“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”
— Thomas Huxley

Refraining from belief without sufficient evidence is indeed a virtue for every sceptic, scientist or Agnostic. Many people are not comfortable with ignorance and prefer to believe false things over admitting ignorance.
But sometimes indecision is not a reasonable option. When we are forced to make decisions without proper knowledge, mathematics is a tool to make the best decision given the circumstances. We may still not know if all possibilities are equiprobable but we can guestimate the best path of action by combining the values of the outcomes with their assumed probabilities.

What you describe seems to be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem. It is dealt with in computability theory. (That is computer science, depending on your preferences that is either a subsection of engineering or mathematics.) In Chess or GO programs decisions have to be made when to stop searching for a better move. One simple example of a special case is when to stop looking for a cleaner toilette:

I don't know how you connect your examples to philosophy as they are easily (and only) solvable by mathematics. For each possible action you simply add up and chose the optimal path.

Then why the roundabout way of stating ~A = A is false? Is it hat we don't want to introduce the "not equal" connective? — Art48

It is that we want to keep the axioms in the most basic form possible. ~A != A (or ~A = A is false) are derived statements that can be simplified to A = A.

A = A is simply the most basic form of saying that ~A = A is false. It is the axiom that tells us that contradictions are always false.

Such an opinion can only be formed through extreme bias. Of course, malicious actions stand out but that is the bias. You don't read it in the news when billions of people just have a boring, normal day - but that is exactly what's happening.

but as human beings, the species that coined the term "humane", shouldn't we attempt to do justice to it? — TheSoundConspirator

Of course we should - but not by committing suicide. Humanity is destructive through its numbers, its ignorance and its inability to elect honest leaders, not through malicious intent. Most people are good most of the time. That's a good basis. That they are also lazy, ignorant and cowards are things we can deal with through education.

Sure, humans are destructive, but humans are also currently the best bet to leave earth and expand into space, securing the continuation of life after an earth destroying event.
With your logic you probably would have chosen to destroy the first cyanobacteria which poisoned 99% of life on earth with their free oxygen.

So the logically correct formulation of @creativesoul's answer would be "anything" according to the ex falso quodlibet principle. The moon would consist of green cheese and we could prove it.

Wow, heavy stuff. I don't know if I understood what that was all about but ..

"Just as, in axiomatic formulations of logic (“Frege systems” or “Hilbert-style” systems), different choices of axioms are possible for a particular logic, different sets of rules can be chosen in formulating a natural deduction system. In particular, one or more rules of supposition can, in the presence of others, be replaced by inference rules."

that seems to say natural deduction also needs a set of axioms, just that there are multiple possible sets of axioms to choose from. Can you explain?

Have you ever studied formal systems?

Every formal system needs a set of axioms which can't be proven within the system. Mathematics relies on the "belief" in numbers and operators, science in "belief" of a real, orderly, knowable universe and as it seems, your religion relies on the axiom "there is a god".
The quality of a formal system is measured by its parsimony and integrity. Are there superfluous axioms, are there contradictory axioms (or ones that lead to contradictions)?
Can you expand on your set of axioms? What else do you believe without evidence or proof?

I have a few thoughts about existence. I made an OP about them on another site. They may exceed the topic of this thread but may fit into your older threads (if you could kindly point me to them) - or I could make a new one.

According to Catholic theology the Trinity is "God". Neither of it's components are.
And when you try to diverge and say that "The Father is God" and "The Son is God" then, by the law of identity, "The Father is The Son".
And when you insist that "The Father is not The Son" then you have left rationality and no thinking being will take you serious.

Yeah, but neither "The Father" nor "The Son" is god. So god didn't create the stone nor did it lift it.

1. Ask a question.
2.

Algorithm: "Choose the field of Philosophy that can best answer the question you start with". — ssu

Firstly, I think your deduction is incorrect: you cannot deduce that 9 out of 10 are wrong. — Bob Ross

That's why I wrote "at least".

Secondly, regardless of whether we assume 9 out of 10 are wrong or that it is indeterminate as explicated thus far, they should always be doubting their hypothesis (their inductions) as, by definition, the premises do not necessitate the conclusion. In terms of anything they deduced, they would know it, but they still should doubt those as well. By "doubt" I don't mean incessantly deny ever knowing anything but, rather, that anything deduced is categorized as "knowledge" with the careful consideration that they have not obtained 100% certainty. There's never a point at which someone should think that they have 100% definitively obtained knowledge of anything possibly imaginable. — Bob Ross

We are not talking about absolute certainty or even only 1 σ certainty. In the example we have at least 90% uncertainty (in reality much higher). That means no evidence, no argument could convince another. Being able to maintain the illusion of knowledge under those circumstances requires a lot of arrogance (or a lot of stupidity).

