counting on a false hope. The ones who fear it are fearing unnecessarily.
.
Of course, at the end-of-lives, there’s soon no such thing as identity. …or time, events, problems, menaces, lack, need, or incompletion. …or anything being wrong. …or any awareness that there ever were or could be such things.
.
And, without time or events,….that’s timelessness. Sure, the body is shutting-down, and your survivors will observe that complete shutdown. But you won’t. In fact, you won’t know or care that there could be such a thing (as I mentioned in the previous paragraph).
.
In a word, what do you have against sleep?
.
Because it’s final (at the end-of-lives), and timeless, that sleep is the natural, normal, usual and rightful state-of-affairs. Compared to it, life (even a long finite sequence of very many temporary lives) is a temporary anomaly, a blip in timelessness.
.
Of course we all want to avoid death, to make it as late as possible, because there are things that we want to do in life. But that isn’t the same thing as fearing death.
.

I feel most people desire comfort when it comes to something scary (like death)

.
If there’s a sense in which death could be “scary”, it’s because it’s unfamiliar. How could it be other than unfamiliar? We’ve been in this life for so long that it’s obviously all we know. But really, as I said, it’s a temporary anomaly, and a blip in timelessness.
.
And, as I also said, you experience sleep every night. Sleep is the natural, normal, usual and rightful state-of-affairs.
.

, even if they would prefer to know the truth than be comforted.

.
There’s nothing un-comforting about the truth.
.

If the mind is tied to the body, and the body dies, then one’s mind and identity die along with it

.
Of course. Sleep, going into ever deeper sleep. So what? You experience it each night. It’s natural, normal and usual.
.

; one ceases to exist completely

.
No. There are some here (you know to whom I refer) who (unreaslistically) long for that.
.
As I said, there’s no such thing as oblivion. Even during the arrival of ever deeper sleep, there’s no experience of an unexperienced time.
.

For me, that’s a thought I struggle with—that if religion is wrong

.
I didn’t say that religion is wrong (…well that depends on the religion).
.

and there is no heaven, that I will simply not exist

.
You’ll never not exist, for the reason that I stated above. You’ll never experience nonexistence. There’s no such thing as oblivion.
.

—that all of this was for nothing.

.
It might sometimes seem so, but it happened for a reason. Why did this life happen? It happened because you wanted it. You’re the central, fundamental component of your hypothetical life-experience-story. Without you, its experiencer and protagonist, it wouldn’t be an experience-story.
.
You’re in a life because of yourself. You’re the reason why you’re in a life. You and your needs and wants. You and your “Will-To-Life”.
.
Furthermore, I suggest that if there’s a reason why you’re in a life (There is), and if that reason remains at the end of this life, then—for the same reason why this life begain—a next life will begin.
.
…until such time as you no longer have that Will-To-Life, because you’re life-completed and lifestyle-perfected. Typically there are very many lives before then.
.
I suggest that there’s that reincarnation, but can’t prove it…other than to point out that it’s consistent with the uncontroversial metaphysics that I propose.
.

For me, I am comforted by the chance that there is an afterlife—an opportunity to keep on existing

.
Life doesn’t end, but busy, menacing, incomplete worldly-life ends, after a great many lives, at the end-of-lives. Worldly life ends when you no longer need and want it.
.
But even if you don’t agree about reincarnation, it remains that you never end…you just sleep, which is the natural, normal and usual state of affairs.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Everyone is familiar with the first few exchanges between structural realists and their opponents. The structural realists say things like “only structure exists”, “relations without relata”, and the opponents freak out...

...You can’t just continue as if you accepted this framework — by speaking of relations — but subtract the entities and hope for the best. Individuals are too embedded within the standard framework; predicate logic provides no sentences about relations that don’t also concern individuals.

[/quote]

Of course relations are among things, but that doesn't require that the things are other than hypothetical. There are relations among hypothetical things. There's no reason to believe that there are any things other than hypothetical things.

So in some way, structural realism has to be the fundamentally correct ontology. It is the picture of reality which science has arrived at. But also, its proponents are tending to sweep its obvious problem under the carpet. — apokrisis

What problem? You mean the unsupported assumption that there's such a thing as a thing aside from its relations? ...or the fact that Ontic Structuralism isn't consistent with Materialism?

You seem to agree with Ontic Structuralism, but why Realism? it's an obvious truism that all we experience is our experience. Then why make up a Realist metaphysics? I suggest that what makes sense is Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.

Michael Ossipoff

How do you define "fact" and "thing"? Here's my definitions:

Fact: true proposition — Relativist

But then "proposition" needs a definition. I suppose, in that definitional-system, "proposition" could be defined as "statement" or "subject of a statement".

