I don't know if that's effible, because anything I say can only be weighed against your own eminent subjective feelings. Anything I say would amount to they feel like feelings.

It comes out as a brute fact, that we feel, and we can either accept or reject them as valid epistemic starting points.

How many frying pan strikes does it take to get to the center of an ontological philosophy?

That's the mystical part! No? — Posty McPostface

Yes and no.

When all of your senses are screaming in agreement that a particular perceptual phenomenon exists, you're as sure as can be that the phenomenon somehow really exists. It's not mystical at all in that being hit over the head with a frying pan convinces the victim that the frying pan exists (repeated strikes enhance certitude).

The how or why of perception itself is the somewhat mystical bit. We are rapidly demystifying the physical biological structures and mechanisms which comprise our internal and mental machinations (in ways that can predict our behavior as if we're biological robots), but we still have that nagging feeling like something, we, are actually behind the wheel, and in so far as that relates to the "we" in "how do facts obtain?", we will likely not find satisfying answers.

Why do we actually feel feelings? We're wired to feel them (to take in stimulus, somehow parse it, and then learn via an output/input loop) but why do feelings feel like anything?

The mind-matter gap is now easily bridged, but the mind-feeling gap is not yet so.

There's no hierarchy of truth with Trump; no spectrum of reliability. He lives in the volatile moment where truth can be redefined with a hand wave.

Just a few moments ago I watched a video of him denying that ever promised to donate 1 million dollars to charity if Elizabeth Warren would release her DNA test results showing she was native American. He called her Pocahontas for years, and when she finally gets a DNA test and is asked about he suddenly he doesn't care and never promised to donate anything to anyone...

It's a fact that this post exists.

How did you obtain this post?

Trump came out and revealed to us that "the denial was very very strong" so we can all stop falsely accusing Saudi Arabia of butchering journalists.

It's really reassuring to know that we have a sitting president who can walk straight up to the world's largest tyrants and expertly force them to tell the truth.

What reason on earth would there be for someone to strongly deny something they didn't do?

Once someone strongly denies something, nothing can be done. It's game over.

The entire point of this post is that there are multiple possible apriori premises to pick from and to use in validation of other premises and that there is nothing to distinguish these without relying on other apriori premises but then THOSE have no validation. The point is that human belief must start from an arbitrary pivot — khaled

The solution is to give up trying to render ultimate validation via apriori premises or fundamental axioms, and to instead rely on the empirically accessible; we can't touch the bottom. Once we pass a certain depth of substantiation, we get decreasing returns on the utility and additional strength that more actually gives to our conclusions. For example, if we try to assess the prevalence of something by statistical survey, there is a practical limit to the number of samples (or sample size) required to get a well resolved prediction. Additional data can always increase precision, but unless we have practical reason to do so, why bother?

There is no ultimate certainty, and some would accuse me of therefore embracing some form relativism and/or by extension, nihilism. I disagree. Despite there being no ultimate certainty, there are indeed degrees of greater and lesser certainty; degrees of reliability and substantiation. Instead of expecting to arrive at ultimate certainty, I expect that I will forever approach it. It's not easy to know what's ahead of us on the road of approaching certainty, but it is generally easy to know what's behind us. It seems true that we're stuck with our own relative beliefs and perceptions, but some beliefs and perceptions are better - more accurate - than others.

P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true — khaled

We tend to state P2 in reference to deductive logic, but not all logic is deductive. Deductive logic itself, or at least our epistemic and empirical access to it, is derived from repeated experience of consistent relationships (an inductive affair). Even at it's most abstract, "A=A" is not deducible apriori.

The strength of deduction we have empirical access to is actually built on an inductive argument. In other words, deductive logic is only known to be as reliable as the inductive experiments that test them have been repeated.

To say that deductive logic, when properly used, necessitates truth if done from true premises, is in line with how we tend to think about it, but it would be more accurate to sat that deductive logic is the set of observed relationships that have not yet shown inconsistency from true premises.

P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise (ex: in order to refute the premise "all humans are green" one must accept the premise "visual perception is more reliable than this idiot" and the premise "I don't see green humans") — khaled

P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value (I expect people to disagree and I'm waiting to see how) — khaled

You're essentially saying the same thing with both of these premises, and the issue is you're expecting that certainty emerges from perfect bottom up deduction, when in practice we can only approach it from imperfect top down induction. Let me show you what I mean:

Take a highly uncontroversial and basic premise: a force of gravity exists.

We would normally determine the truth of this premise by conducting an experiment to see if our predictions hold true; the more experiments we run and the more accurate or reliable our predictions become the stronger our confidence is (the closer we get to "certainty"). You can propose that we're relying on other premises which themselves must be tested, such as the premise that visual perception reflects some true aspect of the things it perceives. Likewise we can begin testing this premise as well (getting repeatedly slapped in the face is a good test, as it correlates with other senses, such as touch/pain). The more we test the reliability of visual perception, the more confident we become that it does reflect something true about the external world. Next you might doubt the premise that an external world exists in the first place, which is also something we can test by examining the nature of perception itself (e.g: destroying and restoring one's eyeballs consistently cuts off the flow of visual information from the external world).

As you can see it's not hard to quickly evoke doubt and demand an infinite series of supplementary premises, but the need to continually supply them becomes smaller and smaller as the support for the given argument's premises grows. At some point it becomes ridiculous to keep questioning; there's only so many times we can be slapped in the face with a brute fact before we just accept and roll with it.

Instead of starting from an absolute and certain bottom set of incontrovertible premises, our arguments tend to start somewhere in the middle. Support for conclusions builds upward from premises, and support for premises themselves builds downward, typically via testing, where we only tend to build downward as far as is necessary to be convincing/persuasive/of marginal risk of error with respect to premises.

P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument — khaled

Yes, such as the "A wizard did it" premise. Not all hypothetical premises are equal, and even if you have an infinite number of supporting premises, the conclusion need not be sound or strong if all the premises are bad, unlikely, or untrue. (you could have an infinite number of premises (assumptions) which pertain to witchcraft and wizardry, and support its existence, and if we could sum them all we would find the chances of wizards existing does not approach 100%.

P6: Consequently there is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value — khaled

This is not the case. There are a potentially infinite number of premises (in the same way that there are infinite numbers) that can contribute to the inductive strength of an argument, but not all premises contribute an equal amount of inductive strength. (e.g: evidence that wizards don't exist contributes less to the inductive argument for heliocentrism than astronomical observations and orbital predictions does). Very quickly the vast majority of the room for doubt can be eliminated and we're left with hypotheticals that contradict a lot more than the premises of our actual arguments (see: wizards)

OK granted with such mute randomness, we finally get an agnostic viewpoint we can all agree on as being agnostic. — BaldMenFighting

You say mute randomness, but I say actually coherent. At least soccer balls are something you can quantify, but that's a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that when you look at all the various gods proposed by the various religions, mute randomness becomes a more apt descriptor of an individual proposed god.

However, in the God/No-God debate:
- There is obviously a debate (= the God/No-God debate), which implies there's been evidence thrown around - not a mere coin toss or a ball in a cupboard — BaldMenFighting

The existence of debate doesn't necessitate that reasonable evidence has been presented. The agnostic position is that no reasonable evidence has been, or can be presented in the god debate.

