All unfalsifiable claims have the same amount of evidence - none. Therefore, they should all be given the same amount of weight - none. — Harry Hindu

This is human logic. Please prove that human logic is qualified to address any subject of any scale anywhere in all of reality, because that is the scope of God claims.

You're making an unwarranted leap from 1) the fact that human reason has proven itself very useful for very many things at human scale, to 2) the unexamined assumption that therefore human reason is qualified to examine any question, no matter how large the scale.

Theists often do the same thing. They will make an unwarranted leap from 1) the fact that holy books have provided comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, to 2) the unexamined assumption that therefore holy books are qualified to examine any question, no matter how large the scale.

It's the same process in both cases. A leap from a well established fact, to wild speculation.

How you experience this observation should tell you whether you are a person of reason or an ideologist.

If you are a person of reason you will realize that you have nothing to build atheism upon, and nothing to build theism on, and you will become a man without a country, so to speak.

If you are an ideologist you will reject all this with a wave of the hand and go back to chanting positions you've already chained your ego to. In this case, you will find yourself competing with theist ideologists who mastered the ideology dance thousands of years before you were born.

I haven't claimed there is a God either, so why is it my responsibility to prove anything if it isn't also your responsibility? — Harry Hindu

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't you been spewing sarcastic scorn upon anything theist in every other post you've added to the forum? It seems you're making a huge claim. It seems you can't prove any of it.

Sorry, no personal disrespect intended, but you know, reason, like faith, can be very inconvenient.

A military man with a blue collar background and liberal ideas and they're all set. — Benkei

Hey, General Mattis just bailed out of the Trump administration, leaving the Sec Of Def job. NPR has been doing some stories on him as a result and first impression he sounds like a reasonable guy. Maybe him?

What is a virtual realm? — Athena

Sorry, I just mean interaction with software and robots, ie. human simulations. Here's a quick example.

https://www.cleverbot.com/

Stop fooling around feeding those stupid homeless people and bring me a latte bitch, and I mean RIGHT NOW!

YAP, YAP, YAP!

I want to talk to the manager, and you can forget about a tip.

YAP, YAP, YAP!

He barked, while driving so close to her bumper she could feel his spoiled brat breath on the back of her neck.

:grin:

You can claim I am interested in positioning myself as superior, but that's your wrongful assumption. — chatterbears

A way to counter my wrongful assumption would be to prove that wagging our fingers in people's faces and accusing them of moral crimes is the most effective way to convert them to vegetarianism. My complaint is only that I don't see that as a very effective tactic.

Everyday experience leads me to believe nature is logical. — Devans99

Everyday experience tends to revolve around human beings. Human beings have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever pending suicide event we rarely find interesting enough to discuss. Are human beings logical? This is who you are analyzing a realm so vast as to be beyond our comprehension with, suicidal cave men.

https://www.beyondmeat.com/

We believe there is a better way to feed the planet. Our mission is to create The Future of Protein® — delicious plant-based burgers, sausage, crumbles, strips, and more — made directly from plants. By shifting from animal, to plant-based meat, we can positively and significantly impact 4 growing issues attributed to livestock production and consumption: human health, climate change, natural resource depletion, and animal welfare.

I am SHOCKED that members aren't rushing forward to declare themselves spoiled yuppy brats. Who knew this could happen???

We have no everyday experience of things being uncaused. — Devans99

But, um, the ENORMOUS realm you are investigating has very close to nothing to do with everyday human experience.

I'm interested in tactical arguments, you're interested in moral arguments. I'm interested in what might actually cause a person to stop killing animals. You're interested in positioning yourself as superior. We have different agendas.

Feel free to pursue your agenda, they're your posts to do with as you wish.

Caring about animals doesn't mean I need to supply meat eaters with a replacement product that will mimic animal flesh. — chatterbears

You don't have to, agreed. But not being interested in a solution that would actually work illustrates that it's moralistic finger pointing that interests you, not animals.