It's just as valid, and maybe better, to define "fact" directly, as a state-of-affairs, or as a relation among things. ...and a proposition as a thing that has truth-value, and is a fact iff its truth-value is "True", and which, if not a fact, would be one if its truth-value were "True".

But either definition-system is fine.

Thing: an existent

That's meaninglessly-vague, because "exist" isn't metaphysically-defined.

Things are what can be defined, described and referred to. It's a broad term.

So by my definitions, the statement is false. The world consists of things. Facts describe things, their properties, and relations between things.

Things can by hypothetical. Propositions can be about hypothetical things. Facts can by about hypothetical (not necessarily true) propositions.

There's no particular reason to believe that there are non-hypothetical, objectively-existent things.

What are the facts about?
I can only see one answer. — Sir2u

State-of-affairs, or relation among things (which can be hypothetical).

As I said above, there's no reason to believe that there are objectively existent things, things that are something other than hypothetical.

But then the question seems to remain as to whether objects (or things) are something over and above their relations — Janus

Materialists assume that they are, but it's just an unsupported assumption of a brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

Are you a Vedantist?

It seems to me that my metaphysics is consistent with what the 3 main branches of Vedanta (describable) metaphysics have in common.

Vedantists often say things that go farther than what I'd say, because I like to only say uncontroversial easily-supported obvious things.

But I feel that there's something to what Vedanta says, though it goes beyond the metaphysics of describable things.

For example:

At the end of lives, as the body is shutting down and the person is fading out, of course eventually there's no more such thing as individuality or identity. Then, there's no meaningful distinction between different individuals.

And that end-of-lives state-of-affairs, arriving as the final state-of-affairs of a sequence of lives, and being timeless, is arguably the natural, normal and usual state-of-affairs, from which our sequence of lives is a temporary anomaly, a blip in timelessness.

Nisargadatta said that what's temporary isn't real, and that's consistent with something that I've been emphasizing, in metaphysical debates--that I don't claim that anything in the describable realm is real or existent.

Additionally, surely you've sometimes gotten the impression that there isn't really a significant difference between people. For example, maybe you notice a beautiful house on a good-size well-planted lawn piece of land, and maybe your first impression is that it's good that there's that beautiful place...without regard to who it is who gets to live there.

Sometimes such impressions are right, in a way more fundamental than the world of describable matters and practical affairs. After all, words don't describe Reality, or even reality.

Michael Ossipoff

Answer to the question in the original post: Idealist and Theist.

The "Mind-Body Problem", aka the "Hard-Problem of Consciousness" is an artifact of Western academic philosophers' insistence on believing in Materialism.

(Not that it's a necessary consequence of Materialism.)

Due to conclusions from Quantum-Mechanics, many or most physicists don't believe in Materialism anymore. But Western academic philosophers, and those who adopt their views, are a conservative lot.

Michael Ossipoff

well Theism is compatible with self generating universe,
in Hinduism there is such belief and things like parallel universes also comes up
[the nature of god ]is what i want to know — papamuratte

Benevolence.

That's all that can be known or said about God.

God is Benevolence.

If the Atheists don't like that, then it can be said as: Reality is Benevolence itself.

Of course that is what is meant by God.

Michael Ossipoff

The idea that a few lines in a dictionary is sufficient to cover the vast subject of something like religious faith is stupid. — Jeremiah

It isn't about how sufficient dictionaries are. It's about whether words can describe Reality.

I made no claim that dictionaries are sufficient in such matters.

It isn't just that dictionaries are insufficient in such matters. Words themselves are.

Alright, I don't have time for any more of this.

Conversation concluded.

When I don't reply to Jeremiah, or to other similar to him, in this or other threads about Theism vs Atheism, or anywhere else that aggressive attack-Atheists pop up (as they always will), that doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. It's just that I don't have time for any more of this.

Michael Ossipoff

If someone can't even put their own argument forward then this tells me that they don't even have confidence in their own position. — Jeremiah

I've already explained to you that I don't regard the character or nature of Reality to be a matter for or argument, assertion, logic, proof or debate.

I've already declared you to be the winner of your debate.

Michael Ossipoff

We are not talking about a word. We are talking a multicultural theological and philosophical concept — Jeremiah

No, we were talking about your apparent belief that words can describe Reality

Michael Ossipoff

You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?

.
As has already been pointed out to you, you talk a lot about science, but seem to have no idea what it is.
.
Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Alright?
.

”Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god

.
Very good. You’ve got it.
.

, yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science.

.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
.
See above. Stop embarrassing yourself.
.