There's not even a coin toss regarding the soccer ball. If you flip a coin you will be correct 50% of the time, but that holds for every true or false proposition imaginable (including proposed other gods). This is what makes believing in a particular god seem like a completely random guess.

- This debate especially, is about God/No-God, the fundamental axiom of the universe (for Atheists, it can be phrased as order vs. chaos, or the formula for a fundamental particle that has driven things since t=00, the formula representing Order, even if quantum mechanics gets involved, there's still a kernel of Order with this fundamental equation). — BaldMenFighting

No. You, the theist, believe that God controls everything (or designed it - whatever), I lack those beliefs. I don't have faith in chaos as it were, I just see no reason to assume a hidden guiding hand, like you assume. You do believe in the guiding hand though, and that it has been working since t = 0 (t = 0 is something I'm agnostic about), so of course you view this debate as a this full blown axiomatic urgent issue of ultimate importance. Human sacrifice was viewed by Aztec rulers as an issue of ultimate importance and significance because they believed that the universe could only be sustained through continuing the sacrifice of the gods (a story not dissimilar from Christianity interestingly). They would tell you that the debate about human sacrifice/no human sacrifice is about a fundamental axiom of the universe. When you abstain belief they will demand proof that human sacrifice is not required to sustain the universe, and when you refuse they will call you irrational or fence-sitter.

As it's something so fundamental to our universe, and we are so far downstream of that, it will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance. — BaldMenFighting

Not all evidence is reasonable or valid. If I told you that because bananas fit inside the human hand nearly perfectly, that it must have been designed by a sentient being to be that way, how would you respond?

If Vlad the Impaler is actually a vampire named Dracula, and we are so far downstream from him, the debate will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance.

Why is there no abundance of evidence for or against Dracula God?

I say: for there to be >0 pieces of evidence, it is impossible for a human (we have an overarching aesthetic, we are higher beings after all) to be sat on the fence, not even caving into feelings one way or another.

Football in/not in cupboard scenario = 0 evidence available = agnosticism possible. — BaldMenFighting

Did you know that making assumptions by caving to feelings can lead to a state of wrongness? I want my beliefs to conform to reality, and so I only adopt them when the evidence is sufficient either way.

Whatever happened to objectivity?

The problem of omniscience and omnipotence is that when we suppose they are infinite extremes, one limits the other. (if omniscient and omnipotent agent X knows absolutely what will happen in the future, then X is powerless to change the future; if agent X has the power to subvert its own predictions using omnipotence, then it knows nothing with certainty).

— Philosopher19

(1) Things exist = ✔

(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence = ✘ (tautology)

(3) We are fully dependent on the existence of things = ✔

(4) All minds are limited by things that exist = ✘ (redundant: contained in (3) )

(5) Given four (3), anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable could exist. = ✘

(this does not follow from (four) 3; what does and does not exist is a matter of fact, what can and cannot exist is a matter of fact, but what could possibly exist is a matter of perspective (of probability from limited information; sometimes we imagine comprehensible things that could exist but later discover they do not and cannot exist).

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of = ✘

(questionable assumption: how can we possibly understand omniscience other than as an arbitrarily large amount of information?)

(6.1)So Existence must accommodate these concepts. To deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. = ✘ (falls apart without (5) and (6) )

Therefore, either:

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient = ✘

(falls apart if we can imagine things which cannot exist, especially when we suppose comprehension where there is none)

(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent and can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists = .✔

(this is fair enough, but now it seems we're left with two possibilities: everything that exists is either a thinking thing (a whole which thinks and perceives itself perfectly, somehow), or it is a not a thinking thing and nothing is actually omniscient or omnipotent, and to satisfy omnipresence we merely sum every thing that exists).

(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there. = ✘

(just because you cannot imagine something doesn't make it impossible. You need to rationally exclude the possibility with reason or evidence. I cannot rationalize imagine god but I don't say it's impossible. The unstated third option (6c) is that nothing is omnipotent or omniscient.)

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true. = ✘ (systematically incorrect or presumptuous, see above)

(10) Only everything that exists can be almighty and all knowing. = ✘ (redundant, contained in (7) )

(11) Given 5-10, everything that exists is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. ✘ = it might also not be omnipotent and omniscient (or a thinking thing).

Boiling it down:

(1) Things exist (true)
(2) Things that exist, exist. (redundant tautology)
(3 and 4) Minds depend on things (true)
(5) Things we imagine could exist (assumption, ambiguous)
(6) We can imagine omnipotence/omniscience (assumption)
(6a) Something could be omnipotent/omniscient OR: (false dilemma, (possible equivocation))
(6b) Something is omnipotent/omniscient (false dilemma)
(6c) Nothing is omnipotent/omniscient (excluded option from false dilemma)
(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent (assumption, redundant, lacks coherence)
(8 and 9) Given 7, 6b is true (does not follow from false dilemma or supporting assumptions)
(10) only everything that exists can be omnipotent/omniscient (ambiguous, lacks coherence)
Conclusion: everything that exists must be omnipotent/omniscient (does not follow given 6c)

If you want to prove that everything is everything, I'm sold, but beyond that the argument as is riddled with holes and ambiguities. If you could refactor your argument (condense and simplify if possible) taking the above into account, it would go a long way to sorting out exactly where and on what we differ about "the nature of everything".

The claim here does not seem to be that men should own their sperm, but rather (or ought to be) that men can emancipate themselves from their sperm. In a way you're asking if the sperm should own the man (i.e: necessarily have paternal obligations).

The answer is no. While intercourse itself implies some obscured amount of consent toward possible parental obligations (the "well you shouldn't have had sex" argument), discarded and otherwise dispensed sperms are not intrinsically the property of the producer.

If a woman were to impregnate herself with discarded sperm (such as sperm purchased from a sperm bank), the woman and child would have no claim over the producer, and likewise, the producer would have no claim over the woman or child.

Perhaps you could sue an entity that collected your genetic information and tried to use some aspect of it for commercial purpose, but strictly speaking a children don't have the exact same DNA as either parent, and would theoretically own its own DNA regardless.

I may or may not have a soccer ball in my closet...

I will offer you no evidence either way, and so for now you cannot falsify the claims that there is or is not a soccer ball in my closet...

(With me so far?)

So tell me. Do you believe that there is a soccer ball in my closet or do you believe that there is no soccer ball in my closet? Now that I've asked you the question, surely you must have a belief either way.

Given that you have no way of knowing, do you think it is equally likely that there is a soccer ball as it is likely that there isn't?

What you most likely have is a lack of belief either way; not even fence-sitting. You simply choose to place no faith in either direction, or any position in-between, including the middle one. The only rational position is no position.

Your unfalsifiable God is exactly like the unfalsifiable soccer-ball in my closet. Atheists are to belief in god as you are to the possible soccer ball in my closet.

The more general the label the less it reveals, the more it misleads/confuses, and the less useful as a label it becomes (why have a 50 page argument about whether or not "babies are atheists" (they are ;) ) when we could just say exactly what we mean and get to the root of disagreements quickly?).