I already know that fake meat products aren't appealing meat eaters, and my point in my last reply to you, was that it should not matter if we supply them with a "just as tasty" alternative. — chatterbears

Yes, you prefer to scold them, and position yourself as superior. My only complaint with this is that it doesn't really work that well, and tends to generate as much resistance as it does support.

Why would you conclude that I am not interested in animals? By that logic, you should say I am not interested in humans as well, correct? I am interested in how we treat our species, as well as other species on this planet. Ethics involves how you interact with the world and the things around you. — chatterbears

Yes, you're very interested in ethics, I grant that without reservation.

But, for instance, you're not very interested in factory meat, a technical solution which would end the harm to animals if it can be implemented at scale. Perhaps you're not interested in such solutions because they would also end the ethical debate?

Like I said, I disagree with the assumption that human reason is relevant to the question. It may be so, or perhaps not. I'm not willing to assume it is relevant as a matter of faith.

I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. — Devans99

In order for "not a logical concept" being a useful observation we'd first have to establish that human logic is relevant to whatever is being investigated.

In very many cases this is easy to do, because we have a vast pile of data to rely on. As example, we've built millions of bridges using human logic, so we can confidently state that declaring something a "not logical concept" in that arena would be a meaningful and useful analysis.

In some other cases, particularly those of vast scale, we can't just assume that human logic is at all relevant.

On philosophy forums so very many conversations are built upon the unchallenged assumption that human logic is relevant to the question being discussed, and then the logic dancing game is played out as if that had already been proven to be true. As Rank might say, that's just faith posing as reason.

The distinction I make is between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions. — karl stone

If we were to give a 10 year old access to ever more power without limit catastrophe would inevitably be the result sooner or later.

Same for a 15 year old.

Same for a 20 year old.

Same for a 30 year old.

Same for a 40 year old.

Same for a 50 year old.

Same for a 60 year old.

Are you starting to get where this is going, or should I spell it out a little bit more?

I don't have to prove anything. — Harry Hindu

Ah, I see, we're supposed to believe in the qualifications of your chosen authority on faith. Like you do. Hmm, that sure sounds familiar...

It is your responsibility to prove that God exists in the first place — Harry Hindu

I haven't claimed there is a God. Thus, I take no responsibility to prove any of that.

No, it's pathetic!

But yelling that was kind of cathartic, so thanks.

See? I told you. There it is!

I write utterly fascinating deeply penetrating philosophical posts about the most important subjects. This is my latest work, which will very soon be published on a leading group philosophy, um, journal kinda thingy.

My sense is that our current understanding of time is still quite primitive.

As example, I was recently surprised to learn that time moves at different speeds. True, proven scientific fact, not a theory. The rate at which time unfolds depends on the observers relation to large mass bodies such as planets. So for example, time moves at one speed at sea level, and another speed at the top of a mountain. In fact, this time speed difference has to be programmed in to GPS satellites or they would generate faulty location data.

The time flow difference between say, the top of a mountain and sea level, is measured in billionths of a second so it's not an issue at human scale.

It seems to me the whole cause and effect prime mover issue depends upon our understanding of time, which probably isn't ready for the job just yet.

Hi there Tiff,

To start with I must confess I do not believe in "luck". I will admit that good fortune (in all it's forms not just money) may be involved but it was not just a matter of chance that your parents provided the life that they did for you. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, they made choices, agreed. But it was luck for me. I had nothing to do with where I was born. I could have been born to Charles Manson and one of his murderous groupies.

And it is not simply by chance that you have made it to where you are in life, you have actively made decisions to get to where you are. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Partly true, agreed. I've made both good and bad decisions, and reaped the reward and paid the price. But some events were obviously beyond my control. As example, the Net just happened to open up to the public at the time I was most ready to take advantage of it. I took advantage, a choice, not luck. But the arrival of a history opportunity was totally luck.

n sharing time, being with others less fortunate than ourselves, we often walk away with a deeper appreciation for what we have been blessed with to have in our lives. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This is very wise advice. I have walked this walk at times. But being one of the plethora of idiots, not often enough.

