it's probably my favourite cyclical model so far. — Jaded Scholar

Ditto!

I tried to read the actual published papers from Penrose and his team but they soon overwhelmed my grasp of physics. I was intrigued by the point that the 4 hawking points he is confident of, are residuals of large galaxy clusters from a previous aeon, and are supported by the WMAP and Planck project data.

I watched the debate between him and Alan Guth:

Really worth the watch, if you have not already watched it. Guth talks about alternative explanations for Hawking points but I think Roger insists that the evidence for these alternatives is not as robust as his evidence for the cause of these hawking points.

I can follow the general logic of CCC and the 'heat death' of the universe via the entropy model.
The difference between 'heat death' and 'big rip' being:
Heat Death is the slow dissipation of all matter into entropy and the Big Rip is the tearing apart of all matter and the fabric of spacetime.
The bit I struggle with, conceptually, is the final 'state' before the 'new Aeon/Big Bang,' begins.
The universe has expanded to the point where any remaining content (energy) is unable to do work.
At this point, the vast size of the universe loses all significance (whatever that means?) and the perception of 'big' and 'small' become indistinguishable. At that moment, time resets to zero and a new big band/Aeon begins? Any thought about that?

Could you also help me understand a little more as to why any loop quantum gravity quanta could not turn out to be just another vibrating string state?

So while I think we shouldn't assume every other universe is like we think ours is, it seems even more tenuous to assume that every other universe is unlike ours. — Jaded Scholar

Does this mean you favour the many worlds proposal, supported by such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth et al.

:grin: Well at least, what I posted got them to try to answer your questions.

Perhaps they found mine too difficult for them.

We should never be too sure of ourselves, but neither should we accept myths as God's word and a rational explanation of life. — Athena

Yet we still have billions of believers in woo woo, many of whom use this foundation as a guide to their actions and who they vote for. Do you assign no part responsibility for this to Ancient Greek, Spartan 'storytellers' and/or Prussian theists , who also peddled these same lies as facts?

Have you served on committees? I can not imagine anyone serving on a committee that needs to make serious decisions believing millions of people can argue something until they have a consensus. No one would enjoy being on a ship without a captain and an agreement that the captain has the authority to make decisions. — Athena

As a school teacher and a Labour Party/young socialist party member, yes, and even as a union shop steward for a while, I have served on many committees, but mostly as talking shops and any resulting decisions made, did not affect 'millions of people.' A ship can easily be run perfectly well by a cooperative rather than a dictatorial captain (captain Bligh perhaps). A single leader can be useful at times but any wise members of a collective can 'play that role,' if and when such is needed.

Important to this thread is there is no time after an invasion to argue about the response. The response needs to occur as soon as possible. — Athena

I agree with 'emergency defence powers,' kicking in, if a community is under 'live' attack or imminent attack but I would not allow any elected body to unilaterally declare war, without a public majority mandate to do so. I would change your 'as soon as possible,' to 'with as much wisdom as possible.'

but the bulk of the decisions were made without including everyone in the decision-making and our forefathers attempted to limit governing power with a system of checks and balances that is totally broken now — Athena

I have already stated, many times, how vital, effective, robust, ingrained, checks and balances against any abuse of authority are. Any proposals for a fully representative democratic socialist system, with global, international, national and local tiers, will fail, without them.

Autocracy is very efficient. Democracy is not. Each manifests a different culture. — Athena

That's because it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. But this also means that an autocracy can also be destroyed. Efficiency is a very important aspect, sure but a good and progressive system is one that is a balance between efficiency and other vital aspects, such as robustness, fit-for-purpose, flexibility/need, etc.

Occasionally I think a person is being intentionally offensive and don't stop to question that. — Athena

Sometimes, they are. 'Checking yourself,' and your response to being offended by others is a wise approach Athena. I accepted a long time ago, that I won't always get my response correct in every situation. I am no longer so harsh on myself, by regretting my past or current errors in judgement, I just try to learn from them.