We do have an endless series of labels which denote various positions pertaining to these matters. Problem is they get so specific that less people are aware of them, and hashing the scope of their definitions takes just as long as stating your position without the use of labels in the first place. Here are some examples

Ignosticism
Apatheism
Practical atheism
Indifferentism
Non-theism
Theological noncognitivism
Ietsism
ignoramus et ignorabimus (hard agnosticism)
Possibilianism
Implicit atheism
Explicit atheism
Negative atheism
Positive atheism
And the list goes on (especially if we include every variation on theism)

Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not? — Philosopher19

Well, no. Just because you cannot presently imagine how omnipotence could emerge doesn't mean that it cannot emerge. You're using an unverifiable assumption.

How do you know omnipotence cannot emerge from a state of non-omnipotence (note: you not being able to imagine it is not satisfactory evidence. I'm sure before radio communication you could never have imagined long distance wireless communication. Absence of evidence (of omnipotence emergence) is not evidence of absence (of omnipotence emergence)).

2) Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable, Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable — Philosopher19

I now find these definitions to be at best misleading and at worst incoherent; there's a paradox between the two.

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)

-----

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y

Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.

3) These are meaningful/understandable definitions (if you think the concepts are paradoxical, please demonstrate how it is impossible for something to be omnipotent/omniscient) — Philosopher19

I'm at least willing to entertain the notion of either, but once you put them together they become relative/limited/misleading/incoherent.

4) Any alternative definition would amount to something entirely different — Philosopher19

The problem is your definitions are so poor that basically everyone looks at them and sees something entirely different.

We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like. we don't know how long it would be, how variable and changing it could be, or what would be on it. You're alluding to a set of undefined powers, the extent of which we cannot know or even consistently imagine.

Existence/omnipresence = that which is all-existing
Omnipotence = that which is almighty (that which can do all that is doable) — Philosopher19

Strictly speaking the observable universe is quickly becoming devoid of "stuff" and energy is becoming unusable. It's getting harder and harder to coherently imagine these things the more you repeat your given definitions. In a sense I am omnipotent because I am capable of doing all that I am capable of doing. If I was something different then I could be capable of doing different things. What kind of thing is capable of doing all the things? Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?

I acknowledge that we don't have a full understanding of these class of concepts, but we do have a sufficient understanding of these concepts. I'll demonstrate:

We don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as insufficient to the point that we don't understand what it is. Does it? — Philosopher19

Yes it does. It places us firmly in the "does not understand existence" category. We understand many things, but not the scope, scale, extent, or intent of existence.

Do you see where I'm coming from? To say that our understanding of omnipotence is insufficient is just like saying our understanding of omnipresence is insufficient. They are the exact same class of concepts that describe/denote the same semantical gap/thing — Philosopher19

It's not a semantic gap, it's a semiotic one. The problem is that you don't render your concepts meaningful (read: rational merit) just because you can offer vague allusions to what they are. We cannot lay hands on them, we cannot view them; we can only uniquely and impartially allude to them by warping aspects of the human perspective (things we can know, things we can do) to an incoherent extreme in our own imaginations.

You can understand the behavior of a single rain drop, but that doesn't mean you comprehend or can speak with confidence about the machinations of the storm.

It establishes the possibility/potential of an infinitely long pasta noodle being produced by Existence. This concept is a potential/hypothetical possibility. This is not the same class of concepts as omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience that can't be produced/generated. — Philosopher19

How can we generate an infinitely long noodle? It's exactly the same kind of concept, and by your own logic we should be able to conclude that an infinitely long noodle necessarily exists, right?

They just necessarily are. An infinitely long pasta noodle does not rationally require to be omnipresent, but omnipotence/omniscience do and since nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state, that which is omnipresent, has necessarily always been omnipotent/omniscient and will always be omnipotent/omniscient. Can you see how any alternative to this would be paradoxical? — Philosopher19

Then I should propose an infinitely long pasta chef, so that I can use one proposition to explain why the other necessarily exists.

The non-paradoxical alternatives are that our understanding of omnipotence/omniscience, whatever they are, is flawed, or that neither of them exists.

Mandela being omnipotent is paradoxical because in order for something to be omnipotent, it needs to be able to have reach and access to everything. In other words, omnipotence requires omnipresence. Only Existence is omnipresent. Mandela can never become omnipresent/Existence. In fact, nothing can ever become omnipresent/omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state. Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not? — Philosopher19

You've made it clear that there is no God. Nothing can be omnipotent or omniscience except for "Existence" (capitalized why?), because that is the only thing that is omnipresent.

Re: strong & weak atheism: you see this is what l'm talking about. It crushes everything and puts it all on the same plane, whereas my system separates the arguments - which are many and complex - from the current lip profession. The current lip profession of a person is what makes them Atheist or Theist or even Agnostic. Simple, elegant. — SnoringKitten

What do you mean "lip profession?

Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service — SnoringKitten

I don't know what you're trying to say with this "lip" stuff. If you mean that "this is what atheists and agnostics actually profess", then you're just wrong. Atheists overwhelmingly do not claim to have proof no god's exist, and overwhelmingly do not claim to posses the positive belief that no possible gods could exist. Many people do misuse the term agnosticism to refer to some kind of fence-sitting position, but that definition is a complete departure from how it is used in philosophical literature.

The simplest and most elegant definitions for theism and atheism are as follows:

Theist: Someone who believes in god
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god (a.k.a non-theists)

@SnoringKitten: What should we call the position of simply lacking belief either way? Agnostics per your usage believe the odds are equal, but what If i think I don't know the odds, and that guessing would be incoherent or intellectually dishonest?

As such I lack belief, so I'm not a theist, but does that make me an atheist?

My main objection is that you're altering the original philosophical uses of these terms. Agnosticism is meant to refer to the knowability of god, not whether or not belief in god is held (theism/atheism). Agnostic, ignostic, theological non-cognitivist. There are hundreds of terms people can choose to use, and there's not need to expect theism/agnosticism/atheism to conform to some kind of spectrum of statistical based belief.

The main reason why your proposal is probably not a good idea is that most atheists don't claim to have knowledge about god's non-existence, they just to lack belief in god.

Strong and weak atheism is the more useful distinction because it differentiates between an atheist who believes no gods exist vs an atheist who simply lacks belief in the existence of any gods. Once claims knowledge, the other claims ignorance and abstinence.

Trump on the other hand....

Trump has all but openly stated that he very much wants to have sexual relations with his daughter, Ivanka...

Now THAT'S a self own!

Ha you admit your sister is hot, great self-own — Maw

I mean, it's not really a self-own. There are some fairly universal beauty standards kicking around the human genome...

Would it be better for @Baden if she was ugly?

:chin:

At least he can claim he has sexy genes!

We use reason to make sense of our observations, it's not the other way round. We have paradigm shifts in science and we alter the foundations of science every time we make an observation that reason dictates as being paradoxical/at odds with the rest of the scientific theory we're working with when making the observation.

It's not just science. Whenever we use language, (be it in science, maths, law, any field for that matter) we acknowledge that we cannot have absurdities/paradoxes. We don't dictate this, reason dictates this. It's a correct/sound circle. — Philosopher19

But what dictates reason?