Again, how do you know that?

.
See above.
.

”You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.

.
You express your view that Theists believe something for which there’s no evidence, and that Theism requires proof. Those are views about the nature and character of Reality.
.

It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists.

.
…having no experimental evidence of a physical god, and none that even suggests one?
.
In fact, only you know what you mean by a physical god..
.

How can you be so certain?

.
See above. And, as I suggested above, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.
.
”What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes.” — Michael Ossipoff
.

I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.

.
I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you.
.
(…or at least I would have been willing to do so until exiting this conversation with aggressive attack-Atheists. And I’m exiting that conversation as of the posting of this last reply on the topic.)
.

”But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.

.
As I said in your quote of me, directly above, Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you.
.

Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?

.
They’re certainly learning more about physics. If you want to say that they’ve made discoveries about God, then go forth and preach it to the multitudes. (Excuse me—You already are.)
------------------------------------------------
You ask why I keep replying to you. Good question. This will be my last reply to you, because I’m tired of answering the same repeatedly-parroted words.
.
In fact, in general, this “conversation” with aggressive attack-Atheists is getting too time-consuming again.
.
I hereby sign out from it again. This time with finality. Aggressive attack-Atheists will always keep attacking. It’s what they do and what they are. I don’t have time to continue to answer them every time they trot out their same arguments, always singing from the same hymn-book.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Scientists and philosophers study any and everything that there's any good reason to believe exists. That would include nonphyhsical existents if there would be any way to make the idea of nonphysical existents coherent. — Terrapin Station

Maybe Terreapin mean to say "pseudoscientists".

Michael Ossipoff

Just lay your argument down and supply your evidence. Stop beating around the bush and just give us your proof, as would be the standard in any other setting. — Jeremiah

Yes, that's a standard requirement, that an assertion should be accompanied by proof, or at least evidence. But, as it has been necessary for me to repeat so many times, I don't regard Reality's nature or character as an issue for assertion, argument, proof, logic, or debate.

In other words, there's no such thing as "proof" regarding the nature or character of Reality.

You keep demanding evidence for a matter on which I haven't asserted.

As I've said several times before, many Theists have evidence, and some, such as the Scholastics, have written about it. Evidence needn't be evidence that you like or accept.

I'm not at all interested in convincing you that there's evidence (of what I haven't asserted to you). Can you get that?

As I've said, Congratulations, you win your debate.

Even in mundane worldly matters, the convincingness of evidence is a subjective matter of opinion and a matter of degree. Evidence needn't be evidence that you like, agree with or acccept. That's even moreso for the matter of the character or nature of Reality.

But I've already given these answers. Like a parrot, you're repeating the same words that I've already answered.

I realize that namealling is against the rules here, but I'm not namecalling your beliefs...only your parrot-like behavior.

Michael Ossipoff

A dictionary is no authority in such matters. Talk about not understanding limits. — Jeremiah

Without noncircular definitions, how would you expect words to be able to describe reality? And, if they can't, then maybe you need to be a bit more modest and less assertive.

Michael Ossipoff

Abstractions (if we regard them as existing at all) exist timelessly, but they aren't causally efficacious. — Relativist

That's right, but specifically what else do you think that there is, other than abstract facts? What do you think that there is with objective-existence, existence other than its own context?

In what context other than its own, and that of your life, do you think this physical world exists?

If you claim "objective existence", "objective reality", "actuality", "substantive-ness" or "subtantial-ness", for this physical world, then what do you mean by that word?

There's no reason to believe that what describably (including this physical world, as the setting of your experience-story) consists of other than abstract implications and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications.

Some Materialists say that they're more parsimonious because they don't speak of immaterial things.

But I make no claim about the existence or reality (whatever that would mean) for abstract implications, or anything else describable.

Materialists believe in the objective existence (whatever that would mean) of this physical world, and that this physical world is the ultimate reality, all of Reality, the basis of all, upon which all else supervenes. That's an unsupported belief in a brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? — Jeremiah

You keep repeating that "no evidence" assertion like a parrot.

Evidence needn't be proof.

Evidence is an individual matter (Someone's reason to believe something based on outward-sign) and needn't be liked by you, and doesn't need your agreement that it's evidence.

Many Theists have evidence, and some have even stated it. ...such as the Scholastics.

Aside from that, Faith isn't about evidence. Many Theists have justifications for faith, and some have stated them, such as the Scholastics.

Another reason why you can't validly make your blanket evaluation of evidence for Theism is that you don't even know what each one of all the Theists believes.

Michael Ossipoff

.

I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction

.
You asked me a question about religion. Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
.

What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world.