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. — universeness

What is a scumbag? Are you superior to a scumbag? — Athena

It is not the person we are judging but the behavior. — Athena

My son-in-law is a very good guy and he has also been a very, very bad guy. — Athena

And I am making that argument because it goes with judging my own behavior. Am I being the person I want to be? What is a good person? What does it mean to be civilized? — Athena

Would you consider Hitler or any such butcher or someone like a pedophile/rapist/theistic suicide bomber, a scumbag? and if you did, would you consider such a statement, a statement that also means that you feel superior to such people? I certainly would not play such conceptual games. I think you are fully able to understand the different mind states between these two quotes of mine below, and find both statements valid in the way I intend them to be received.

I find any notion of personal superiority between human beings, vile and disgusting and I will fight against such notions in every way I can, until I no longer exist. — universeness

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. — universeness

Don't offer sustenance to those who love to peddle in contrived and conflated conceptualisations.

In a democracy, we can all be aristocrats. — Athena

I everyone is X then X fails as a useful discriminator. If we are all scumbags then the doomsters are correct imo, and we should all just lie down and die slowly. I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive.

I think @baker prefers to visit a thread, announce viewpoints and then visit other threads. Answering questions they probably find inconvenient does not seem to be the style they prefer. Unless you have had more fruitful exchanges with them than I.

Lot's of resources in the solar system that could help us and there does not seem to be much use for it at present. We could bring new meaning and purpose to objects in the solar system that seem to have no purpose or value at present. Do you think humans have no extraterrestrial place? Do you have reasons that you hold strongly, regarding why we should not explore and develop and spread beyond this planet?

:grin: Well, I certainly hear about ideas that are quite different from mine, on this site.
I wish to see if my own viewpoints stand up to the scrutiny of well informed philosophy and philosophers as well as those with a more scientific background.
I share some of your interests and reasons for contributing to this site.
I like threads like this, as the OP allowed me to challenge the general posture of pessimists, nihilists and doomsters. It's important to me to offer alternatives postures to those.
I in no way, intended to disrespect the efforts @Joshs has made to establish his knowledge of philosophy, which is far in advance of mine, based on the information on his profile.
I just disagree with him regarding the role of rationality in achieving progressive communication between humans and how vital it is that we all make more effort to find global common cause and reasons to unite as one species, occupying this one little pale blue dot of a planet.
The sooner we do, the sooner we can start to become a significant extraterrestrial species.

To me that makes him interesting. — Tom Storm

Not so much, for me on his offerings regarding rationality and its relationship to effective communication between humans.

He is also extremely well read and serious about his philosophy. — Tom Storm

I accept that, but that does not prevent him from being wrong about the importance of rationality in communication between humans in the real world.

My own view is that if something seems odd or new to me, it's worth looking into. — Tom Storm

Sure, but it depends on what the claim is. I think flat earthers and antinatalists are very odd indeed, but I will 'look into' antinatalism far more than the utter nonsense from flat earthers. I have given my reasons why I disagree with Joshs regarding the role of rationality in improving human communication.
Btw, I am not suggesting that joshs viewpoints on rationality are as 'fringe' as antinatalism or a flat Earth, I was merely trying to exemplify my general approach.

I think you are being unfair. — Tom Storm

Ok, I respect your opinion but I don't share it on this occasion.

I’m sure you can see how each of these pronouncements could reflect a perspective rationally arrived at, and yet strongly at odds with own’s own beliefs. — Joshs

A simplistic statement such as one person's rationality is another person's irrationality, does not invalidate the concept of rationality. Serial killers can justify their actions using their own rationale but the vast majority of human beings can see that their rationale is in fact irrational.