Humans don't have magical access to an infallible set of axiomatic laws from which we can reason, we have to first discover and model those laws, and therein lies the fallibility.

You cannot think of something meaningful that can never exist. — Philosopher19

By meaningful you mean non-paradoxical, and by non-paradoxical you mean rationally valid and sound. What you're saying is I cannot think of something that is rationally sound and valid that can never exist. This statement is kind of incoherent though: for something to be rationally sound and valid (non-paradoxical (meaningful)) it has to be a conclusion that rationally follows from true premises. So what you're asking for is if something can be a conclusion that rationally follows from true premises but not exist... I don't know how premises and a conclusion can be true but pertain to something which does not exist, so by virtue of that alone, no.

You say that omniscience and omnipotence are "meaningful" concepts, but do they rationally follow from true premises?

I can understand an infinite Existence, I can understand Infinite power/awareness/presence.

I don't think you can.

I can draw a picture of a battery next to the symbol for infinity, but that doesn't show I comprehend whatever it omnipotence is. "The power do do anything that is doable" isn't sufficient; we don't know what is or isn't doable so we don't know what omnipotence is.

In an infinite existence why would you not be able to have something that is infinitely long? Where would there be a paradox in that, it seems to have meaning does it not? So the potential for something to be infinitely long is there. — Philosopher19

So you agree that your argument would also establish the existence of an infinitely long pasta noodle?

Omnipotence (that which can do all that is doable)
Omniscience (that which knows all that there is to know)

They are sound because any other definition is paradoxical. — Philosopher19

How do you know other definitions are paradoxical? (read: not sound and valid) (note: omniscience and omnipotence have never been established as extant by any valid arguments from any true premises).

Mandela lifting a car is not a paradox. Mandela is a coherent and non-paradoxical definition for omnipotence. Why not?

Reason dictates that we would be forced to change the semantics such that the science and the math add up simply because reason and Existence are not absurd. Non-existence or the incorrect usage of reason is absurd/irrational/paradoxical. — Philosopher19

We change the models themselves. The kind of reason you're now referring to is called trial and error, and it's not deductive, it's inductive. We're not being led to truth through reason when we change science or math, we're being led to reason by showing evidence for truth directly (science is a system of reasoning, math is a system of reasoning; inductive reasoning is what underlies them as descriptions of the world, and we cannot do apriori induction whatsoever.

--------

In 6a-b you state that something meaningful must either potentially exist, or always have existed.

Why must meaningful things "potentially" exist, and why if they cannot "potentially exist" must they have always existed? Can't they just have never existed in the first place?

In order to use reason effectively, avoiding paradoxes is necessary. Right? — Philosopher19

I think paradox isn't the right word. Here is an example of a paradox "This statement is false". It is self-referential and therefore contradicts itself despite not being deductively invalid.

I think what you're trying to say is that valid deductive reasoning always leads to truth when used with true premises. This is what we call "sound argumentation".

Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false, or none of what I've just mentioned? — Philosopher19

Correct, but circular.

In a given case, we can only know if "reason" was used correctly if we have the ability to directly test the truth of the conclusion. Once we inductively establish the consistency and reliability of a given piece of reasoning, we can be confident that using that bit of reasoning from true premises will result in true conclusions, and we can carry on without the need to test every conclusion immediately and directly.

In a way you're sayingreason determines truth, but empirically and epistemologically it's the other way around; results/"truth" reveal what "reason" is. Reason as we know it is a human-invented heuristic that is refined on reliability of predictions. Apriori we cannot actually know the rules of logic. We might be capable of imagining worlds where A=A, but until we actually check that against the real world, how can we know we've imagined it correctly?

If we discovered that a given piece of reasoning wasn't always right when used correctly and from true premises, we would decide therefore that it is not deductive reasoning (we would acknowledge that the world isn't necssarily ordered the way the piece of reasoning describes).

Here's a useful analogy: The champions are always the winners because anything other than this is paradoxical (they would not be called champions if they did not win).

With regards to omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, I say it's sufficient and objective because the meaning is sufficiently clear. It's objective because rationally speaking there can be no other definition that is paradox free. Can you think of another definition? — Philosopher19

How are their meanings sufficiently clear? Are you capable of imagining infinite power? Are you capable of imagining infinite presence and awareness? You should not kid yourself about this. The concept of abstract infinity in and of itself is already fleeting enough without the addition of energy and perception thrown into the fray. You might be able to imagine something that you feel is omniscience-like or omnipotence-like, but it could be just be limited, inaccurate, and inaccurately described as relatable to the real McCoy.

What are your definitions of omniscience and omnipotence? What makes them sound definitions? (paradox free; valid reasoning from true premises)

I could propose a quality like "omni-pasta" which describes a noodle quality of infinite length. Could I carry on with your argument and conclude that a noodle must exist out there somewhere of infinite length?

Whenever the mind is faulty or incorrect in its use of reason, paradoxes occur. For example square-cirlcles, or things existing and not existing at the same time or something coming from nothing, are just some examples of faulty use of language which reason reveals by way of paradoxes. — Philosopher19

Minds and conclusions can be faulty despite correct use of reasoning, and minds can also use faulty reasoning directly.

The logic of abstract quantities is so well explored that we might as well set basic truths like 1+1=2 in stone, but applying the most abstract rules of logic to the real world comes with pitfalls. 1+1 on the quantum level can get confused, and basic presumptions like if p then q are merely provisional heuristics with inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness given the unexplored and unknown complexity of real world Ps and Qs, and their complete relationships, at any scale. For all we know, some aspects of our best scientific models are actually paradoxical when viewed from a position of better or full understanding.

Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category and you cannot imagine it coherently unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

Do you see where I'm coming from? — Philosopher19

Here's the rub: If Mandela actually turns up and lifts 25,000 pound bus, instead of concluding that we live in an absurd universe, we would instead need to alter our clearly incorrect science and system of reasons which alleges it to be impossible (we would need to investigate).

Epistemologically, science and physics, doesn't use the models to prove the way the world is, inexorably we use evidence from the world to establish what the models should be. Once we have great models those models make great predictions, but they're not perfect or necessarily meaningful outside of the finite and linear human frame of perception.

----------

Some of the latter parts of your argument also can be easily broken into questionable assumptions: "anything that can be coherently imagined could possibly exist" somehow turns into "since we can imagine X, and since things we can imagine can possibly exist, and since X cannot possibly come into existence from a state of non-existence, in order to 'possibly exist' it would need to always have existed, therefore it must always have existed".

If X exists, it has either always existed or it came into existence. Since X cannot have come into existence, it must have always existed... If X exists...

If Hillary runs again in 2020, Trump will probably get re-elected....

If Hillary had not run in 2016, I'm pretty sure that Trump would not have won. (I've read in several places that Hillary and her campaign actively wanted Trump to get the republican nomination because she felt he was the only one she could beat). In truth, it was the other way around; Hillary was was the piece of shit that forced people to spoil their ballots with Trump.

I really don't like Hillary "it's my turn" Clinton. It's like she feels entitled to the presidency and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it.