Thirdly, your analogy is conflating a subject's knowledge with societal knowledge: — Bob Ross

I addressed both:

So each single one has to doubt her hypothesis and can't be sure to know and as a group they have to admit they can't contribute to the body of knowledge. — ArmChairPhilosopher

"God" is purposely an incredibly vague, ambiguous term. — Bob Ross

Well, yes, purposely or not, that's what I'm saying the hole time. And it's not even so that different religions have different definitions, the definitions vary within religions, often even within members of the same denomination.
And that inconsistency can't even be solved by agreeing on multiple gods. 1. The monotheists don't agree to that and 2. even then there would be disagreement whether an entity belongs to the category or not.
As long as you have "an incredibly vague, ambiguous term", you don't know - you can't know - whether a concrete example falls under the category.

I do not know what post you are referring to, — Bob Ross

Imagine the following scenario: on a conference 10 experts propose 10 different, contradicting hypothesis. Neither of the speakers can convince her colleagues. I can deduce that at least 9 out of those ten have to be wrong (don't know what they are talking about). The same goes for the experts. When they are honest, they have to admit that their hypothesis has a 90% chance of being among the wrong ones. So each single one has to doubt her hypothesis and can't be sure to know and as a group they have to admit they can't contribute to the body of knowledge. Even if one of the hypothesis turns out to be true, neither can be justified in believing that it's hers. — ArmChairPhilosopher

That, of course, assumes faithful actors and a will to share and gain knowledge and acceptance of equality. But given those, it is not a matter of taste when they don't agree. Each one of them has to assume that the others are wrong (or at least ignorant) but without arrogance, they also have to agree that they are in the same position as their peers.

I would still argue an individual could know things. — Bob Ross

Even if you are right, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We don't deal with the last man on earth, we deal with a myriad of god claims and the possibility of the claimants to communicate. And, as I explained in my answer to @Nickolasgaspar, none can, in good faith, be justified in his belief of knowledge.

Consensus is not the criterion but the "symptom" of a successful theory. — Nickolasgaspar

That's enough for my purpose. The lack of consensus is a symptom of an unsuccessful hypothesis.

Imagine the following scenario: on a conference 10 experts propose 10 different, contradicting hypothesis. Neither of the speakers can convince her colleagues. I can deduce that at least 9 out of those ten have to be wrong (don't know what they are talking about). The same goes for the experts. When they are honest, they have to admit that their hypothesis has as 90% chance of being among the wrong ones. So each single one has to doubt her hypothesis and can't be sure to know and as a group they have to admit they can't contribute to the body of knowledge. Even if one of the hypothesis turns out to be true, neither can be justified in believing that it's hers.

That's the state of affairs with god beliefs. I don't know which one is right - if any. And when they are honest neither can the believers.

I think I was misunderstanding you: I was thinking "atheist views" in terms of epistemic positions traditionally voiced in terms of atheism, but you seem to be referring simply to the fact that you do not require a consensus amongst in-group and out-group, just in-group. Is that right? — Bob Ross

That is right. I think it is fair to ask the believers to come to a common definition among their "in-group" before they address the "out-group".

And sorry, also to @Nickolasgaspar, for mixing your posts in my recent answer.

The "plurality" of a claim(ad populum) doesn't benefit the epistemic or philosophical value of it. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, it does. If not theoretically, then practically. In science we see a theory as accepted when there is a consensus. We don't require 100% acceptance but a reasonable threshold. And I wouldn't call it "ad populum" because we require the consensus among experts not the populus.

But I would presume that when you state "knowledge is transferable", it is implying (1) that you are arguing for that as an amended tenant of "justification" and (2) that it is transferable to quantitatively equivocal recipients in relation to the sender. — Bob Ross

Yes. (See above: consensus among experts.)

obviously knowledge cannot be transferable from, hypothetically, the sole human in existence to a rock: if one human remained on the planet, then that person wouldn't know anything (if we are taking "knowledge needs to be transferable to be justified" literally) — Bob Ross

You are confusing transferable (potential) with transferred (actual). True knowledge could be potentially transferred from the last human to the next sapient recipient (alien or evolved rat) in writing.