.
Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
.
But I can say this much: It’s just that I don’t know of any reason to believe that God is part of the physical world. And, last I heard, physicists hadn’t reported about that.
.

You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong

.
No, I don’t assert on such matters.
.

…even though I have not stated the [that] there is a god that is part of the physical world.

.
…so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t.
.

It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it that it is impossible.

.
I don’t assert on such matters. Believe in a physical God if you want to.
.

I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world

.
…and that’s why you want me to prove it for you—to confirm your belief.
.

or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.

.
That’s nice.
.
1. You don’t believe that there’s God.
.
2. You don’t know of any reason to believe that there’s God (…such as evidence, or justification for faith).
.
3. In fact, of course it isn’t possible for you to even know what each one of all the Theists believes, and you sometimes admit that.
.
All those statements are true.
.
Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that.
.
You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. You (loudly) believe that you can authoritatively make assertions about that matter, and imply (except when you recant it) that you know enough specific details about every Theist to assert the unreasonable-ness of their belief.
.
You see, that’s where your naïve delusional conceit comes in.
.

You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.

.
You mean your issue about God being physical?
.
What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
.

So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?

.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes.
.
And I don’t agree with your belief that matters regarding God or ultimate Reality can be proved.
.
But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far.
.

”But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want.”
.
What name did I call you and where did I do it?

.
You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling.
.
People motivated by dogmatic bigotry are always the loudest people. The typical loud, sloppy Internet abuser.
.

”Declare yourself the winner of your debate.You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
…I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions.

.
The Theism vs Atheism threads are nearly always started by the loud aggressive Atheists.
.
Aggressive Atheists are the ones who feel a need to evaluate the beliefs of others.
.
No, it’s your issue, not mine.
.
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue)
.

If you really think that science can only study the physical world then explain the following.
.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.

.
Science (by which I mean physics, chemistry, biology in all its branches, etc.) doesn’t study thought and dreams. But scientists can study the anatomy and physiology of humans and other animals.
.
…and can try to study the physical, biological, basis of anything about humans or other animals. Some such studies might be a bit too ambitious, but, in principle any such study can be tried by specialized biologists, including anatomists and physiologists, including specialized anatomists and physiologists.
.
The studies that I referred to in the previous two paragraphs are of things of the physical world.
.
As I’ve often said, humans are animals, which are biologically-originated purposefully-responsive devices, part of the physical-world, which can be studied by sscientists.

.
Why are scientists studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?

.
They aren’t.
.
But, if any are, that means that a very few scientists are trying to apply science to something that there’s no reason to expect science to apply to. As for why, you’d have to ask them. Maybe because people like you demand proof that there isn’t a physical God.

Why are some scientist religious?

.
Because they don’t agree with you that science applies to religious matters, and therefore they don’t regard it as able to contradict religion?
.
If you’re a shoemaker and religious, that doesn’t mean that shoemaking has to apply to religion.
.
Why should that be surprising, given that science and religion have nothing to do with eachother?
.
By the way, several aggressive Atheists have criticized my refusal to answer their questions about Theism. So let me be a bit more explicit about why I refused:
.
There are two reasons why someone might be inclined to answer you:
.
1. Debate Issue:
.
1a) I’m not going to debate Theism vs Atheism with you, because, as I’ve said before, I don’t regard that as an issue for assertion, argument, debate or proof.
.
1b) It’s obvious that you’re so dogmatically-wedded to your beliefs, and so dedicated to promotion of your position, to the complete detriment of honest discussion (and probably not consciously aware of that attribute), that you, and others of your aggressive-Atheist persuasion, don’t listen, and nothing anyone said would have any effect on you.
.
2. Helping you:
.
2a) This might come as a shock, but your manners, behavior and aggressive namecalling attitude aren’t a good way to ask for help.
.
2b) Obviously, thoroughly and dogmatically convinced that you’re right, you’re quite beyond help anyway.
-------------
So I have no reason to answer you on your (yes your) Theism vs Atheism issue. And I have a good reason not to: To discuss it with an aggressive attack-Atheist would amount to nothing other than arguing or debating the matter (Is there some other nature to your discussion?). I’ve clarified that I don’t regard the matter as a matter for debate or argument. No, I’m not going to debate your issue with you. But I’ve been discussing it peripherally in these threads, by questioning your authority to assert about Reality and about the unspecified beliefs of many people whom you haven’t met, talked with, or heard from.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Cut the BS and show us a single scrap of real evidence. — Jeremiah

No one's saying that you should believe what you don't know of any reason to believe (...whether it be evidence, or justification for faith).

Many Theists have evidence. That includes the various kind of evidence, and justifications for faith, that the Scholastics have cited.