Because it would be paradoxical to think otherwise:
All minds exist in Existence. They are a part of Existence. They don't surpass or go beyond Existence. What's beyond Existence for them to go beyond? Do you see rejection of 4 is irrational/paradoxical? — Philosopher19

Let's pretend that the universe has a beginning. I can imagine before the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean such a thing exists.

It could be that existence allows minds to imagine things which existence could not allow outside of the (potentially faulty) imagination of minds

Because we can define them. Because they have meaning and we can talk about them meaningfully. If we didn't have an understanding of them, we wouldn't be able to talk about them meaningfully or define them in an objective manner. — Philosopher19

You say that we can define them in an objective manner because we can talk about them meaningfully, but that is rather circular. How do we know that we have defined omniscience and omnipotence sufficiently or objectively, especially given we are not ourselves omnipotent or omniscient.

Perhaps one must experience omniscience and omnipotence before they can define it properly.

Because you can never have something that is meaningful but can never exist. Can you think of something that is meaningful but can never exist? — Philosopher19

Faster than light travel of energy or information, for one. (A timebefore time as well, as I've already mentioned).

"Superman" (Clark Kent), from a planet called Krypton (since destroyed) who when exposed to light from Earth's sun gains practically endless strength (including the ability to rewind time by flying around the earth so fast its rotation reverses). Superman cannot exist because there's not enough energy in the tiny amount of sunlight that strikes his body, making the whole concept thermodynamically impossible.

Superman is very meaningful to very many people, but it cannot possibly exist, nor must it.

(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows — Philosopher19

Why?

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of — Philosopher19

How?

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient — Philosopher19

How and Why? (respectively)

I don't hear God talking to me. — Ram

The point is that you think you have god-given truth, and you're willing to kill others and yourself if you think that's what your god-truth mandates. That's scary.

All of Islam is true. — Ram

Which version of Islam?

Because it is the word of Allah. — Ram

How do you know it is the word of Allah?

It isn't about persuading you. I've done my part by pointing in the right direction. What you do is up to you. Allah guides whom He wills. I've said this enough times that insha'Allah you might understand it. — Ram

If anything you've given me the impression that you've bought into Islam without the slightest care to question the validity of the beliefs it entails. You would rather dogmatically follow your existing beliefs than honestly test them.

Should you study Greek texts before dismissing Zeus?? Zeus is fictitious. Allah is not fictitious. — Ram

How do you know, though? It kind of seems like if you can just dismiss Zeus as fictitious, I can just dismiss God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah as also fictitious.

Doesn't it seem fictitious? Have you ever seen an angel? A miracle? What if the prophets just made things up? what if people just embellished things after their deaths?

Believe me or don't. You're going to meet Him. — Ram

So you're motivated by fear I see (else, why would you try to warn me so...).

What if I am god, and this conversation is your actual test. What if god wants people to form their own beliefs instead of just believing the bull-shit of others to such a degree that they're ready to kill and die over subsequent disagreement?

That is a long story and I'm not interested in telling you my biography. Believe or don't. — Ram

I didn't ask for your story, I asked why you think your stories are true.

"Shia experts"- no such thing. The Shia are wrong. — Ram

Shiites say the same thing about Sunnis. Seems like you're both wrong.

If you want to learn more about the Shia stuff, you would need to learn about Islam first. Then we could go into that. That is a whole other subject and you would need to go into other resources. You don't get all your knowledge off forum posts. — Ram

You don't actually know how familiar or unfamiliar I am with Islam and I'm not interested in exploring the Qur'an or and hadith with someone who refuses to honestly face my questions from the get go.

Welcome to philosophy. It's about questioning your potentially bad ideas. Live long and prosper...

I don't know. If you have an especially argumentative wife, the pumpkin-spice latte dispute could get ugly.

Okay, so you are saying when it comes to the Big Issues, people might start going at it with arrows.

So should discourse be limited to pumpkin-spice lattes? Following that logic, I think that's where it leads. — Ram

I'm saying that grandiose issues can cause us to lay down our lives, so we had better be sure we're right about them before we actually pick up a sword. There's no way to know which religion is correct, so we should never pick up swords in the name of religion.

Now my desire to attain Jannah..... Allah has said if I'm not mistaken that we should strive towards Jannah..... in any case from what I understand, Allah says we should strive for Jannah. So my goal should be Jannah. I want to serve Allah, I want to obey Allah. — Ram

It really sounds like you desire Jannah first and foremost, and you only say that Allah wants you to pursue Jannah because that's convenient to what you already want.

What if I'm wrong?? What if the atheist is wrong?!

If I'm wrong... eh. I can live with non-existence. But if I'm right and the atheist is wrong....... eek. — Ram

Don't be so quick there. If your religion earns you an early death (as you are so ready to die) and your religion is wrong, then you will have wasted your only life and you will gain nothing. If I'm wrong, at least I still get to enjoy this life.

P.S, the odds that you are wrong are very high by the sheer number of opposing religious beliefs alone. Good luck betting your one and only life. I'll just keep mine, Pascal.

Maybe ideally. If they do it to avoid starving, I think it's permissible. — Ram

Maybe? You think?

Where are you're lofty "objective" standards at?

More appealing to who? I'm wondered about what is appealing to God — Ram

Different religions tell different stories about what god(s) want. How do you know the set of stories you were born into or adopted are the right set of stories?

Allah guides whom He wills. I recommend you read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. I think you should study what it has to say before you dismiss it. — Ram

Should I study ancient Greek texts before I dismiss Zeus as god? Telling me to read this or that isn;t going to persuade me. I'm not interested in what you've read, I'm interested in what you know and can demonstrate to be true.

There is tons of stuff discussing why the Shia are deviant and misguided. That is a whole other discussion and I would refer you to other resources. I am not an expert on the Shia. However, to understand the matter you would need to understand Islam. Study Islam first and you'll be in a better position to understand. — Ram

Shia experts have similar stories about how Sunni's are the misguided ones. Stop fooling yourself. What is the evidence that shows Sunni Islam to be true and Shia Islam to be false? If I take your word for it, or the word of Sunni scholars, why shouldn't I take the word of Shia's and Shia scholars?

The truth of Islam is that it's the true religion. — Ram

Again with the self referential incoherence...

What about Islam is true? All of it? The parts you believe are true? The parts the most intelligent Sunni scholar believes?

I've recommended that you read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. If you want to learn about Islam, that is what I recommend. If you do it or not is up to you and is your responsibility. — Ram

You're here proclaiming Islam to be the true religion and you're unable to even properly defend it. Isn't that a sin? When you are summoned to defend your beliefs from sincere challenge, you need to do so right?

We don't share values. I don't care about our alleged shared values or what you think and don't expect you to follow what I think. You think what you think, I think what I think. I am fine with that and don't expect you to think like me and don't care about what others think. I go off what I think. — Ram

So you're not interested in what anyone else thinks, and believe that you and your beliefs are the best thing since sliced bread... Not untypical levels of arrogance...

Why should assume this life is a test? Well... do you believe in the Quran? It seems- no. Well, if you believe in the Quran you believe this life is a test. I believe in the Quran. If you don't, you don't. — Ram

Why should I believe in the Qur'an?

You said what would I do if God told me to sacrifice my child. I never said anything about God telling me to do something like that and I don't hear God telling me to do things. I go off the Quran and the Sunnah. If God suddenly appeared to me and I believed it was God.... I guess so. But I seriously doubt that would happen and I've known a lot of Muslims and Christians and I've never encountered a case where that occurred. — Ram

It's one of the archetypal stories found in the Abrahamic religions (Islam included). God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, and he was ready to do it. It was a test of devotion, and it's scary that people are ready to believe they communicate with god to a degree that they (you) would actually kill other human beings, including their own son, if they believe god told them to do so.

I am for reason. Islam is for reason. As far as India... I know Muslims from India. I also know a devout Christian who was born to atheist parents. Not everyone follows what their parents believe. — Ram

Especially not in this day and age where trends move so quickly that parents have a harder time relating to their kids (and therefore a harder time imparting religious devotion).

Maybe you believe humans in general are moral. I don't. — Ram

Why? Just because someone said so? Why did they believe it?

The world is not a Disney movie. Humans are born into struggle. Things happen. — Ram

Sometimes good things happen. Why should I assume this life is a test? Why should I not strive to avoid the bad things and promote the good things (based on our shared values)?

I didn't say that. The context is considered. I don't think there's a context where theoretically a person should steal food. However, a starving person stealing a loaft of bread is different than a rich person doing it. There's nothing subjective about it. The situations are objectively different. — Ram

So technically someone ought to starve to death before stealing?

The truth of Islam is that it's true. You have your way of thinking, I have mine. — Ram

The truth of your position cannot be that it is true. That's not only circular, it's incoherent. Why is Islam the true one?

I need a reason to be persuaded by, otherwise the Hindu or the Buddhist will just come along and persuade me in favor of their beliefs instead of yours. I need evidence.

If a woman is forced into marriage... I have no idea. She's not supposed to be forced into marriage. If that happens, it's against Islam and I'm not sure how the situation should be dealt with. Allah knows best. — Ram

What good is your blind faith to a book which you think gives us all the answers if you cannot actually extract answers from it?

Are you out to impose your framework on me? I am simply explaining my point of view. You can accept it or not accept it. — Ram

I'm trying to do "philosophy" by comparing our worldviews to see which one is more appealing, more sensical, more rational, and more moral.

I'm around quite a bit of Muslims and haven't had any problem like you describe. As for the Shia, the Shia are a deviant sect — Ram

And the Shia say that the Sunni are a deviant sect. How can I tell the difference between the deviant and the true? (hint: everything is deviant or nothing is)

I don't tell other people what they should or shouldn't do. God dictates what we should and shouldn't do. — Ram

Yes but you tell other people what god says we should and shouldn't do. Other people say god says differently. I say you're all either dumb, deluded, or deceitful.

Hopefully. — Ram

If you think that god wants you to execute your child, please check yourself into a mental institution so that they can make sure you're not insane and are actually hearing the commands of the one true god. I'm sure they'll understand, as will your son, and it will be a very happy event, with flowers and dancing.

What an honor indeed...

What an honor indeed...

Sounds delusional? Don't you have any amount of something within you which tells you that you should be prepared to sacrifice yourself for something bigger than yourself? — Ram

Why must I sacrifice my life in the first place? Shouldn't we all just get along and value life?

I have a completely different mindset than you do. I don't think life is about being happy.

This life is temporary and is a test. Oppression? It happens. It is what it is. I have a concept of oppression, probably you too. But what that concept consists of and what role it plays are very different I think in our two minds. — Ram

So if god asks you to sacrifice your only son as a test, you would do it?

No, I didn't say any of that. I simply hope Allah grants me a good death. — Ram

You said "I hope fervently for a good death", and you gave examples of randomly dying at a certain place or dying in defense of your family. My notion of a good death is old age and ideally surrounded by loved ones. Is that tragic? You don;t seem to care about other people (or yourself) so long as you pass your own test.

My thinking isn't your thinking. Jannah exists. I don't care about the alleged possibility that it doesn't exist. There is no possibility of it not existing, as it does exist. I don't care what atheists think. I am supposed to strive for Jannah so I hope for Jannah. — Ram

So you aren't willing to honestly asses the truth of your own beliefs, and choose consciously to dogmatically accept and pursue them?

If you were born in India you might be Hindu, and you would be fervently pursuing their values as opposed to your own. If you were born to atheist parents maybe you would be fervently pursuing irreligion and reason...

The arranged marriage is more the family finds a suitor and it's sort of an offer. The woman isn't forced to marry the man. Islamically, it is up to her. — Ram

And what if she IS forced? She can then flee and presumably have sex outside of that marriage, right? Even though the original husband may still want her stoned to death for adultery....

Is it a sin to steal out of hunger? I'm not sure. I think in the hypothetical example you describe it's not punished. — Ram

So "do not steal" should not always be obeyed, right? Doesn't that make it subjective or relative or at least not objective?

I already get that there are extreme situations where for example a person might be compelled to do something. God is Forgiving and God understands things.

Furthermore, not everyone understands that stealing and murder is wrong. Many people don't believe "wrong" exists. People in general are not moral. Furthermore, morality covers not only murder and stealing but also sexuality. I think we probably have very different views in that department. — Ram

If you want to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do with their own genitals, then yes we have very different views. Why you think you have any business telling other people how or why or with whom to have sex remains a mystery to me. Should we stone homosexuals to death?

At first when you said people in general are not moral, I was going to outright disagree, people are moral especially in general, but now I'm starting to think that you might just have severely backwards moral beliefs, and so you think "live and let live" is actually somehow immoral...

I don't think there is a Caliphate right now. There was the Ottoman Caliphate and I think that was the last one for now. — Ram

Your personal beliefs won't stop other people from rallying around a Caliph and potentially accusing you of heresy for not also rallying when asked. The Shiites are just wrong, right?

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it even avoids the immoral necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular. — Marcus de Brun

I agree entirely. It's the secular life for me!

Right you are! (i added it to my post!)

Islam is against adultery, lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, etc.
Christianity too. — Ram

In so far as adultery is a form of lying, I also condemn it, but what of a woman who has fled from/escaped an arranged marriage and found love elsewhere? Technically she would still be married to her former husband and would be committing adultery. Should she return to her original husband because of the sacredness of marital unions? What about consensual open marriages?

Is it a sin to steal for basic sustenance? Should a parent be punished if stealing food was their only means of feeding their children?

Is it always a sin to lie? What if you have to tell a lie in order to save a life?

The truth of whether or not it is moral to do these things changes with circumstance, but I understand the gist of these laws. Unless there is good justification to do otherwise, we should not be lying to, stealing from, or killing one another. But these aren't hard-to-come-by moral positions; everybody already intuitively understands that being free from theft, deception, and murder is desirable; we never needed religion to convince people that we should have a society where theft and murder are forbidden, even a child can figure that out.

What religions disagree about is much more interesting and much more consequential. Do we pray to Jesus or don't we? What day is Sabbath? Which religion should control the holy sites in Palestine/Israel? Even within any one of the three Abrahamic faiths there is widespread disagreement about how we should live. Is scripture literal or metaphor? Should we be paying tithes to a central establishment or is faith about having a personal relationship with god? Should we each make our own interpretations of scripture or should we listen to the religious authority figures who know better?