To me, An example of what you are doing, is diluting the 'real' value of ideas such as the golden rule, by bleating about the exceptions such as masochists. The fact that irrational viewpoints are believed to be rational by their proponents is not important if those proponents have nefarious intent or are 'not right in the head.' Imo, you need to study real people more than you focus on:
"My research focuses on the radically temporal thinking of Derrida, Heidegger and Eugene Gendlin, and their critical relationship to embodied, enactive approaches influenced by Merleau-Ponty, particularly regarding the interpretation of affectivity, temporality and intersubjectivity."

You obviously don't as I am not concerned about a lack of communication between people. I am concerned about the quality of that communication. Your posts on this thread so far, have not offered anything of significance towards those concerns. As I stated previously, perhaps others will garnish more value from your contributions than I have.

Assessment of harmoniousness can also be described in terms of validation. We construct a template for predicting events, then when this events happen, they either validate our template by being inferentially ( which isn’t the same thing as logically) compatible with our expectations, or invalidate it by surprising us, appearing chaotic and random. This validating process is simultaneously affective and intellectual. What ever profoundly violates our expectations is signaled by anxiety, threat, anger and other negative emotions. — Joshs

This quote has no substance or useful significance imo. — universeness

Justice presumes a personal concern for others. It is first of all a sense, not a rational or social construction, and I want to argue that this sense is, in an important sense, natural.

Justice is also a self-interest, it is imo, predominately a self-interest and is the source of the golden rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you, (accepting of course, that anomalies such as masochism or insanity, do not invalidate the golden rule.) Justice is both rational and socially wise. It is also socially constructed as you and the main quotes above confirm, as it is quickly employed, when even children at play judge an action to be fair or unfair and protest accordingly.
This is all very interesting academically, but I am far more interested in applications in a realpolitik environment.
You keep trying to downgrade rationality. Quite unsuccessfully imo. You have yet to be clear on what you suggest is more important than employing rationality when trying to communicate with others.

Perhaps there is a third road that can be taken, one which is neither mired in pessimism, nihilism and doomsaying, nor tied to a notion of the ‘rational’ that grounds itself in the conformity of our representations to the furniture of the universe.
I’m a strong believer in both scientific and moral progress, but I don’t think that this should be understood as a rational progress if rationality is defined in the way that it most often is. This leads less to progress than to conformity to ready-made presuppositions. The evidence for this can be found by asking what constitutes the opposite of the rational. What are examples of persons holding viewpoints deemed to be irrational?Inevitably the answer leads us to nonconformists, not those failing to think ‘rationally’. — Joshs

This quote has no substance or useful significance imo.

@Tom Storm has already responded to:

It’s about trying on for size more and more open-ended and flexible ways of interacting with each other, aiming for a ‘dance’ in which each of us can optimally anticipate the others’ moves. — Joshs

with:

I find this interesting. Can you say some more about what you have in mind regarding the anticipation of the other's moves being of benefit - perhaps an example? — Tom Storm

Why don't you answer him and also answer why any relationship between irrationality and nonconformity is significant here?

What are examples of persons holding viewpoints deemed to be irrational? — Joshs

How about such as:
I am/should be the King of the world.
God legislates and I/we as its prophet(s)/representative(s) dictate. Comply or be damned for eternity.
I/we are superior to all else.
All humans are equal but some humans are more equal than others.
I/we are prettier, richer, have a better skin colour, taller, faster, stronger, more intelligent, come from better people, follow the only 'true' religion and have better tech than you, so you deserve to be fully dominated by me/us.

This area has so many shades in its spectrum of possible mind states.

How would you connect 'stupid' to making mistakes or bad choices based on having been fed faked information or having been manipulated or indoctrinated all of your life or simply due to your own misinterpretation of accurate information?

Can you assign any blame for being 'stupid,' if you have not had a good general education?

Do folks who have some malfunctioning brain processes, ever deserve to be labeled stupid?

Is it stupid to spend a penny on scientific research or space exploration and development unless you can guarantee beneficial results?