As I've said before, Jeremiah might want to do a little reading. (But maybe not.)

Remember that evidence needn't be proof, and, that even in mundane matters of the physical world, the convincingness of evidence is subjective, individual, and not objectively quantifiable.

But, especially, in a non-logical, subjective matter like the nature and character of Reality, it's naive in the extreme for Jeremiah to presume to authoritatively objectively evaluate others' evidence by his own feeling or opinion about, or agreement with it.

...or to expect proof.

...or to continually engage in assertion.

Michael Ossipoff

Genuine faith is believing when you know it is unreasonable to believe. — Jeremiah

Faith consists of trust without or aside-from evidence ("outward-sign", as Merriam-Webster, in their definition #1, concisely stated what we all mean by "evidence").

That doesn't require belief known to be unreasonable.

Michael Ossipoff

That's all a good example of anthropomorphism.

It's the kind of funny posts that result when Atheists expound about God.

Michael Ossipoff

"A supposed "state-of-affairs" that doesn't obtain isn't a state of affairs." — Michael Ossipoff

Nonsense; people often refer to imagined scenarios (states of affairs). — Janus

...if you think that an imagined "state of affairs" is a state of affairs.

Your fallacy results from your calling it a "state of affairs" when it's only something imagined, and not necessarily a state-of-affairs.

An "imagined 'state-of-affairs' " is a proposition, but it isn't necessarily a state of affairs.

Michael Ossipoff

”As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hilarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
And I guess I mistakenly thought that science was about investigation in search of new information.

.
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
.
Science is about “investigation in search of new information” about this physical universe and the interactions among its constituent parts.
.
But you almost got it right.
.

But just one question, how do you know that god is not part of this physical universe? Could you maybe cite some articles to back up your statements. You seem so sure of these "facts" that I an really interested in seeing what you base your conclusions on.

.
Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads.
.
But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want. Declare yourself the winner of your debate.
.
You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it.

"As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence."—Sir2u

.
“Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).”
— Michael Ossipoff
.
No I do not mean "...lack or physical existence". I meant exactly what I said, that if something exists it can be studied, therefore the only reason anyone could not study it is because it does not exist.

.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:
.
If something exists physically then it can be studied by science, and therefore the only reason anyone could not study it by science is because it does not exist physically.
.
Sir2u is making the common Science-Worshipper assumption that Science (capitalization intentional) applies to all of reality.
.

Try studying the dragons, or the leprechauns. Not going to get very far are you?

.
They’re fiction, like Materialism’s objectively, independently, fundamentally existent physical universe, the supposed ultimate-reality and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes.
.
Anyway, science doesn’t apply to Robert’s Rules of Order either, but you can discuss them. …just not with physics.
.

If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it.

.
There is, and they have.
.
Remember that evidence doesn’t mean proof. And no, instead of asking me, do a little reading. In matters relating to the nature or character of Ultimate Reality as a whole, evidence is subjective and individual. Logic, argument and physical science have nothing to do with it.
.

”Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". “— Michael Ossipoff
.
It also has several other definitions, selective use of definitions is childish.

.
1. “Outward sign” is the first definition stated in the Merriam-Webster edition that I looked at.
.
2. It’s a concise statement of what “evidence” means to me and to most people. In particular, it expresses the difference between evidence and faith, by being what faith isn’t based on. Faith is trust without or in addition to outward sign.
.

Evidence ; Your basis for belief or disbelief

.
Wrong. Belief can be based on faith. No, don’t ask me how. There’s no way you could benefit from the discussion.
.
Anyway, you already know all about these matters, and so there’s no reason for you to be asking questions, is there.
.
Anyway, that distinction is why Merriam-Webster said “outward sign” instead of the more general “basis for belief or disbelief”.
.
Your other definitions are re-wordings of the one that I stated, if it’s understood that it’s based outward sign, an effect or result on something external to what the evidence is for.
.

”Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate.” — Michael Ossipoff

.
But whichever definition you want to use makes no difference to what I said. If there is evidence anywhere, eventual someone will find it.

.
There is, and they have.
.
Remember that evidence doesn’t mean proof. And no, instead of asking me, do a little reading. (and, as I said, I’ve discussed these matters throughout these forums). Also, remember that, in matters relating to the nature or character of Ultimate Reality as a whole, evidence is subjective and individual. Logic, proof, assertion, debate, argument and physical science have nothing to do with it.
.
And, aside from that, faith isn’t about evidence anyway.
.
If you don’t like that, then maybe it would be better if you chose a different topic.
.
One comment that I’ll make is that our Aggressive-Atheists seem to share an astounding delusional belief that they understand or know reality, and can authoritatively say that all of Reality consists of the physical word (and maybe what supervenes on it), and that they’re qualified to rule on the validity or justification of others’ beliefs about the nature and character of Reality.
.
Reality isn’t describable.
.
Write down a complete description of the smell of mint, or how it feels to step on a tack.
.
As I often point out, no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words. But you still think that Reality is describable?
.
Get a little humility and modesty.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I have no idea what their beliefs. — Sir2u

Exactly.

