Do you think the same is true in reverse? Are you able to grasp Trump's accomplishments? — AmadeusD

Let me first clarify what I meant. I think intelligent Trump supporters could potentially grasp that certain things that Biden's done would be considered positive accomplishments by Biden supporters (or by liberals). That doesn't mean these Trump supporters would agree these are positive accomplishments.

And indeed, in reverse,I have some understanding of Trump deeds that would please Trump supporters. First and foremost: his judicial appointments -particularly SCOTUS, which resulted in the Dodd decision.

It's a very different question regarding what I regard as a positive accomplishment of Trump's, or Trump supporter's view of Biden's. But I'll bite on Trump: 1.USMCA improved upon NAFTA. 2. He forced the exit from Afghanistan. That's all that comes to mind, but there could be more, but the damage he did is (IMO) overwhelming.

1. The first half is relevant to the below - the latter half is my saying I don't think either your position, or theirs, is accurate to the actual state of affairs — AmadeusD

Still not clear, but I'd like to understand what you believe I'm getting wrong.

2. I was making fun of Trump's supporters - I do not think they would comprehend what's at hand

I'm an optimist. I like to think that there are some Trump supporters who could grasp why some would be pleased with Biden's accomplishments- even though they disagree.

Good information. Thanks for the article.

I do not think they would comprehend these things, and I also rest on the fact that both your position on theirs is probably not accurate. — AmadeusD

It was, in fact, the indictment you seem to be avoiding, of his followers ;) — AmadeusD

Please clarify both these statements. I have no idea what you're saying.

Technically true, but an indictment for his mishandling of national security documents was highly likely before he announced.

August 22, 2022 - Mar-a-Lago search warrant executed
November 15, 2022 - announced candidacy.

My understanding is that delegates are committed by the time the convention rolls around. I guess they could vote to change that rule, but I doubt they would - since (by and large) they believe Trump has been treated unfairly.

I think he's doing a quite exceptional job. — Wayfarer

And in this, consists a claim that is entirely incomprehensible to anyone who disagrees. — AmadeusD

It's true that everyone who thinks Biden's done a bad job is not likely to comprehend why anyone would think he did a good job. However, it's certainly comprehensible to anyone who examines the record.

Personally, I consider Trump the worst President in history, but I can comprehend the things his supporters find appealing.

Although there's a chance he'll be tried this year, there's very little chance the appeals will be completed. So I looked up the law on incarceration for Federal Crimes when there is an appeal pending. It appears to me that he'd be incarcerated after a guilty verdict is reached, as long as the prosecution actually seeks incarceration. So he could potentially take the oath of office from prison, and then his first official act would be to pardon himself. Still, it remains to be seen when any of the trials will actually start.

This appears to be the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3143 :

... the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds—
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in—
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.
If the judicial officer makes such findings, such judicial officer shall order the release of the person in accordance with section 3142(b) or (c) of this title, except that in the circumstance described in subparagraph (B)(iv) of this paragraph, the judicial officer shall order the detention terminated at the expiration of the likely reduced sentence.

Then it seems you have some level of trust in the system.

From an external perspective, yes, but I don't see how this solves the problem that if it is possible for an uncaused event to "create" time, then such events should be multiply realizable — Count Timothy von Icarus

An initial state isn't an event, because an event is something caused by a prior state of affairs.

I'll add more theory, to give us a scenario to discuss. From a perspective external to the universe, there is no elapse of time. Sounds weird, but this is consistent with the Page-Wooters mechanism. These physicists theorized that the elapse of time is a consequence of quantum entanglement experienced within a quantum system, but to external observers there is no elapse of time. This has actually been experimentally verified to a degree. The universe (internally) evolves strictly in accordance with a Schroedinger equation, so there's no basis for claiming thngs should be expected to pop into existence uncaused.

Re: multiple realizability: The initial state could possibly produce multiple causally isolated universes, each of which has time elapse internally, but from the perspective of Universe A, Universe B is inert - and vice versa. (Actually, causal isolation implies other universes are undetectable, so this is fudging a bit).

No. It is a very real possibility, consistent with some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Some cosmologists have proposed models based on this.