'Stupid' is such a subjective label based on the scenario being judged. Consequences and results of actions taken or words spoken, may well be judged by many as being at source, 'stupid,' but may be found not to have been so stupid later on. Einstein's cosmological constant may prove to be such an example.

I don't think we can discover new knowledge without risking the chance of looking or being stupid.

Playing games is the way a number of prominent philosophers describe the art of social communication (Derrida’s play, Wittgenstein’s language games). — Joshs

Just based on my own further thinking on the above quote. I am not suggesting that 'role play' or simulating/emulating common human dilemma scenarios, is not a valid way to communicate with or educate others. This does not however change my point regarding playing games and living real life or respecting the difference between talking about life in Gaza right now, simulating it to educate others or actually living through it. So Derrida and Wittgenstein may have had important messages they wanted to get across to others, and I respect that, but so do most of us. It's finding the common ground between the majority of us that I think the OP in this thread was suggesting overall, should remain our common goal.

What prevents us from finding common cause is assuming that rationality means finding a correct standard around which to base that communication rather respecting differing value and ethical systems and attempting to negotiate common cause based on that respect. — Joshs

Nothing wrong with that! where did I suggest otherwise? I think it's very very difficult for many to 'respect the differing values and ethical systems,' of nazi scumbags etc, but there does come a moment of m.a.d, when it is better to communicate with even that which you hate most in this life, rather than accept the inevitable result of nihilism, pessimism and doomsterism, ie, accepting that the extinction of our species is already determined. This is part of the reason I am sick of having to listen to them, but I also accept that they are not going away anytime soon. So, reasoning with such folks, remains my only option as Ignoring them is far too dangerous, as they affect too many other people.

Playing games is the way a number of prominent philosophers describe the art of social communication (Derrida’s play, Wittgenstein’s language games). — Joshs

Fair enough, but then such philosophers are not helping imo, life is not a game and neither is our survival and our progress into maintaining that which I already think we are, a net positive existent, in this otherwise, meaningless universe, (at least as far as we currently know.)

You’re missing the point. — Joshs

No, not at all, and your word salad offering meant very little to me. Perhaps it will mean more to others.

Improving our understanding of others isnt about becoming more realistic, more rational, as if earlier ways of understanding each other were less real or weren’t already useful. — Joshs

Such sentences are just bizarre imo, are you advocating for a less rational and less realistic approach to understanding others? I advocated for rational communication, I did not place the word 'more' next to the word 'rational,' in my posts above.

We have to find better ways to communicate with each other and find where we have majority common cause. We all need food, water, shelter, medical support, education, security, and purpose, for example, and these are far far more important and common to all of us, compared to personal beliefs, race, nationality, gender, age, colour, where you were born or who your parents are.

It’s about trying on for size more and more open-ended and flexible ways of interacting with each other, aiming for a ‘dance’ in which each of us can optimally anticipate the others’ moves. — Joshs

Sounds like you are shopping, entertaining or playing games, instead of talking about communicating with real people.

The universe is always reinventing itself, with our help, so the task of rationality is to steer it and ourselves into patterns that are more and more harmoniously anticipatable. — Joshs

The universe demonsrates no independent intent. Any affect we have as a species, on anything, is currently very local indeed, and hardly goes beyond this tiny pale blue dot. Imo, this thread tries to focus thoughts, on the premise that we can improve the human experience, if we perhaps focus a little more on such as:

We have so many insights about human nature but yet we keep on using concepts that give us a completely unrealistic view of humans, and cause Weltschmerz whenever we try to learn more. — Skalidris

I will join you on any rational road, numbered or otherwise. But let's stay within the universe/cosmos as there is no evidence of an 'outside' of the universe/cosmos.

A good thread with many good contributions imo. For me, the fact that discussions such as this one are alive and kicking and are developing and spreading, and are rational and based on the premise that we can do better, is the 'fresher air,' I think is so welcome. I am sooooooo sick of nihilists, pessimists and doomsters, when they offer almost nothing else.