Michael Ossipoff

It might not be an exaggeration to attribute our experience-stories entirely to our own will, meaning that we have no to blame but ourselves. ...instead of speaking of a demiurge that created it.

I've said that each system of inter-referring abstract implications is quite independent of anything else in the describable realm, outside its own inter-referring context. That's consistent with attributing our life-experience stories to nothing other than ourselves. So it can be said that all this started because of our own (at least subconscious or emotional) needs, wants, or will-to-life.

Michael Ossipooff

I think the Gnostic notion is that the demiurge was acting without God's authorization, and screwed up.

I think Schope would agree. But regret doesn't serve a useful purpose, and things overall are distinctly entirely good.

Michael Ossipoff

"Considering the really horrible experience that are included in some lives" — Michael Ossipoff
— Devans99

These are compatible with a benevolent Creator God who is powerful but not omnipotent.

Exactly. Quite so.

There is more good than evil in the world and this ratio improves with time.

Defnitely. As I said, this life is temporary, as is a finite sequence of a vary great many temporary lives. Life is a blip in timelessness.

So yes, any bad parts are short in comparison to what-is for us overall.

We are still at a very early stage of development by cosmological standards; our society should improve towards near perfection given time.

That doesn't help at all. It doesn't help all the victims of this societal world so far.

So God was fully justified in creating the universe; it was a 'good' act; he could not make the omelette without breaking a few eggs unfortunately; he's not omnipotent so its best endeavours only.

You're right about God, complete Benevolence, not being responsible for the bad parts, and about the overall goodness of what-is being more important But, still, would Benevolence make there be a situation (such as the infinity of abstract facts and systems of inter-referring abstract implications) that inevitably means that there will be lives that end horribly, with great suffering?

The fact that it's good overall (That's where I disagree with Schope) doesn't mean that it's better than it would be if there weren't the lives. I agree with Schope on that.

I mean, as Schope admits, even the worst lives (or a finite sequences of lives that balances out the bad) end with final quiet and peaceful rest. But if that approach to Nothing is the good end of every life (or finite sequence of them), then are you sure that it serves a good purpose for our lives to start in the first place? Again, Schope has a point about that.

Why would Benevolence make it be like that...with these lives starting?

The Gnostic allegory says that a demiturge created this physical world. I say it was inevitable abstract implications, the structural basis of experience, which is a matter of "If...".

"I'd have experiences if..." ...and away it goes...

Which is better?: To contact a dog-breeder and order a dog bred for you--making a need for whatever you'll provide, or to rescue an already-existing dog at the animal-shelter?

I suggest that God adopted us, rather than creating us. That's probably similar to the Gnostics' suggestion.

There's good intent behind what-is, overall. What is, overall, is distinctly good, in spite of the inevitable finite bad times that aren't part of Benevolence, and which inevitably result from the inevitable infinite describable world of abstract implications and systems of them. ...and which can't be explained from Benevolence.

Michael Ossipoff

ut all such worlds bar one suffer from the same problem; they are logically inconsistent because there is, unaccountably, stuff in the world. There is no first cause for this stuff. Hence it seems these worlds are logically impossible.

The only world the hangs together logically/does not need magic is the one with nothing in it. All the others present a logical conundrum. — Devans99

What if there isn't really "stuff"? Physicist Michael Faraday suggested that there isn't. He suggested that this physical universe consists entirely mathematical and logical relational structure.

Stuff is unaccountable? Yes. So maybe there isn't really any.

Yes, the only describable world that makes sense is one with nothing in it...except for abstract facts. In particular, abstract implications (if...then facts).

There's no physics experiment that can establish, prove, suggest or imply that there's anything more to this physical world than the mathematical and logical structural relation that Faraday referred to.

Could there have not been abstracts? No.

If there were no fact, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.

Someone suggested that there could have been a fact that there are no other facts...no facts other than that one fact that there are no other facts.

But that would be a brute-fact.

Aside from that, it assumes that there's some continuum within which one abstract fact can have jurisdiction or authority about other abstract facts. I suggest that abstract facts don't need any context in which to obtain, other than their own. Likewise, complex systems of inter-referring facts don't need to exist or be real (whatever that would mean) in any context other than their own inter-referring context.