Under such models, nothing "begins to exist" in a sense that implies popping into existence, because there is no earlier state of affairs into which something pops. Rather, it entails an initiation of change, which "creates" time - as a relation between states of affairs.

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not comparable. An initial state did not "begin to exist" within a state of affairs in which it previously did not exist. An initial state simply implies there is no prior state of affairs.

Fair point, there is potential for federal crimes, in addition to state crimes. However, DOJ investigated the allegations Trump made and informed him they found no crimes. Neither had state officials. Any beliefs Trump may have had were based on internet rumors. If Trump was going to play the role of investigator, as you imply, he needed to apply the same standards as police or FBI: predication was needed. Internet rumors do not suffice.

Your defense of Trump depends on assuming he's irrational and incompetent, neither of which get him off the hook for crimes, and both of which demonstate unfitness for office.

Given that he was the victim of the biggest scam in American history, the Russia hoax, — NOS4A2

As you know, the only hoax was the one perpetrated by Trump. It is appropriate to investigate crimes, and crimes were committed, including crimes by Trump during the investigation. Barr blocked charging Trump with those crimes, but they were well documented by Mueller.

Meta-laws are an unnecessary complication. It suffices to say that naturalism entails the fact that natural law accounts for all events in the world. Our knowledge of natural laws is incomplete, and often only approximation, but we don't need another layer of laws to account for this.

Naturalism is a metaphysical theory, and many of us embrace it, because it seems the simplest account of reality. Clearly, the natural world exists, and it's not at all clear that anything unnatural exists.

If naturalism is true, then miracles are impossible. If a true miracle were found, this would falsify naturalism. But how could one ever establish that one occurred? Refer to Hume.

I am openly not straight and being insulted for it doesn’t bother me because I’m not ashamed. — AmadeusD

I'm 70 years old, and retired. During my working career, I worked for a time with a guy who would fondly reminesce about his high school days, when he and his buddies would "beat up qu__rs for fun". He also referred to certain co-workers this way- always in private.

Words represent concepts. His concept of "qu__rs" was not the same concept gays have. His concept entailed perversion, disgust, and inferiority- so that it was right to treat them this way. I was disgusted by this man, and can't help but associating the Q word with this attitude. When a gay person uses the word, they aren't implying the same concept.

Similarly, when African-Americans speak the N word to each other, they do not have the same concept behind it as do white supremicists.

I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. — AmadeusD

I disputed this over many posts. Finally, I got it across to you:

Then you're not a deist. — AmadeusD

Relativist: "[Belief that a nonpersonal, non-interactive creator exists is consistent with deism as typically defined. I do not believe this, so I do not call myself a deist] And yet, you apply that label to me."

Im done. I've been over this three times now and you've outright ignored it to ascribe to me a claim which i have not made — AmadeusD

Yes, you did. See the bolded statement, above.

And of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. That’s entirely within his purview because he is expected to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” — NOS4A2

Still embracing those fraud myths, I see.

No, it wan't in the President's official purview, because elections are managed at the State level. He had a personal interest, and would naturally be interested, but he had no legal role in the process of vote tabulation and certification at the State level. He had the right to litigate. He did, and he lost. Then he tried to illegally pressure Georgia officials, who had faithfully executed Georgia election law.

You and I discussed the call before, and you seemed to think the State had some obligation to prove to Trump that the vote was correct. They had no such obligation. When I pointed this out, you stopped responding. As usual.

My main point is that it's more impartial that a bunch of Senators. Their tendency is to vote with their party. No one is struck from the jury matter how blatant their bias. That's why they are not appropriate gatekeepers to criminal prosecution. It makes it border a reverse bill of attainder.

In a criminal case, both sides will actively attempt to choose jurors they deem favourable, or exclude jurors the deem unfavourable during voir dire. — AmadeusD

These attempts consist of strikes, so they aren't selecting favorable jurors, they are only eliminating unfavorable ones. This process of competing interests leads to a set of jurors less likely to favor either side.

Judges also identify reasons to eliminate jurors for reasons associated with partiality or prejudice. It's their duty to protect a defendant's 6th amendment rights. Convictions have been overturned on appeal when prejudice by jurors has been identified.