Moreover, it is possible that one human obtains a legitimate proof of S but, due the major disparity between themselves and every other human being on the planet, no one agrees with them. Would they not "know" it then? — Bob Ross

"If you can't show it, you don't know it." as AronRa would say.
Suppose you wake up and you remember dreaming about raiding the fridge. Then you are not sure if that was real. Then you are convinced it was real. Do you "know" you raided the fridge or do you have an illusion of knowledge? To be sure, you have to show it (if only to yourself).
Another example: you have studied for a maths test. You think you know the formulas and how to use them. Do you "know" or do you have an illusion of knowledge. You will be sure after the test.

The principle works reasonably well in science.

Not really, if it did it would be forced to adopt the default position set by the Null hypothesis. — Nickolasgaspar

There is no Null hypothesis is philosophy. And as long as we don't know if we have to tackle the god problem with science or philosophy, we can't require to use the Null hypothesis.

First of all I assume nothing about what god is. — Nickolasgaspar

You did when you assumed that god is an ideal.

I can only address the claims about that concept. I only need to know what those who accept the concept think about. — Nickolasgaspar

Exactly. And since I only get contradictory claims from the believers, I don't know how to address the claims. What I do know is that the claims are inconsistent. And I can't conclude that they must be talking about different things as one of the claims is that there is only one god.

-Well what we do know about the god claim is that its an idealistic concept of an ultimate agent/entity. — Nickolasgaspar

Do we? There have been a plethora of gods in the past (and some in the present) that are claimed to be real. We don't have to look farther than Christianity which claims god (or some aspect of it) has been real in the person of Christ. So far for idealistic concept.

Every Philosophical inquiry starts(should start) by getting familiar with our epistemology, what we know and how we know it. Agnosticism doesn't do that. — Nickolasgaspar

Agnosticism does exactly that. It questions the epistemology of itself and that of the believers. I'm OK with either convincing evidence for a real god or a consistent framework of an idealistic god. I'd even allow for a construct, given there is consensus. But the believers can't even agree on the category.

The fault in your logic is that you assume to know what god is. You don't.

I am not sure how contradicting descriptions of god proves that, on an individual level, that one doesn't know what god is. — Bob Ross

Someone once defined knowledge as "justified, true, belief". Not the best definition but it will do for the argument. The other important thing is that knowledge is transferable. You can argue about a fact and you can convince an open minded interlocutor as is done in science all the time.
Theology had thousands of years to come to a consensus. The fact that it didn't shows that what you think is knowledge isn't justified.

What do you mean by "atheistic views"? Do you discard all of them? Why? — Bob Ross

It is mostly a concession towards the theists. They might complain that atheists have a straw man vision of god. I don't require that theists convince atheists to acknowledge that they might have knowledge about god, just that they come up with a consensus among themselves. I think that is a fair criterion to falsify my position.

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe? — Relativist

That question somehow didn't come up. I guess they would have agreed about that god could or did create the universe but they were already fighting over the how and when.

I don't know how many denominations are there but these are all denominations of protestant church AFAIK, which is irrelevant for this discussion. — SpaceDweller

How so? Don't they believe in a god? What makes them unfit to partake in the debate? Which religions and/or denominations are competent to define godhood?

What is you argument for God being undefined? — SpaceDweller

The inability of god believers to come up with a consensus of the properties of "god(s)". There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone. I did the experiment on another forum to try to distil only the common properties imagined of a god from a handful of Christians and the result was an empty set.

My theory of the state and state formation is the so-called conquest theory of state formation, as written by Franz Oppenheimer. — NOS4A2

Even with that hypothesis (which I don't ascribe to), you haven't justified your preference for economic liberties over civil liberties. In fact, for most states it describes how the already rich and powerful conquered the masses and keep them down. The system is already working in their favour.

I was envisioning both my X examples as inner states, but it seems as though you may mean it in a more in the sense of the second example, is that right? — Bob Ross

Correct, it seems we are on one page now.

On a separate note, I am not entirely sure how unified definition would disprove Agnosticism, but I am interested to hear why you think that is the case. — Bob Ross

It wouldn't directly disprove Agnosticism but it would deprive me of my best Argument. The obvious existence of a myriad of contradicting descriptions of a god is evidence and proof that the believers don't know what they are talking about. (I discard atheistic views because they are biased.)