And please remember that I am a spoiled yuppy brat and that Federal law requires me to whine constantly about the smallest of things, so it appears I just don't have the time for anything else. Oh dear, what bad luck! :smile:

A military man with a blue collar background and liberal ideas and they're all set. — Benkei

Yea, that could definitely work, excellent point. Let's hope they can find someone like that.

What inspired this post was a story on NPR about the battle for Mosul, and all the related horrors. So much of humanity spends their entire lives in such hell holes, and I know that because I listen to hours of NPR every day, and have been a news junkie for 50 years. And yet...

I STILL don't get how lucky I am.

I should write a song about this. What are a bunch of words which rhyme with "pathetic"?

I'm just wondering about other's thoughts on The Man in the High Castle. I think I will watch it. — Wallows

We watched the first few episodes. Not bad, not that good, in our experience. However we are considering giving it another chance given that it now has three seasons, and plugging in to a series means you don't have to figure out what to watch every night.

Unless this is a lesson in how not to write an OP, please expand. — Baden

He he, ok this post made the thread worth it. :smile:

I feel that way too. A lot of people do. But that may not be enough. How people feel is less the issue than who shows up to vote.

Here's an example of my concern. I'm not sure the Democratic Party really gets what a bad candidate Elizabeth Warren would be. I probably agree with many or most of her positions. But she projects this snotty, superior dance, moralizing, finger pointing style that is going to turn off masses of people, whatever their views.

Here's a better example. I loved Bernie Sanders. But he immediately turned off my wife, who may be even more liberal than me. The angry old white man always waving his finger at the audience. Good guy, bad candidate. Same for Hillary.

Yes, any of them would be better than Trump. But what the last election proved is it takes more than that to beat Trump.

Ronald Reagan was an example of a great candidate. I don't mean his positions, but his public image. You liked the guy, even if you disagreed with him. Reagan had the two important qualities of a winning candidate...

1) Big ideas
2) Charming personality

If the Dems can't find someone like that to run, we may be in big trouble.

How an educated electorate has allowed a Trump to happen continues to be a mystery to me. — Rank Amateur

By the laws of random chance wacky things are going to happen from time to time. The moment of decision will come in the next election. If he is elected again, then it's totally on us, and our reputation in the world will be permanently damaged.

I blame the Dems for Trump's victory as much as anything else. — LD Saunders

Yes, that's my worry for 2020. I'm not sure the Dems are up to the job of presenting a compelling alternative to Trump.

There was a time many years ago when I didn't like life and I contemplated suicide a lot. I couldn't kill myself and leave people to hurt, so I had to kill them too, and then I had to kill all the people who would hurt if I killed those people. — Athena

We all have wacky ideas like this sometimes. In a virtual realm we could play these inclinations out and learn from them, without any real people being hurt. The virtual realm will help us explore our social relationships in a manner not possible in the real world.

If science cannot verify the existence of X, then the best evidence tells us that X does not exist. — vulcanlogician

If science cannot verify the existence of X, then the best evidence tells us that science is not currently qualified to speak to the existence or non-existence of X.

The microscopic realm, the atomic realm, the quantum realm, the cosmos beyond the Milky Way...

The history of science is filled with real things which science had no evidence of.

As best I can tell it works like this. Some scientists consider themselves not just experts at science, but experts at thinking. From that stance it's only one more step to thinking of oneself as an expert at everything.

You're kind of almost agreeing with the "experts at everything" idea by being shocked a scientist might say something stupid.

But scientists are just people, no less vulnerable to saying something stupid than car mechanics, plumbers, taxi drivers etc.