Nonsense. :roll: (sorry, I almost forgot your 'de rigueur' emoticon :joke: )

Apparently, you cannot refute (my) theological claim so instead, sir, you merely parrot a pedestrian folk belief (i.e. idolatry) like a typical "New Atheist" as a crutch with which to deny that the statement "god exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is (i.e. one fact among all other facts). — 180 Proof

All I can offer you is an equal retort, to your diva-style insistence that your logic here is sound and strong when it is clearly neither. Your logic is flawed and poor on this issue, and the burden of proof firmly sits with those who make factual claims about supernatural existents.

There is no such notion as 'new atheists.' You complain about 'folk belief' and then you exemplify one that you seem to hold yourself. Atheists are not new, neither are their arguments.

Is "god exists" a claim of fact at all? No more than a tautology, a name, a mantra, or a prayer is a claim of fact. — 180 Proof

I don't know why you want to invoke panto-style responses. When you hear a theist state that their god is real and exists, do you think they really mean 'my god might exist?' If you are suggesting that, then perhaps your impressive knowledge of philosophers and what they write, does not prevent you from sooooooo misunderstanding what real people say, claim and act upon, based on what they promote as FACT!

Perhaps you can't understand the difference, universeness, ... or you're just so fixated on addressing a strawman and thereby misapplying an empirical standard (i.e. burden of proof) in order to prop-up your appeal to incredulity. — 180 Proof

The only strawman being offered in our current exchange exists in your own poor thinking here.

Quarrel with idolatry if you must; let me know, however, when you're ready for a substantive, theological debate. — 180 Proof

My quarrel is with your 'silly' and continued insistence that real every day theists, are not making claims about the existence of supernatural phenomena that they 'know to be facts' about our universe.
You keep thinking that 'silly' way if you wish. I will keep asking the theists to provide proof of their claims.
I think they will therefore find me much more of a challenge to their nonsense than you.
If all you have to offer me is 'rinse and repeat' of your flawed thinking on this issue and panto-style responses then we should end our exchange, on this issue, as it has no wriggle room. :grin:

The argument for all things having a cause is self-evident. Except when we get into quantum physics things get a little crazy. — Athena

Another very important exception is when we get into any origin of the universe proposal. It is not currently known whether or not the origin of the universe was causal.

I don't think a fully representative democracy is possible — Athena

I think it is and even if our approach to such proves to be forever asymptotic, then so be it, that remains the goal.

Now I feel cornered — Athena

Why? You are an honest person Athena, are you not?

2. a person who has the manners or qualities of a member of a privileged or superior class — Athena

I find any notion of personal superiority between human beings, vile and disgusting and I will fight against such notions in every way I can, until I no longer exist.

my understanding of democracy is that we can all achieve the manners and qualities of an aristocrat. — Athena

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. The French response to their tyranny was completely understandable. Unfortunately, they took their response tooooooooo far (Israel is repeating that bad mistake now, imo) and ended up with a butcher like Napoleon in charge. Generations of French were slaughtered as a result. But at least they destroyed the aristos. Now they have the more hidden, but as nefarious, French super-rich to deal with, but they are a global phenomenon that are a global scale problem, rather than merely a French one.

Arguing in favor of an aristocratic form of government is, to me, the equivalent of the merit system. — Athena

No its not. Aristos inherited, none of them ever merited.

I think you and I share agreements but we have different points of view and this is excellent for democracy because it is the area of disagreement that opens the opportunity for greater understanding. — Athena

I think what is more important is that such alternative views, offer those who choose, to have choices to choose from. I hope they will all choose more wisely in the future, compared to the present and even more so, in comparison with the past.

When too many people have the decision-making power, nothing gets done. — Athena

So how come, coalitions tend to introduce more balanced and more beneficial policies/laws compared to single-party ruled governance? That has certainly been my experience in Scotland, where we tend to be able to offset the most nasty policies, spewed up by Westminster.