The above examples apply to all three religions but here are some more specific ones: Do we do as the prophet did or do we do what the prophet said to do? (and if so, what did the prophet actually do, and what did he actually tell us to do?). Who is the rightful Caliph? Do we really need the pope and does the communal wine/wafer actually turn into the blood and flesh of Christ? With what level of orthodoxy does one need to uphold the old laws? Is it still a sin to pick up sticks on the sabbath "to do work"?. Is pressing a button an equivalent to work and can we get around that law with some other mechanism? What should the penalty for heresy/apostasy be? Is ex-communication necessary? or worse?

There are no obvious answers to these questions, and depending on who you ask you might find people ready to alter the course of their life, even die, to ensure that their answer reigns supreme.

The Abrahamic religions might agree on the basic and easy stuff, but what's left has been enough to turn each of them into disparate factions who all fight among themselves. Meanwhile the world isn;t getting any better...

Whether you are Muslim or Christian- you should be willing to die for what you believe in. My hope is that Allah will grant me a good death. For example, if I die defending my family or if I die while in Mecca- these are good deaths. I hope fervently for a good death. — Ram

So when you enter Mecca you hope that you suddenly die by accident?

Why?

Free ticket to paradise?

Do you hope that your family is attacked so that you can die defending them? I don't get it. It's possible to have preferences about how we die but still not hope or wish to actually die.

For a Christian, for example- suppose the AntiChrist described in Revelation arrives and Christians have to die for their religion...... as a Muslim or a Christian, you should be willing to die for your beliefs. Therefore life is not the ultimate goal. You should not be afraid of death. — Ram

I am afraid of death though, especially because I don't believe in heaven.

I don't find the thing about continuing living- I don't find it universal or even desirable. At any moment's notice, you (if you believe in God) should be prepared to give your life for what you believe. — Ram

Why? Because you think you're not actually dying, just transitioning to a better afterlife...

What if you're wrong?

Happiness? I don't care about happiness. Happiness is in Jannah (heaven). — Ram

You sure do seem to care about happiness then... If Jannah doesn't exist and instead of paradise you just get destroyed, are you still so willing to accept an early death? Please be honest with yourself.

Forget happiness and self-preservation. It is destined that we shall die and happiness in this world is not the goal. The goal is Jannah- to attain Paradise. — Ram

Jannah is a metaphor for good behavior in this life leading to rewards in... this life...

There is no proof that heaven or hell or angels and demons actually exist, and different cultures have wildly different ideas about these sorts of things...

You had me at don't steal...

I am with you at don't kill...

"Be prepared to accept death at any moment because Janna is the goal", to me, sounds delusional, and you've completely lost me...

I doubt you have the same understanding of oppression I have. We are not driven by the same motives. I want to serve Allah, attain Jannah and receive Allah's forgiveness for my sins.

We are simply not driven by the same considerations- totally different worlds. I might use periods at the end of my sentences and you might do the same and we both might have two legs and two arms but we are very different and we are not driven by the same values and presuppositions. — Ram

You don't want to be happy? You don't want to go on living? You don't want to be free from oppression?

How pernicious must a set of beliefs be to get you to embrace death and apocalypse over admitting that there is value in this life beyond being a test for an imaginary next life?

I've found incredible rhetorical and persuasive success by appealing to NUMVs (nearly universal moral values). To continue living, to be free from oppression, to be free to pursue happiness, etc... Moral agreements between agents with shared moral values are objectively true in the same sense that a good strategy is objectively likely to lead to victory.

It varies. It can involve a quiet disagreement. It can involve arrows, swords, bullets, etc.

Same as when people have beliefs regarding anything — Ram

No, not exactly. When two people disagree about pumpkin-spice lattes, it's highly unlikely that it will ever come to arrows. When the most grandiose imaginable purpose/ends are at stake, people seem much more willing to kill for them.

This is tragic and I think you know it on some level. You need God. Life needs to have meaning.

Feelings (empathy in this example) and desire can't give life meaning. We need our Creator. Humans can disagree on their theological beliefs and it can get ugly but we nevertheless must seek connection with God. — Ram

What about the desire to live and to be happy among other happy humans is tragic?

Compared to your desire to go to heaven and be eternally happy perhaps?

What if you're wrong about the existence of heaven and the nature or existence of god?

You say Reason can't dictate ends. You say God can't either. Of course, this is false. God can most certainly send Prophets (PBUH) with commandments on stone tablets coming down mountain-tops. — Ram

What happens when two people both claim to have the word of god but disagree about what god's word actually is?

If Reason cannot dictate ends- what dictates ends according to you? — Ram

Well I deeply desire to go on living (but not at any cost). I have a great deal of empathy for my friends and family, and even strangers who I will never meet. I want the world to be a place filled with life and happiness as opposed to death and suffering, and so my actions in life are oriented around enjoying it, and helping others to enjoy it too.

I don't need to refine the OP — Ram

I said refine the question.

What is the role traditionally played by god?

I don't particularly admire Socrates, I think he probably had it coming — Ram

O.K... That seems a bit harsh...

People lose their faith and seek to fill a void. Thus philosophy. — Ram

Philosophy is more than just filling our many and differently shaped god-holes....

I could make a parodic post just like this one that insults theists, shows videos of theists saying inconsistent things with gotchya type arguments (and then cuts them off), and make assertions like "theistic morality is ALL subjective because it is simply made up from scratch, which is why different religions believe in different "objective" moralities".

How would you respond?

You would probably argue that your own religion is the objectively true religion, that there is plenty of "evidence" supporting it, and that anyone who insults your personal worldview is just biased hater who doesn't actually understand it.

If you would actually like to have an argument about moral foundations, I would be quite interested.

To begin, try and submit a single universally true and objective moral claim, and then I'll actually have something to attack.

If you would like something to actually attack, then I submit that the foundation for objective morality is shared values. When two individuals share common goals and values (or have goals which do not interfere with each other), then they can come to objectively beneficial moral agreements that preserve and promote those values. The desire to go on living is a nearly universally shared value among humans, and is one of the most important points of negotiation in our moral agreements. The desire to be free from oppression, and the freedom to pursue happiness are two other nearly universally shared human values, and like it or not, this is where morality ought to come from.

-You don't believe in God — Ram

Correct.

You believe in some form of socialistic type politics — Ram

What does it mean to "believe in X politics"? Do I think that pure socialism is the best economic strategy? No. Do I think that laissez faire capitalism is the best? No. I think both free market and central planning strategies have their pros and cons, and each of them has a place in various aspects of our society (eg: public education needs central planning, public healthcare could use central planning, higher education needs a free market (for competitive funding/research), medicinal research also needs a free market. We need competition between telecommunications companies where it drives down prices, but we need anti-trust regulation where they acquire monopolies)...

I'm neither capitalist nor a socialist; environment and circumstance can make either strategy more plausibly efficient than the other and there are many complex areas of society in which different approaches are warranted.

You believe the role which has traditionally been played by God should be played by Reason — Ram

What role is that?

Telling people what to do? Justifying the things people do?

Reason can show people how to get what they want, but it cannot originate the want (neither could god though)... You will have to refine the question...