..and don't need any external permission that could be denied by a supposed fact that there are no other facts.

A nice thing about this metaphysics is that there's no question about why there's something instead of nothing.

And, unlike Materialism, this metaphysics doesn't have or need any assumption(s) or brute-fact.

This metaphysics could be called (using already-existing terms) Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.

It isn't inconsistent with Theism. Just as the physical world follows its own laws, and the formation of the galaxies and the Earth, and the evolution of humans didn't contravene physical laws, so likewise the metaphysical world of what describably is, is self-explanatory. If God created it, he needn't have done so in a way that made it look like a brute fact that can only be explained with recourse to a higher level. The describable metaphysical world makes sense in its own terms, as does the physical world, and that isn't inconsistent with Theism.

Anyway, did you know that the Gnostics say that God didn't create this physical world?

They have a good point. I answer the Atheists' argument-from-evil by pointing out that a life (or even a long finite sequence of very many lives) is temporary. A blip in timelessness. So, though things can be extremely bad in some lives, that's just one life, and life itself is temporary.

I suggest that, overall, what-is is good, and that there's good intent behind what is.

Overall.

But it could still be said that those extremely bad lives, or lives that end with, or otherwise contain, really bad experiences--Those aren't something that Benevolence would choose to create. Benevolence wouldn't be the reason why there's a state of affairs (such as the infinity of abstract implications, and the life experience stories consisting of them) that even sometimes, even for a while, includes genuinely horrible experiences.

I say that we're in a life because we're the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story. And, in that sense, we're in a life because of ourselves. But that's because there's that infinity of abstract implications, including a complex system of them that's your hypothetical life-experience-story. Considering the really horrible experience that are included in some lives, the fact that there are partly-very-bad life-experience stories, Benevolence wouldn't make there be that. That isn't part of Benevolence.

So it's quite reasonable to disagree with a notion that Benevolence made there be that.

Well, if anyone says that God is necessarily perfectly omnipotent, then ask them if they think that God could make there be a square circle or a true and false proposition.

Michael Ossipoff

”there are no mutually-inconsistent facts.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Why not, if everything is hypothetical?

.
I said that the propositions, and the things that they’re about are hypothetical. In that sense, the story itself is hypothetical. I didn’t say that everything is hypothetical.
.
There’s no such thing as a fact that’s hypothetical. …unless you mean “proposition” instead of “fact”.
.
If you want to say that propositions are hypothetical facts, that would wrongly imply that all propositions are facts. Better to say that a proposition is a thing that has a truth-value of True or False, and has a truth-value of True if and only if it’s a fact, and, if not a fact, would be one if its truth-value were True.
.
…or some such wording.
.
Maybe just say that a proposition is something that purports to be a fact.
.
Abstract implications are facts, and, as such, they’re true propositions. They aren’t hypothetical. The propositions that they’re about are hypothetical.
.

Mere possibilities that are mutually inconsistent are not problematic at all; that is just what contingency means.

.
Yes, there are mutually-inconsistent propositions:
.
“There’s a watermelon on that [some particular] table.” “There isn’t a watermelon on that table.”
.

What constrains facts to be consistent with each other

.
For two alleged facts (propositions) to be mutually-inconsistent means that one of them implies the falsity of the other.
.
So, saying that there aren’t mutually-inconsistent facts is the same as saying that there aren’t true and false propositions.
.
Saying that there isn’t a true and false proposition is the same as saying (for one thing):
.
“If a proposition isn’t true then it isn’t true.”
.
That’s an obvious truism, a tautology, and, as such, doesn’t need any proof.
.
Saying that two facts are contradictory, or that there’s a true and false proposition, would contradict that tautology.
.

, if nothing is real (as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it)

.
…as what is? Your meaning there isn’t obvious.
.

and nothing is actual (reacting with other things)?

.
If “actual” means “reacting with other things”, then all the things in the logical system that I speak of are actual, because they interact.
.
A good definition of “actual” is:
.
“Physical; and part of, in, or consisting of, the physical universe in which the speaker resides.”
.
But yes, I agree that defining “actual”, “real”, “existent”, “substantial” and “substantive” is a big problem for objectors to my metaphysical proposal.
.
I ask people, if they think that this physical world is somehow more than just the hypothetical setting for a life-experience-story consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things—then in what way is it more than that?
.
“Actual”, “real”, “existent”, “substantial”, or “substantive”? Then what do you mean by that?
.
And, in what context, other than its own, do you think that this physical world exists and is real, so as to distinguish it from what I propose?
.
But yes, largely because “existent” and “real” don’t have a consensus definition in metaphysics, I make no claim that anything in the describable realm (including abstract implications and physical universes) is real or existent (other than in its own context or the context of someone’s life).
.