I think we need to give the distribution of power and authority more thought. — Athena

I agree. I have already offered some of mine.

I think I will try creating a man and woman from mud. Whoops that didn't go so well. Those Bible stories do not go so well with believing there is a cause for everything. An explanation of evolution gives us causes. — Athena

Yeah, especially when that story produced Adam's first wife, Lilith. That relationship didn't work out, so the fantasy goes, so the incompetent god tried again using a rib from Adam. :lol: I think anyone who claims that such nonsense is true, certainly has a burden of proof.

If that does not belong with what you are talking about, I am sorry and will withdraw from the subject of gods and causes. — Athena

Ok, I see what you mean. I certainly have much more time for the Greek atomists than I do for their 'silly' theists.

Fully representative democracy is essential to a better humanity. I label myself a democratic socialist. We need everyone to be offered a free high-quality education, from cradle to grave about real past and current events. All fake news must be combatted. I don't mind using fiction to exemplify human moral dilemmas but all attempts to pass fables as truth, must be prevented. So no more religious lies. I think we are mostly on the same page, with that, and with the importance of 'true' democracy.

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof. — 180 Proof

:roll: :roll:

Repeating a poorly defined sentence over and over seems rather desperate, and does nothing to strengthen your claim. :grin:

Ah didnae think it showed, but aye, of course I am.

My current favorite painter is one of your countrymen. — praxis

I forgot to ask, is it Vettriano?

Only three what-ifs are "too much" for you? — 180 Proof

No, they are too much for you! Adding on too many suppositions reduces the impact of any claim.

If you wish to debate this issue in a more rigorous way, my friend, let's take this over to PMs. — 180 Proof

I don't mind whether you prefer private or more public on this exchange between us. It is you who wishes to dispute the burden of proof that theists who claim god exists have, so I am happy to trace the path you wish to lay out.

I promise I won't inject any more (apparently unappreciated) 'speculative fiction' into a discussion about "god". — 180 Proof

I believe you.

As a non-standard (heterodox) atheist, I can think of one pro-god argument (or three) which most atheists I've encountered cannot refute and that I've only hinted at here. At any rate, not an idle exercise I'm sure you'll agree ... — 180 Proof

I had to look up 'heterodox' but sure, that sounds very interesting.

Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.
Why? You have a 'theory of mind' that you apply to every human being you encounter, that none of them are "zombies" – is that theory merely "a faith statement"? — 180 Proof

No, because there is valid observational evidence behind it, which is not true when it comes to a 'god exists,' faith statement, proposed as a fact that then establishes burden of proof., regardless of whether or not that burden is accepted by those who dare to declare a theistic claim as a fact.
An advanced AI would need to demonstrate an intellectual ability beyond that of humans. All rational humans are able to arrive at the conclusion, that all faith statements are speculative conjecture at best.
Do you think advanced AI would make a claim such as 'god exists' without having achieved a demonstrable ability to prove that god exists?

You then offer me a human theory of mind, which is completely irrelevant. Whether or not no humans are zombies, :roll: has nothing to do with a god existing. :roll: ( I gave you two as It seems you like this emoticon. I like this one more :grin: )

Also, I don't see why you've characterized a (supposed) "proof" — 180 Proof

Where did I suggest the single electron theory was a faith statement? We are discussing the notion of faith, as it relates to god posits not credible scientific theories, such as the single electron theory :roll: (we can agree, anytime you like to drop this 'eye roll' emoticon, passing between us.)