Reason alone cannot found an ethical framework (at some point we need to invoke emotional preference and desire) and pure socialism is a 20 year old's delusion.

If you find it disappointing that many philosophers don't believe in god, why?

Maybe something about exploring philosophy tends to leave religious commitment less intact?

Why are governments putting billions of dollars into AI, Biotech and other technologies that will have a profound impact on societies and people... without it having been the subject of any major public debate?

You'd think there would be debate about something that impactfull, if democracy was on a high. — ChatteringMonkey

There is endless debate on these subjects, it's just too highfalutin for channel 6 public discourse. If and when reliable consensus emerges, or the preponderance of evidence comes in, we can then boil down new such technologies into "good" and "bad" camps. Wealth redistribution made necessary as the result of runaway AI efficiency and wealth production is a complex subject that is being rigorously explored, and biotech isn't a direct threat to the public until a government like China decides to somehow force genetic engineering upon its people.

There is more debate today than ever before and there is more to debate about. We're not all of a single mind about what should even be debated, but that's democracy for you...

I notice the Ouroboros sign as your avatar. The question is, is religion about connecting to something bigger than yourself and finding answers there or is it all a sham? — MountainDwarf

It's somewhere in between finding answers and sham.

Religion can give people personal reasons to go on living, and in it they can find community that can help them enjoy life. They're almost certainly not going to actually connect with some ultimate creator deity who will impart anything useful, but sometimes, for some people, the illusion of that is a worthwhile placebo.

I do not consider myself one of those people...

My fascination with the ouroboros began when I encountered it as the name of an informal fallacy ("a self defeating argument") and used it as a description for ideologies and worldviews which lead to the subversion of their own founding premises (notably, the brand of intersectional feminism which ultimately advocates for racist/sexist practices, thereby promoting the thing it set out to destroy). I have come to think of it as the ultimate fallacy of self-contradiction and circularity. Also it looks pretty cool...

I chose it as my avatar because it's an intriguing reminder of all things fallacious, but also because it has other interesting symbolism. If it was an unambiguously religious symbol, I would not have chosen it. If I recall correctly it mainly is a representation of creation and destruction, of cycles, of eternity, and of unity (depending on the specific cultural/religious conception/representation).

Well if it's not the consensus, then I believe the group that believes Agrarian workers were worse of, because their arguments seem better to me. Agrarian workers had to work long days, in ways their body was not really suited for, had a one-sided diet, and the larger groups that resulted from the revolution entailed more hierarchical structures and a ruling class living of the work of others etc...

Objective measures, like lifespan... don't tell a whole lot about quality of life. Quantity is not quality.

Anyway, you can obviously respond to this if you want, but i'm not really interested in going into this right now, because it's only an example to show that more prosperity overall doesn't necessarily entail more quality of life for the majority. If you want to make the case that this allways is necessarily so, then that seems to be a hard argument to make. The answer, it seems to me, is that we can't know for sure. — ChatteringMonkey

I'd rather not get into it, especially given I recently completed participation in a thread where I must have written around twenty thousand words on this subject.

Suffice it to say that hunter-gatherers had such high infant morality rates that they often don't consider babies to be "people" or give them names until they actually start displaying human features like smiling and laughter (because the risk of death early on is extremely high). about 50% of hunter-gatherers live past age 15. "Better off" indeed?

Really... and the times we came close doesn't give you pauze? All that is needed is things getting out of hand one time. — ChatteringMonkey

Nah...Niether America nor Russia is going to launch all of their nukes; they aren't that stupid. Worst case scenario a bunch of cities get nuked in the northern hemisphere, but life will go on...

As for AI, I'm not so much concerned that they will end up 'terminating' us, it's the effects on society that might not be so positive. If large parts of the population become useless for the economy because of automation and AI, that would create problems that needs new kinds of solutions. And I don't have that much faith in the whole economic and political system, if I look at how things are going now. — ChatteringMonkey

So you would destroy the AI so that less intelligent humans can do worse jobs but feel useful?

We can just find other shit to do I reckon...

Things are going pretty well right now, all things considered...

My point is this really, I'm certainly not against economic growth, innovation and new technology in principle... but I also don't think we should just have blind faith that it will necessarily make things better. And as it stand now, we just seem to be dragged into it without much deliberation, whether we like it or not, and for better or for worse. — ChatteringMonkey

But it's been for the better; we're reducing poverty, increasing literacy, longevity; tyranny is at a low; democracy is at a high; the air is thick with equality.

We still have a way to go, the world is not perfect, and there will always be something to object to, but just imagine actually going backward.

Rewinding the clock means more nukes (at least until the height of the cold war) because we've been deproliferating. It means less rights for women and minorities, more violence, higher crime rates, more wars, more deadly wars, shorter lifespans, more illiteracy, famine; disease; death; destruction; oppression; and a generous and thick layer of complete scientific ignorance.

You really think regressing to a world of toil and death, governed by spirits and superstition, where the weak die and the strong survive, wouldn't make things "worse"?

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but I think that we are so consistently well pampered by modernity that we basically take every benefit we have for granted while overreacting to every burden. Not dying young and keeping all your children alive are pretty damn beneficial. We don't yet have a four hour work week but we also have a hell of a lot more than what four hours in the jungle will net you...

If enough sufficiently predictive science had accumulated 2000 years ago, we might have already done away with the notion of free will. Determinism could remain as a possibility (it's not an either or dilemma) but it might be riddled with quantum caveats, such as epistemic limitations based around our ability to measure systems and our ability to calculate/simulate outcomes, or inherent indeterminacy among specific attributes of some quantum particles...

Christianity can eventually get there though. In fact I think that Jesus' message of infinite forgiveness is best supported by the tentative assumption of determinism in the first place (when every action everyone does is determined by physical causes instead of some ethereal and inherently blameworthy component of their being, it makes no sense to hold individuals ultimately morally accountable for their actions). It is very easy to forgive someone when you recognize the external and uncontrollable causes which contributed to their behavior (note: forgiveness is different from pretending no crime was ever committed; we can forgive transgressors but we still need a justice and rehabilitation system for our own protection), and while we must still hold individuals accountable for their own actions to some degree for pragmatic reasons, the idea that bad people deserve to suffer becomes incoherent. It clearly delineates revenge as immoral, and permits the moral forgiveness of anyone for any reason (though it does not permit absolution from pragmatic reprisal). Rehabilitation becomes the only sensical approach to punishment where affordable, and all other moral intuitions remain unaffected by the presumption of determinism.

The idea of free will as a component of the soul is why Christians have such a hard time learning to stop worrying and love determinism, but with some slight finagling it can be made compatible (god has a pre-determined plan/works through determinism, and your soul can be influenced by external causes, and therefore can be forgiven for its moral faults). Then, we just have to say "hell" was a bluff all along, and that god only threatened us with hell because he is a wise king of kings, or whatever, knowing that it was exactly what we needed to find our way.

So long as people think this life is somehow a test of moral character, the free-will concept is required to underpin it.

So long as science continues to yield its fiendishly (almost satanic) high level of reliability and utility in describing causal relationships, determinism to some degree will be a necessary consideration.