I don't think it is much possible to warrant a belief in non-existence, unless logically impossible. — AmadeusD

Out of all the things that could possibly exist, very few actually exist. So something that is merely possible, has a low probability of existing. That's sufficient reason to conclude that a mere possibility doesn't exist: you'll rarely be wrong.

we have no idea whether the aliens have cryo-stasis technology to overcome time constraints - so if we're entertaining that they exist I don't see why we would believe rather than posit, that they haven't visited Earth. Its logically possible, and we have no reason to entirely discount it. — AmadeusD

You only increase the viable distance, you don't make it infinite. And greater distances means more alternative destinations, making it less probable we'd be the target. I don't want to debate the plausibility of aliens here. My point is simply that my belief that aliens have not come here is warranted by my belief that it's extremely improbable - so improbable that it's not worth considering.

[The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero.]
They are not zero. It is logically possible. — AmadeusD

It's zero. There are no rocks on the moon with the molecular structure of a cabbage. If there were, it would be a cabbage, not a rock. You could loosen the exactness of the required likeness and match any probability you like. So instead, let's consider Russell's teapot: we're warranted in believing there is no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and Mars, even though it's logically possible, but grossly improbable.

As it is, I have merely no good reason to doubt. But i could not justifiably believe it, as i've never done anything by way of investigation on that. — AmadeusD

I simply suggest that if you have no reason to doubt she's human, then you actually DON'T doubt she's human and ergo you believe she's not an alien. We all believe lots of things, even though it's logically possible we're wrong. Believing x does not entail believing ~x is logically impossible. It just means we feel we have sufficient justification.

I do not [accept that there can be non-evidential warrant] — AmadeusD

Then your belief in ~ solipsism seems unwarranted. But regardless, we've identified another difference of opinion regarding warrant, and these differerences of opinion are far more relevant than semantics.

That you're using a word wrong, making your label incoherent. It's like saying "A glass table made of wood". — AmadeusD

That's your opinion, based on your own semantics, so it's irrelevant to me.

If you agree a Deist cannot claim God/s are unknowable
then that precludes the deist-entertaining from being agnostic, as it is incoherent to the deism concept. Not sure what's being missed here? — AmadeusD

Here's what you miss: If you agree a deist isn't agnostic, then you should agree I'm not a deist.

You say you're open to deism being true - which means you believe that God is discoverable.

No. I don't believe God is discoverable. You have a far too rigid view of semantics, and it's impeding you from understanding positions that don't fit neatly into your semantic framework.

Belief that a nonpersonal, non-interactive creator exists is consistent with deism as typically defined. I do not believe this, so I do not call myself a deist. And yet, you apply that label to me. So your definition of "deist" includes people who don't believe a nonpersonal, non-interactive creator exists. That seems to me a problematic semantics, but you are free to define terms however you like. But don't accuse of having a contradictory position simply because of the problematic defintions you've chosen.

Contunuing...I believe it's a live possibility such a being exists or existed (not merely logically possible). I believe this solely because it has some explanatory power (this is what makes it something more than logically possible), and I do not believe there's further evidence waiting to be discovered that has potential to change me position.

I contrast this "god of deism" with a "god of religion" - a personal and interactive God who reveals himself and provides us with an afterlife. I consider such a god to be merely logically possible. It has no explanatory power beyond what the god of deism provides, and it's considerably less parsimonious.

Seriously? You don't think efforts are made to select impartial juries?

I could get someone saying it's not always sucessful, but there's no question that the effort is made and the result is better than seating a jury that is knowingly biased.

I hope it passes because a salty prosecutor could indict the presidents he doesn’t like, — NOS4A2

But it's in the hands of a jury to convict. Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts. Senators can be expected to be biased, and as I said - their biases could permit crimes to be committed by the President that would never be judged by a jury.

...and it would render useless a check on the executive and judicial branch.

It does no such thing. The potential to hold a President criminally liable for his crimes has no effect on the power of impeachment.

Impeachment is far better measure because it leaves the power to convict and acquit their leaders in the hands of the representatives of the people, such as it is.