I'll make the logical, non faith-based, case elsewhere if you'd like. Refute me at your leisure; that's what a devil's advocate lives for, sir. Sláinte! — 180 Proof

Slàinte Mhath! Advocate for a non-existent ( which I accept that I cannot currently 100% prove, does not exist. :grin: )

I want to focus on what you said about knowing the cause of things and what that has to do with democracy. Especially when so many people were dying of COVID-19 in New York that they had to put their bodies in freezer trucks, the debate over wearing masks and vaccines was insane. What is the truth and how do we know it? — Athena

I think there has been some misunderstanding / crossed lines here. My posted sentence of:

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. — universeness

was just a quote from the link provided by 180proof with:

on what basis then, universeness, would you refute its proof that this 'same – one – mind' is God (the PSR)? — 180 Proof

His PSR link was about The principle of sufficient reason. My response was to a point he was making regarding theists, the claim that god exists, and the resulting burden of proof, it did not relate to my exchange with you.

For all the good religion has done it has done just as much evil — Athena

I agree, it's a net negative. Religion is pernicious.

:roll: :roll:
That was too much 'supposition' for my tastes. Try 1 supposition at a time, perhaps in the syllogism style, and then state your proposed conclusion and what evidence you have to support its validity.

AI becoming self-aware to a level where it ponders the existence of god is still rather Sci-fi to me.

Suppose 'strong AGI' furthermore proves that every electron is the same electron — 180 Proof

An electron may be a field excitation and not be in any true sense, an independent particle. A repeating process.

on what basis then, universeness, would you refute its proof that this 'same – one – mind' is God (the PSR)? — 180 Proof

Divine hiddenness for starters. AI would have to demonstrate gods existence just like theists do. If a future AI claims god exists then it will have the same burden of proof that human theists do. Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause.

But this is a challenged viewpoint. It has not been demonstrated that everything must have a reason or a cause. Do theists claim that god has an origin story? Do they suggest god was caused by an earlier event? God suffers from the infinite regression problem, in the exact same way any godless posit about the origin of the universe has. Advanced AI will face the same problem.

You have still offered nothing compelling at all, from your impressive philosophy knowledge base, that challenges the burden of proof a person who states god exists! has.

Ah, ah, ah what is wrong with fables! — Athena

Nothing, when they are pronounced as and delivered as fiction.

and are not considered the word of God. — Athena

But the biblical ones are! That's one of the main problems of religion, yes? Lies and fables and resulting edicts on how humans must behave based on the fantasy words of non-existents.

You still have a very sharp mind Vera, perhaps a bit more spinning and you will clear out the cobwebs and realise that you are still a force, and your age and your health status, are not the only variables that can affect your ability to be a force to be reckoned with and a force for good, right up to and including the very last words you utter. Stay with us!!!

We are beginning to repeat! I have already typed:

Of course, we will keep on and you and all future humans are welcome and don't need to show your gratitude. Including those who used to care enough to help, but have since given up, or have significantly reduced their efforts to do so. — universeness

You mistake me, sir! I am not a future human. I am a past human. — Vera Mont

You misread the sentence. I typed 'you' and all future humans, so I did not include 'you' in the group 'future humans.'
I think you are a current human rather than a past one but it's your call.

You make the extraordinary claim - all empirical evidence to the contrary - that humans have a future, while demanding empirical evidence regarding a tenet of faith, which affects that future in no way whatever. One of us appears to be less realistic - though happier withal. This is why I don't grudge the believers that little scrap of comfort their delusion provides. — Vera Mont

You again exaggerate in quite irrational ways madam. The suggestion that the human species will exist another say 10,000 years for example, is in no way an extraordinary claim. The empirical evidence you offer in your sometimes scaremongering and doomster rhetoric, is not empirical in the sense of the predictive power you propose such evidence has.

I am not asking for evidence of any mere 'tenet' of faith, but for the root tenet of faith. The proposal that is more important than any other proposal, made by all theists and theosophists. God exists! or the slightly less impactful proposal that the 'supernatural' has any example existent, are claims that carry a very definite and easy to defend, burden of proof. To suggest that gaining ever-increasing agreement with that position, amongst the current human global population, would make no difference to the broad directions humans may take in the future, is just ridiculous and is dead wrong imo.