My reasons for preferring it are moral. I think it is wrong and unjust to control people, to confiscate the fruits of their labor, or to impose someone’s will upon another’s if they do not deserve it. Anything else is tyranny, injustice, oppression, exploitation, slavery. If you or I or any group of people acted as a state official or agent does, they’d be rightfully dragged through the street. — NOS4A2

I'm with you so far.

The same applies to matters of trade and enterprise. If anyone rigged the game in their favor as much as states have done—skimming, stealing, exploiting, extorting, racketeering, money laundering—he’d be thrown in jail. — NOS4A2

And here we may depart. Who do you think "the state" is?

Because of this, and because the state increases its own power in proportion to the decrease in the power of the people it rules, it is an anti-social institution worth opposing. — NOS4A2

Yep.

As for roads and government services, no government is required to flatten earth and lay asphalt. No government is required to tell me which products I should buy, or with which group of people I should engage in common enterprise with. — NOS4A2

True again. But if you want to have roads, someone has to build and maintain them. We usually give that task to people who we think they know what they are doing and who we think they are impartial.

So I’ve read your objections and still prefer the idea of separating the state and economy. — NOS4A2

The way you formulated it, I can agree 100%. Keep money out of politics!

It all comes down to the question I asked in section 2. Who do you think "the state" is? And you seem to have a diffuse antipathy towards a group you have, in theory, elected yourself. How do you think "the state" got the power it has? Where is the evidence for your image of "the state"?

Then we agree. But you realize that you need some kind of police force to enforce those rights?

But then you are interfering with my right to sit on the street and the company was interfering with my right to bathe in the river without getting poisoned.
Or are you one of those libertarians who are all for the liberties of the corporations and against the rights of the people?

In my mind the proper role for government is to defend liberty, — NOS4A2

Would that include my liberty to sit on a street leading to a plant that produces toxic waste so that no raw material can get there?

I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM. — Hillary

That's the problem. Especially in QM the second option of the OP is valid. Everybody is wrong. Models only ever describe part of reality, the better models describe more of reality or are more precise but we should never confuse the map for the territory.

Have you watched the video I posted?

Are Germans cuckoo? :chin: — Agent Smith

Not all of them (though from my point of view, most people are normal). We have our share but by far not as many as the US has. We make up for the numbers with quality. Every now and then we have someone so crazy it exceeds all bounds.

Muchas gracias for a sample of Heidegger. One needs to be extra cautious when diagnosing incoherence in translations though - much is lost in translation. — Agent Smith

I can assure you that he makes as much sense in German.

While others have given valuable tips on how to wield a pen like a pro, I'm more interested in what some here identify as incoherent speech/writing which in your book is gobbledygook. That's the psychologist in me I guess - such speech/text are considered a hallmark of insanity. — Agent Smith

"As the ego cogito, subjectivity is the consciousness that represents something, relates this representation back to itself, and so gathers with itself."

Martin Heidegger

I’ll try to clarify. If there are no positions of power for the plutocrats to occupy, it doesn’t follow that the absence of these positions of power leads to plutocracy. We can point to existing state structures and say “that is plutocracy” until the cows come home, but we are no less pointing to the state. Plutocrats can achieve control through democratic means.

What you haven’t done is shown how laissez-faire leads to plutocracy, is all I’m saying. — NOS4A2

If there are no structures of control, the wannabe plutocrats are going to create them. Once you have riches, you want them secured lest the masses come knocking on your door and take them. You can hire a private army but it is much more cost effective to make the public pay for that army. That's how the police and the courts are invented. The state doesn't create capitalists, capitalists create the state.

Another point of discussion is: what is the most effective way to write possible? — Joseph Walsh

In addition to the good advice by the other participants:

Know your audience!

Using termini technici can shorten and thus clarify a discussion among your peers who know those terms. It also can make your writing unreadable to a general audience.

Repeat yourself!

Don't fear repetition. Humans are not computers who remember a definition perfectly, once given. They have to familiarize with new ideas. The natural form of learning is by association with multiple examples. The pattern seeking function of our brains is forming the concept, not the definition. E.g.: how did you learn what a chair is? Have you been given a definition by which you compare objects and decide whether they fall into the "chair" category?

Employ test readers!

This is a bit of methodology. You don't know whether your writing is effective until you have tested it. Give it to some typical members of your target audience and listen to their critique. And not only that, test them. Have some questions prepared to test if they understood what you were saying.

I seek answers you're afraid of. — SpaceDweller

And I give answers you are afraid of.