Being a representative of the people means there's an incentive to base one's impeachment (or removal) vote on the wishes of constituents, rather than on the facts of the case. That's not even consistent with the 6th Amendment.

without reason nothing changes about what's on the table. — AmadeusD

Agreed.

That's a reason to think it's unlikely, but you have no knowledge, and so a belief is unwarranted. — AmadeusD

This is a key point: what is needed to warrant belief in something's nonexistence?

It's not true that I have no knowledge to warrant my belief your wife is actually human, and not an alien. For example, I know:
-the speed of light provides a limit to how far aliens could travel
-our physical characteristics are a product of our evolutionary history, and therefore the chances aliens with human intelligence and appearance is vanishingly small.

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? There seems to be a black and white fallacy here - you're importing a belief into my wording where there isn't any. Confusing a bit. — AmadeusD

Did I misunderstand? I thought you actually believe your wife is human, warranted by your knowledge of her.

But no, I'm not saying everything is black and white. There's also gray area, but there need to be reasons to be in the gray area. Mere logical possibility is not enough. Do you disagree?

an exact cabbage shaped rock on the moon, corresponding with the one in my fridge? Come on... — AmadeusD

Of course not. I've been discussing this in terms of approximation. The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero.

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? — AmadeusD

Either she's a human or an alien. Your warrant for believing she's human is also warrant for believing she's not an alien.

Both logically possible though, so I simply give them no serious thought. I don't 'believe' anything about htem. — AmadeusD

OK, then my comments apply only to those of us who HAVE given serious consideration to these hypothetical existents. After such consideration, if they are left with mere logical possibility, then I think the appropriate belief is "doesn't exist". A key point I mentioned earlier is that beliefs aren't incorrigible. We should remain open to revising belief when we learn more. A corrollary: beliefs do not reflect certainty (certainty reflects incorrigibility).

If there is no observability/falsifiability in the concept (Theistic God) there is no truth to be lead to. — AmadeusD

You seem to be saying that one should deny the existence of a Theistic God if one believes there are no observables (=empirical evidence?) and if it's not falsifiable (through other empirical evidence?)

Apply this principle to solipsism. There's no evidence that entails it, or makes it likely or unlikely. Neither solipsism nor ~solipsism is falsifiable. Nevertheless, I feel it's warranted to believe ~solipsism (I've described this in another thread). This means I accept that there can be non-evidential warrant. I don't happen to see that there is such warrant for a theistic God, that's why I say I believe a theistic God does not exist. But maybe someday I'll be presented with a good reason I haven't heard of. If that occurs, I'll revise my belief.

This is because, as far as I'm concerned (and, I don't actually see this as an interpretation) you are misusing the word/s — AmadeusD

...per your preferred semantics. Notice that despite this, I've been able to describe my positions to you, and you are free to attach whatever label you like, consistent with those positions.

Your final sentence here is an answer to your first. Its entirely incoherent and seems to just absolutely ignore the linguistic inaccuracy and falseness, relative to your expounded position. If you believe in a theistic God, you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in the material, mind-independent world, you cannot be an idealist. If you entertain a deistic God, you cannot also be agnostic because the deistic God is discoverable. They are incompatible positions. — AmadeusD

You're arguing that the label "agnostic deist" is incoherent, but my impression is that it's only incoherent to someone who accepts your preferred semantics. I made up the term "agnostic deist", I didn't borrow it from someone else - and when I use the term, I explain what I mean. So what's the problem?

I am open to using different terminology to self-define, other than "agnostic deist", as long as it tells just as much about my position as does this one. I'm not open to using a different term merely to fit a semantics you've devised, particular your insistence that I call myself a "deist" despite the fact that I think it pretty unlikely that there is any kind of deity at all. That would mislead far more people than does "agnostic deist".

Look, your point is taken, but I see it as an attempt to maintain incongruent positions because you can use language that refers to things you are not entitled to refer yourself to, — AmadeusD

Why are you claiming I'm maintaining an "incongruent position"? What's incongruent about considering deism a live possibility, but unlikely? I get that you don't like the label I use, but that has no bearing on what my position is.

I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. — AmadeusD

It's not the definitions, it's that the definition precludes...
Did this come out the way you intended? It's contradictory.

But I agree that one cannot be both a deist and claim gods are unknowable*. But that's why it's inappropriate to call me a deist - so you erred in insisting I should have that label. My label more accurately conveys my position: I'm an "agnostic deist" meaning that I'm agnostic as to deism.

*We don't have common ground for identifying what constitutes knowledge. We would need this common ground in order to then consider what is, and isn't, knowable. I gave you a strict definition (justified, true, and no Gettier) - you thought it too strict, but we left it there.

They should be criminally prosecuted, and probably would if they were convicted of those crimes in the Senate. They should not be criminally prosecuted if they were acquitted. — NOS4A2

This is the position of Trump's attorney, but I'm pretty confident it will fail, but more importantly- I feel strongly that we should all hope it does fail.

We should hope it fails, because it would permit a President to commit any crime that a small number of Senators are willing to countenance.

The God-concept is too indeterminate in my mind to hold any clear convictions. — Dawnstorm

That's a good point, one that overlooked. It's another very good reason to withhold judgement.

A lot of atheists ask for evidence, but I have trouble with that. I'd need some operable definition to stand in for my intuition; but I feel like the concept is such that if you can define it clearly enough so that asking for evidence makes sense, it ceases to be God. The scope's too big for evidence. — Dawnstorm

What about a narrow definition, such as a being that intentionally created the universe, by choice?

There's no empirical evidence, but one might infer this as a viable explanatory hypothesis for the existence of a universe that permits the development and existence of intelligent life.

Prima facie, No. No i shouldn't. And prima facie, these above two quotes are contradictory. If i can be 'agnostic' to the rock, i can be agnostic to my wife's potential alienality. I have no evidence one way or the other. I cannot make any reasonable conclusion. I have no reasons.

However, I know my wife. I can observe and experiment to ascertain whether she has any inhuman properties in some way to deduce whether there's an alien element to her. I do not need to take either conclusion on faith without reason. — AmadeusD

By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien,

I simply have absolutely no intuition as to whether it exists, despite it being logically possible. So i abstain. Not seeing an issue here, other than a bully-ish determination to force me into a position I do not hold and have no reason to support. At least, in this case, it could be established. — AmadeusD

We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.

We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens.

something, the existence of which, could not be observed in that same way requires a different process to establish as 'extant' to my mind. — AmadeusD

But something more than logical possibility is needed, otherwise we're embracing extreme philosophical skepticism. It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. Similarly with unicorns and gods. Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth.
.

This is why your 'deism' cannot be agnostic. It admits of a discoverable God (but this goes to the wording issue I re-traverse below).

"Discoverable"? Not sure what you mean. I consider deism to be more than a logical possibility, but based on it having explanatory power for the problem of consciousness - so it's a simply a metaphysical hypothesis I can't rule out. Seems pretty similar to your inability to rule out a cabbage sized rock on the moon.

you're precluded from using 'agnostic' as it relates to God. — AmadeusD

I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess.

So this isn't an actual objection to my position - just a restating of the problem I had identified. I would prefer new words to discuss 'Deism' since the word 'Atheist' literally doesn't touch it - therefore, using Agnostic to refer to both deism and theism is really unhelpful. — AmadeusD

Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse.

X becomes logically impossible if we accept a theory in physics, — Bob Ross

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines physical possibility as:
p is physically possible iff p is consistent with the laws of nature.

Broadly accepted scientific laws (including laws of physics, chemistry, biology...) are typically accepted as proxies for laws of nature, and these are therefore used to assess whether something is physically possible. This helps us differentiate the different modalities of possibility. This basis is appropriate only for those who accept the terms - that there ARE laws of nature, and that science at least approximates them. If you're going to challenge that, then there's no common ground for labellng something physically (im)possible - so that modality is off the table for discussion.

X is not logically impossible even relative to P — Bob Ross

This is how one might discuss different theories of natural law. Under one theory, humans flying might be physically impossible, while under another theory -it's physically possible. But it seems pointless to even discuss physical modality in this sort of context.

I think you are conflating the logical impossibility of someone accepting X outside of the theory logically contradicting the theory (i.e., !{X ^ [P → !X] }) with the theory itself demonstrating the logical impossibility of positing X. — Bob Ross

No, I'm not conflating it - I just think the discussion context is what matters. There's often common ground about using known science to identify what is physically possible. Only then does it even make sense to discuss physical possibility. If there's not this common ground, then it's meaningless to reference physical possibility - it might only make sense to discuss what is entailed by one theory of laws vs another.

We could draw a distinction between things we believe to be true and things we don't believe to be true, but act as if it is true due to its productivity — Lionino

I think they're fooling themselves.

What would be an example of something that is metaphysically impossible but does not reference the axioms of the operating metaphysical system? — Lionino

Anything that is broadly logically impossible, such as the existence of square circles or married bachelors.

What other things should we believe in? — Lionino

Anything we can justifiably believe. We navigate the world based on beliefs we hold about the world that aren't strictly provable. It can't even be proven there's a world external to our minds.

Agreed, and I also think it's become fashionable to make the non-committal assertion, "I lack the belief in God's existence". It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven".

I don't even think that all propositions which are regarded as metaphysically impossible are reducible to an axiom in the metaphysical theory. — Bob Ross

I agree.

That X ^ M is logically impossible is not the same as X being logically impossible, which is what you need for this to work. — Bob Ross

Both work, but one needs to be clear what one means. Your approach is appropriate when comparing metaphysical systems, mine is appropriate when considering what is possible within a metaphysical system.

my argument is that as soon as we choose a metaphysical system, which will have its own semantic system (such as equating "all that exists" and "physical things"), the metaphysical impossibility collapses with logical impossibility. Giving us no way of finding something logically possible but metaphysically impossible. — Lionino

I agree.

let's say, in this particular physicalist theory, everything must be natural--so spiritual beings cannot exist because that is incoherent with, not logically contradictory to, these beliefs they have. — Bob Ross

This metaphysical system is incoherent because it entails a contradiction.

What's the problem with non-commitment to something you don't claim any knowledge of? I'm unsure whether there's a rock the exact size of the cabbage in my fridge on the Moon, so i abstain from any take. — AmadeusD

There's lots of rocks of varying sizes on the moon, so there's a decent chance there's a cabbage sized one - so it's a live possibility. You can't justifiably believe there is such a rock, and you can't justifiably believe there isn't.

But consider unicorns. It's correct to say I lack belief in their existence, but that statement alone doesn't fully convey my position. I see absolutely no reason to believe they exist, no basis even to think it's a live possibility. Therefore I believe they don't exist.

If there's no credible reason to believe something exists, we ought to conclude it doesn't exist. The belief isn't incorrigible- good evidence will result in revising the belief, but without that evidence we should believe it doesn't exist. I think most atheists actually believe God doesn't exist, but are reluctant to admit that, so I say they're wimps.

My understanding of 'theism' is that it entails belief in a 'Creator' personal God. In that light, IFF you actively reject this (believe theistic God/s cannot exist) you're anti-theist. As for 'agnostic deist' that seems incoherent. — AmadeusD

"Cannot" is a modal claim - like saying it's logically impossible. That's going way too far. There's no basis to claim God is logically impossible.

We should be realistic about our beliefs. We form most beliefs through abduction- based on the evidence we're aware of. Your wife could be a alien, but there's no evidence of it- so you should believe she's not an alien.

I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. — AmadeusD

"Anti-theist" is yet another term, one that some would infer to mean I'm against theism. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it. I expect that's not the way you mean it, but there's no way I'd use it.

If you're going to label me a "deist", based solely on the fact that I think it's worth considering, then you're grouping me with people who actually believe an impersonal creator exists. Why do that? Why not keep "agnostic to deism" as a category (if you feel compelled to categorize)?

If agnosticism is meant to be a position on Theism... — AmadeusD

It's not. People use it all the time with respect to other beliefs, and it generally means withholding judgement. One can certainly withhold judgement with regard to God's existence. IMO, this entails considering both God's existence and nonexistence as live possibilities.

agnostic deist' makes absolutely no sense given the above — AmadeusD

If I can be agnostic as to economic theories, why can't I be agnostic as to the existence of an impersonal, non-interacting deity?

When I've used the term, I've always explained what I mean. But again, the problem with any labels is that they will not convey the position one holds. Debating terms seems a pointless tangent. It's a fact that these terms are not understood consistently by everyone.

If atheism and agnosticism deal with the same thing, but only agnosticism can relate to deism we can't be having a worthwhile discussion about htem, using these words only. — AmadeusD

My position is that worthwhile discussions depend on going much deeper than the meaning attached to labels. Labels only serve as an imperfect introduction to one's position. The next productive step would be to explore that position further, not to debate semantics.

I'm no expert in epistemology, but it would seem to me to be a contested space, with various competing approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that makes it another component of the discussion. With my definition of knowledge, most of us are agnostic. But much of this can be sidestepped by referencing belief, rather than knowledge. Knowledge is always belief.

You can do both. — AmadeusD

You can label me however you like, after hearing the nuances of my position, but why argue the semantics? I'm inclined to continue to use the labels I mentioned when talking to others- most of whom, won't use the terms as you do, and it will get across the aspect of my view relevant to the occasion.

Just for fun, tell me how you'd label me. Here's some of my thoughts:

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just "absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist.

I believe it's possible that some sort of intentional entity exists, that may account for the existence of the universe, and/or for the nature of consciousness (ie an immaterial solution to the hard problem). If I actually believed in this, I'd call myself deist (but still.an a-theist). But I don't actually believe it, I just think it's worth considering. Hence, I call myself an "agnostic deist", but still a-theist, and my general position on knowledge in makes me virtually an agnostic (we can't know much of anything) in general.

So how would you label me, and why should I start using that particular label?

Since both atheists and agnostics lack belief in God, we need a way to distinguish the two. — Hallucinogen

I disagree that a sharp partition is needed between them, and with the idea that it's even worthwhile to debate the semantics. There are a variety of nuanced positions a person may have, and the label one starts with is never going to convey that. For example, I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes an agnostic, and other times an agnostic deist. Each is true in some sense of the word, and no one is going to understand my position without discussing further. I simply choose the label that I think will best work in the context of my discussion.

Even our views of knowledge are relevant. IMO, we have very little actual knowledge, but we may have lots of rationally justified beliefs (and we could also debate how strong a justification should be). I could call myself "agnostic" simply because I acknowledge we have so little actual knowledge. We could debate when to call a belief knowledge, just like we can debate where to apply the labels "atheist" and "agnostic", but it seems pointless.

To really understand someone's views, it requires a dialog - not a label. It seems more reasonable to discuss a person's viewpoint, than to debate the label he chooses. Suppose you come up with a set of definitions that meet your hopes, and then you encounter someone like me who says he's an atheist. Are you going to argue my use of the label, or are you going to enquire as to what I really mean?

When one forms a causal chain mathematically, one can assume that at each step a single causal function exists. But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. — jgill

Not if one is considering the total universe at points of time. Where U_i is the universe at time i, it is true that U_i causes U_i+1

Error creeps in when we examine subsets of the universe, because everything in the universe is causally connected.

I just don't think that 'going against one of the theorems [or beliefs or statements]" in M entails necessarily a logical contradiction. — Bob Ross

I don't think that makes sense. Under physicalism, it is axiomatic that only physical things exist. Any statement that entails a spiritual being is contradicted by that axiom.

While it's correct to say that a spiritual being is logically possible, it's a contradiction to say a spiritual being exists & physicalism is true.

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft tweeted: “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”
Of course the standard should apply equally! If Biden supports an insurrection, he should be also be barred. The problem, of course, is that Ashcroft (and others) are trying to treat policy disagreements as insurrection.

I previously predicted that SCOTUS would not put forth a definition of "insurrection". I'll amend that slightly: if they DO rule in Colorado's favor (which I think possible, but unlikely) they will need to define the term to prevent such nonsense as Ashcroft threatens.

If his actions "undermined confidence in the system" then there wasn't any worthwhile confidence in the system before to begin with. — baker

Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?