These people live and die their public lives by the attention lavished upon them by the public. Deprive it of them, and so deprive that life. — StreetlightX

Yes, Christopher Hitchens comes to mind here. What he was expert at was being an intellectual entertainer. He really was good at playing the same game we play here but on a larger stage. What position he might take on some particular issue wasn't really the point, but rather how well he engaged people in a debate.

Doesn't matter. If I created an artificial vagina that men could buy to deter them from raping women, would you accept their reasoning if they told you, "But this artificial vagina doesn't feel like the real thing. Therefore, I will go back to raping women." — chatterbears

This is silly. But I understand your focus better now. You're not really interested in animals, but in ethics. Which your thread title does disclose, so the confusion was mine.

If you were interested in animals you'd get that fake meat products which aren't appealing to meat eaters are not advancing the cause of animal rights.

One thing that comes to mind is that I would find Jibo more interesting when I was stoned. Thus I'm wondering if chemical enhancers will be part of what helps us accept the fantasy being presented by social robots.

I am not even asking for proof ( whatever that is for such a concept ) — Rank Amateur

Good point!

just asking if someone can make a reasonable argument that we humans have a basis for saying anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God. — Rank Amateur

Yes, there is such a basis. Our need to know, or failing that, pretend we know.

Whether we can say anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God is obviously true, because we say such things all the time. Whether we can say anything meaningful and credible is another story.

However, by asking the questions and trying to provide answers we can learn more about ourselves and our relationship with this place we find ourselves in. If we can learn enough, and successfully address that relationship, the question of God may resolve itself without being answered.

Meet Jibo...

Will robots perhaps help us better understand what it is we really want from each other? It seems we rarely really know what it is that we really want given that we live in a social realm dominated by limitations, negotiation and compromise. The equation seems more a case of "what can I get" than "what do I really want".

Also, there is the issue of vulnerability. Most of the time we are ruled by our relationship with the judgments of the group consensus. We tend to tailor the image we present to meet the acceptable criteria handed down by the group. What if there were no group, no group consensus, no rules of the road, no moral judgments, no expectations to fulfill, no vulnerability, and nothing to rebel against. Who would we be then?

We really have no idea, because we so rarely face such a situation. But, the robots are coming to teach us. :smile:

The way I see it, robots will provide a middle ground compromise between becoming a hermit, or subjecting oneself to social torture. :smile: Ok, yes, robots will be only the illusion of connecting with other humans, but then the connections we currently do face to face are mostly illusion based anyway.

I send my public relations image out to exchange data with your public relations image. It rarely gets beyond that.

Now see, if you were a robot, I'd adjust the slider from "the way too philosophical" setting towards the "down to earth" setting.

Like it or not, you're here. We're all here. We've apparently decided not to leave just yet. So, one way or another, we face the contradictions in dealing with other people and have to deal with that somehow.

What is illogical is no change causing change. — Harry Hindu

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you.

GODS: Proposals about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

LOGIC: The poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

You seem to insist that we accept the infinite ability of human reason as a matter of faith as you do. Sorry, this is a philosophy forum, so, you're outta luck.

Please note that this is the exact same challenge which you reasonably apply to holy books, prove the qualifications of your chosen authority. You have a good methodology, but you aren't loyal to it, applying only to the other guy's chosen authority.

PS: How many times do I have to type this?

Another angle may be that the frustrations we experience with other people may be really just a reflection of our own inner disturbance.

Imagine that you are a great sage who is totally at peace. I come along and say and do a bunch of annoying stuff. You aren't frustrated, because you need nothing from me, and see my annoying behavior accurately as being my situation and not yours.

We find people frustrating when we need something from them and don't get it. Thus, one solution would be to understand and meet our own needs independent of what anybody else is doing.

Ok, so this is hardly as easy as it sounds. What might be easier is to see our frustration with other people, or anything going on between our ears, as being our own situation and not the fault of somebody else. That is, take responsibility for our own emotional experience.

Ok,, so this isn't as easy as it sounds easier. And the truth is that most of us most of the time just don't want to do any of that. Which is why the robots are coming. :smile: