Yes, the question of free will matters - and that's because it serves as the basis for accountability. That doesn't imply accountability is only appropriate if there is LIBERTARIAN free will, it just means that we we are sufficiently free so that accountability is appropriate and makes a difference.

Holding people accountable serves as a mechanism for encouraging proper behavior. That's true even if determinism is true. Our (deterministic) decision-making process will then tend to take the societaly imposed consequences into account.

My point is that it is more rational to accept the possibility that there is a non-physical life after physical death than it is to try to make something out of the nothing that may follow physical death if there is no non-physical afterlife. — CommonSense

I didn't make something out of nothing, I simply identified someTHINGS that you had overlooked: family and societies. And as I said, there is meaning and value for a human life within the context of humankind.. Again, this is not something from nothing. About all you can add to that is that this is a transient impact - families and societies disappear or evolve to unrecognizable forms, over time. And they will eventually disappear entirely. This doesn't alter the fact these are things that actually exist, they extend beyond ourselves, and provide something into which our contributions are relevant. In one sense, our contributions to these transient things is more meaningful than would be an afterlife: if there is a heaven, within which our existence continues, is there any reason to think that any one individual soul has a meaningful impact to that broad, extended existence - wherein every soul that has ever existed, and ever will exist, resides? Is that a society that evolves, for either better or worse, and within which we can make a difference?

Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective. — NOS4A2

You do realize this is a philosophy forum, don't you? I take epistemology pretty seriously. I admit I can't prove all my political beliefs; no one can. You are naive if you think you can prove your political beliefs, or most of your other beliefs. Inability to prove a belief doesn't imply it's invented. Rather, we ought to strive for justification for our beliefs, not proof. Sometimes, the justification is relatively weak - that's a consequence of the sort of information we have available to us. With politics, we have a choice of working with such weakly justified beliefs or abstaining from participation.

Consider the proposition:
S: some Republican Senators are blocking passage of the SHIELD act because they wish to avoid appearing to Trump as being critical of his behavior.

Anyone who thinks such a bill is important can and perhaps should form an opinion about why it's been blocked. This implies judging whether or not S is true or false. Proof is not available, all we can do is form an opinion (which is a belief) based on what seems the best explanation for it, while remaining open to revising that opinion as additional information becomes available. You don't believe proposition S is true. That could me you believe it false, or it could just mean that it's not sufficiently significant to require you to form an opinion. But I wonder if you might just be unjustifiably believing your favorite politicians actions are virtuous unless and until it is proven to you that they are not. That's certainly what it sounds like.

a human being has an individual sentient consciousness, where a society does not have a single physical consciousness. A group of individuals is a family that is part of a society, but the group / society does not have a sentient existence apart from its members. — CommonSense

An individual "sentience" consists of a set of beliefs, memories, and dispositions processed with an intellectual capability. These all change over time. That's analogous to what goes on in a society over time. All are functional entities that persist in time and interact with the part of the world outside itself.

If all sentient life on the earth was destroyed by a comet there would be no society that was aware of the destruction of humankind.

So what?

Otherwise society and family consist of individual sentient conscious beings who, if there is no afterlife, cease to exist on each of their physical deaths.

So what?

I'm guessing you just consider transcendent existence preferable. Sure, it would be. But that doesn't make it true.

It's chauvinism paranoia, and the desire/need for economic growth.

The chauvinism: our way is the best way, and therefore need to encourage everyone else to do it our way. Arguably, our way is better than some others (anyone want to defend totalitarisnism?), and this complicates the analysis.

The paranoia: there are "others" (Russia, jihadists...) who are out to get us, and we need to stop them, by minimizing their influence. Arguably, there ARE some who are out to get us (terrorism occurs), and this also complicates the analysis.

Economic growth: this country depends on economic growth, and this results in our wanting to get stuff cheap, and to wanting to sell our stuff - for which markets are needed.

For me, if the motive cannot be proven to exist, or that this unproven motive played any factor in any action, it becomes really hard to believe. — NOS4A2

Prove? You set the bar impossibly high, and you aren't consistent with where you set it.

This is of course, a common affliction regardless of one's ideology. Sure, some Trump bashers make premature judgments, just like Trump minions did when shouting "lock her up". I try to avoid it. It's part of trying to be objective. Another part is to try and apply consistent principles. You should try to do these things, particularly if you're engaging in discussions with people with different political views.

↪NOS4A2
Do you see no evidence that Senators often avoid criticizing Trump in general, or just in this particular case? — Relativist

I see no evidence that Senators are blocking it “because it would look critical of Trump”, nor that “the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions”. — NOS4A2

It sounds like you accept the fact that Republican Senators sometimes avoid saying things that are critical of Trump, you just don't see any evidence of it in this case.

No evidence? Consider the sort of information available to us for making any of our political judgment: past behavior is a large part of it. Consider some hypothetical bill that will limit access to abortions. We have no evidence of how Ted Cruz will vote for any specific bill, but his past record gives us a reasonable basis for believing he will support the bill.

Republican Senators have frequently refrained from criticizing Trump, and Trump has given them good reason to do so: there's a good chance Trump will attack them (look at Mitt Romney). True, we have no evidence that this is a factor here, but it's as reasonable to assume this as it is to consider past voting records.

Regarding the "net result" - OF COURSE it's the net result, because it's the status quo.

Do you see no evidence that Senators often avoid criticizing Trump in general, or just in this particular case?

I’m only relaying Blackburn’s statements. I would just stress that the suggestion that they are blocking it to allow foreign interference is without merit. — NOS4A2

OK, then Blackburn's statements seem disingenuous.

They're blocking it because it would look critical of Trump, and the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions like the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

The problem with the humankind argument is that humankind is simply a set of all individual human beings, if there is no afterlife it may be true that each generation dies an isolated physical death that negates any assertion that humankind has a continuing existence apart from its individual members — CommonSense

By that reasoning, a human is just a collection of cells, and the cells are just collections of atoms quarks and leptons. That extreme reductionist view is counter to common sense. A human being is something more than a mere collection of particles; it is an organism, which functionally interacts with the world - despite the fact that the actual particles of which it is composed are not fixed.

The same is true of families and societies: they exist, and they functionally interact with other components of the world. Just as a person continues, despite there being an ongoing replacement of component particles, a society continues despite an ongoing change in its constituent members.

↪3017amen
The senator Blackburn’s claim is that it takes power from the states to govern their own elections and give it to the federal government. She further claims the Democrats knew this and knew the GOP would block it, thereby giving them campaign fodder. — NOS4A2

What bill are you referring to? The SHIELD act doesn't affect how elections are run; it just requires candidates to report any contacts made by foreign governments, and extends rules that apply to radio and TV commercials to online ads. The ostensible reason for blocking it was that it infringes free speech, and I don't see how that makes any sense.

A logical argument for meaning and value in human life can only be built on a non-physical existence. It is far more rational to seek meaning in the possibility of a non-physical life after physical death, no matter how unlikely you may believe it to be, than it is to create a humanistic myth attributing positive qualities to that which is nothing. — CommonSense

If there is no afterlife, then there is no transcendent meaning or value to human life. Nevertheless, there is meaning and value for a human life within the context of humankind. Individuals contribute to ther family and society, and these contributions can have an effect that persists long after their death (this is an "afterlife", of sorts).

A theist, I suspect, will tend to respond that this is insignificant, compared to the sort of metaphysical meaning and value they have in mind. That may be true, but it remains just a hypothetical. Perhaps it's one more motivation to WANT to believe in an afterlife, but such wishful thinking does not seem a rational basis for belief.

This is yet another case of the Administration taking actions that appear wrong on its face. As with the others, there's no direct evidence of Trump personally taking action for Stone. This is all that Trump apologists need to excuse Trump from wrongdoing. Their biggest errors are in failing to see the pattern (because each case is considered independently, and dismissed as a non-issue), and applying a double standard (e.g. consider their assumptions of guilt for Biden and Clinton).