The last sentence you offer in the quote above is simply an insulting platitude, that someone with your knowledge of social and political history, and your knowledge of current affairs, should be ashamed to offer in judgment/dismissal of the efforts of those who have chosen to keep fighting when you, under the excuse of being jaded due to previous disappointments, alongside your age, and health status, have chosen to surrender.

Of course, we will keep on and you and all future humans are welcome and don't need to show your gratitude. Including those who used to care enough to help, but have since given up, or have significantly reduced their efforts to do so.

Evidence, burden of proof is part of this around 24 min clip from 'the line' with Jimmy Snow and Matt Dillahunty. The caller is a Catholic Priest. 'Father Tom,' has called back a few times now to this show, since this exchange. Based on his last call, I think father Tom is close to starting deconstruction.

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ... like "Zeus exists" or "The Infinite exists" or "Truth exists" or "Justice exists" or "Consciousness exists" ... — 180 Proof

Yes it is! Zeus exists is a claim that Zeus exists is a fact or an objective truth about the Universe.
The statement you posted was not 'It might be possible/probable/highly credible that Zeus exists, it was as statement of fact. Zeus exists. This could be a presupposition given as part of a syllogism.
Gods Exist
Zeus is a god
Therefore Zeus exists.
But the conclusion is not valid.

"God exists" – idea ideal idol icon – is only a claim about "god". No burden of proof obtains. :naughty: — 180 Proof

God exists is not just an idea, an ideal, or a 'representation' of god, It is a declaration to be taken as literal fact, when it is uttered with all the conviction that a devout theist can muster.

This was quite a poor beginning to your goal mate. You didn't even offer me something that:

T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) — 180 Proof

wrote, you just referred me to a previous, very recent post you typed, that I had already considered and rejected for the reasons I have given above. You are trying to claim that theists who say 'God exists,' are not claiming to be making a statement of fact (no matter how learnered they are). They are really saying that 'it's merely possible that a god exists.' If that were true, then they would agree with the atheists who also say that god existing is not impossible as the proposal is not falsifiable. There is no strength to your position, imo, so far.

Let's dispense with "folk beliefs", which are typically used by "New Atheists" as canicatures, and dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Why would I refuse an offer, whereby I can learn more, from your impressive knowledge of the musings of past or present philosophers friend? That would be rather short sighted of me. I am grateful for what you have already posted (that I have read), regarding what philosophers have written on this or on that, and that is, after all, one of the main reason this site was created. I would be pleased to learn more from you on what philosophers have said regarding the burden of proof. I promise to open my mind to its full capacity to see if there is good reason to change my opinion, to one that holds that those who make a faith based claim, that they know a god exists is rational, and they do not have a burden of proof. Please begin! I am quite excited to read about the evidence you have from these philosophers, regarding burden of proof.

Well done, in letting that penny finally drop. Perseverance dear lady, is in the remit of the truth seeker. Many theists are not complete dimwits, they are open to rational argument, so if you apply small doses of rational skepticism and then let those little seeds take root in their own heads. You then meet them again further down the line, and you can water those little seeds. Over the years, I have had success in seeding deconversions amongst the religious and the politically right wing.
Are you not familiar with the names of many individuals who were deeply involved in theism and are now atheist. From the likes of Bart Ehrman to Matt Dillahunty, you know those names, yes? and the fact that many are leaving theism in their droves. Do you really believe that no 'other humans,' influenced their decisions to decouple from their long held views?

In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion.

Congratulations! — Vera Mont

I assume that was directed at me ..... thanks (if I choose to ignore the intended sarcasm behind it.)

*sigh* — Vera Mont

*yawn*

It will have no effect on theists or political zealots. — Vera Mont

On the contrary, I have had my successes in convincing some individual theists to reconsider their position and in changing some right-wing political opinions held by individuals. I still know some of them today.

The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet.
— universeness

*sigh*
I didn't ask you??? to moderate anything. — Vera Mont

The response you quoted above was directed at 180proof, not you!