A fact--a state of affairs or relation among things--is (by the definition of "proposition") a true proposition.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So you define a true proposition as a state of affairs or relation among things? Why not just stick with calling the latter a fact? What advantage do you gain by treating "true proposition" and "fact" as synonyms?

.
Well, there needs to be a word for something that purports to be a fact. Some such things are facts and some aren’t.
.
But yes, that makes for some awkward wording for the definition of “proposition”. I don’t object to first defining a proposition as a statement, and then defining a fact as what a statement asserts. Either is alright.
.
But isn’t there something redundant about the statement and what it asserts? What it asserts is a state-of-affairs or relation among things. A statement or proposition could be “There’s a watermelon on the table”. What does it assert? This: There’s a watermelon on the table. Then what’s the difference between that proposition and the fact that it asserts? (other that some propositions aren’t facts) That’s a good reason to say that a true proposition is a fact. Propositions and the facts that they assert are certainly indistinguishable when written. Their only difference is that some propositions aren't facts.
.
So, that’s why I like the definition-system that I’ve suggested, in spite of the awkwardness in wording a definition for “proposition”. That awkwardness seems inevitable.
.
In the definition-system that I’ve been speaking of, I define a fact as a state-of-affairs or a relation among things, but I don’t deny that alternative definition-systems can be helpful. I don’t even claim that an alternative one isn’t better, in important ways, than the kind that I’ve been suggesting.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Nope, I was talking about your god(s). That is whatever silly nonsense... — Jeremiah

"Whatever silly nonsense..."? But if you don't know the specifics of my impressions on such matters, then how can you know that they're "silly nonsense"?

Because it doesn't agree with what you believe, or isn't Materialism? :D

...you are hiding and too scared to say aloud.

If you want to ask about God, if you want religious-instruction, then I recommend that you contact a church or a divinity-school.

(But ask them with much more humility and much less conceit than you exhibit now. I don't know if anyone will consider talking to you while you're conceitedly and namecallingly asserting your sureness that you're right and characterizing them or their beliefs. Why should anyone then be motivated to devote time to you? Of course there might be church-people or other Theists who are more behavior-tolerant than i am.)

As for my religious impressions and beliefs and reasons for them, they aren't secret. They're all over these forums, in various threads. But in a conversation with you? .... :D

As I said, if you want an argument or debate about whether there's God, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default. The nature or character of overall Reality as a whole isn't a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof.

To anyone else: I point to Jeremiah's language. It's typical that conceited bigots commonly express their bigotry in a loud namecalling manner.

Michael Ossipoff

↪Michael Ossipoff
Actually I am refering [He means "referring to"] your god. — Jeremiah

You, not I, posit a magical being. The magical being is your God.

Maybe you define as "magical" all that isn't physical. Then presumably the word "which" is magical, as is the square root of 2. My, the world is full of magical things :D

I don't use the word God, unless replying to people who do, due to its anthropmorphic connotation.

You're exemplifying what I said about attributing belief in your God to others.

Michael Ossipoff

But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god — Sir2u

As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hillarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts.

...unless you're referring to a religious denomination (and there is sat least one) that claims that God exists physically. ...in which case you'd need to say so, and specify that denomination.

Michael Ossipoff

As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence.

Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).
— Sir2u

If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it.

Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate. You don't know what every Theist's belief is, or what outward-sign they have for it.

You can say that if no Theist has given you a good argument regarding the existence of God, then you win your argument or debate. That's alright. As far as I'm concerned, if you want an argument or debate, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default.

But you can't validly say that you know everyon'e believe and their outward-sign in support of it. You can say that you don't know of any evidence or other reason to believe that there's God. No one will argue with you or criticize that position.

And don't show the astounding pretensiousness and conceit of claiming to know, or have a sound argument about, overall Reality as a whole.

Assertion, proof, argument and debate are irrelevant, inapplicable and meaningless for matters involving the character and nature of overall Reality as a whole.

Michael Ossipoff

Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence. — Sir2u

The notion of provable assertions about the nature and character of overall Reality is hilarious.

It shows the incredible pretentiousness of Aggressive-Atheists.

Michael Ossipoff

Demanding evidence of the absence of a magical being is not a rational position. — Jeremiah

The "magical being" that you refer to is your God. So you attribute belief in your God to others, and criticize a belief that is posited only by you and other Fundamentalists and Biblical Literalists.

Michael Ossipoff