BTW, I have one additional fact to add to your excellent analysis: I heard a former federal prosecutor state that in a high profile case, like Stone's, the sentencing recommendation would have had to be reviewed and approved high up the chain of command - likely up to the FBI director. This makes the overruling of it seem that much more anomalous.

Maybe, but my more fundamental point is that language is not just a means of communicating facts - it's also a means of conveying emotion. In this case, the focus should be on what is the most effective way to manage the associated feelings, irrespective of whether or not the words may be intellectually vacuous.

Is saying "nobody's perfect" helpful? — chatterbears

The context in which the statement is made is more important than the statement.

Suppose Mary is yelling at Harry for having made some mistake, and Harry responds, "everybody makes mistakes" or "nobody's perfect". Which one is being more unreasonable? It depends on the circumstances.

Or stated, otherwise, how does one set up a schema to decrease the vagueness of the word phrase "I know"? — Wallows

Most commonly, people mean that they have a high degree of certainty when they claim, "I know". The only way to decrease ambiguity is through discussion - you will not get the english speaking world to change their ways.

Shocking news: Fox endorses Mayor Pete!

I agree it's a cheap clichéed talking point ("They can't run healthcare if can't even rig a small caucus"). On the other hand there's a lot of truth to it. In Iowa you had gross technical incompetence combined with crony contracts and a biased Democratic committee trying to influence the winner. All the things you DON'T want to see in the party trying to take over health care for 300 million people. I'll stand by my original remark. Cheap cliche, sure. Which in this case perfectly encapsulates a more complex and nuanced truth: That the Democrats are the last people in the world I want near the levers of power right now. And it's not just me. A lot of Democrats are starting to notice. I myself am a registered Democrat and just finished filling out my California absentee ballot. I voted for Tulsi. Now you know my politics. I"m appalled at the state of the Democrats and you should be too. — fishfry

Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail.

However, considering this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to apply reasonable epistemology and exercise critical reasoning. It is NOT good epistemology to treat this as a problem in the DNA or developmental environment of Democrats. Analyze what went wrong, identify what can be done to prevent a recurrence, and find ways to prevent it. It doesn't mean Democrats can't do complex projects right. It doesn't mean a public option for health care (or a single payer system) is a non-starter because of incompetence by Democrats or because the complexity is beyond human capability. However, it SHOULD wake everybody up to the fact that complex policy requires (non-partisan) expertise to implement right. It would also be good to educate Democrats in the law of Unintended Consequences/

That this was poor project management does not entail that it was not relevant to the government's or the democrats' ability to properly manage complex tasks or to the problem of moral integrity. — JohnRB

Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one.

Do you mean in principle or just in this specific case? If you mean in principle, I would disagree. It's trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which a specific political party has a political philosophy which itself leads to poor project management. — JohnRB

In principle. Imagination doesn't establish correlation; rather it constitutes irrational prejudice when you apply it (it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is). Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills. 15 years ago, I took training something like this, and I assure you there is nothing in the methodologies or skills that is inconsistent with being a Democrat.

And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to fit in relation to the others. — JohnRB

It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.

To say it has no bearing seems like an overstatement. If taken as a piece of data relevant to the government's (or democrats') ability properly manage complex tasks, it is clearly evidence against their ability to do so. That's not to say that it is very strong evidence. It is, after all, a small piece of data and, in isolation, it could easily be seen as inconsequential. — JohnRB

No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. Quality project management has nothing to do with politics. And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

In 2017 there was a sharp 21 point rise in Democratic confidence in the media. That’s quite the drastic change, especially after a long period of decline, so the self-aggrandizing of the media’s must have been an effective propaganda tool. I wonder if the new found credulity had anything to do with it’s opposition to Trump? — NOS4A2

Trump's use of the Stalinist epithet, "enemy of the people" to describe the media is undeniably polarizing - so to whatever degree there is increased irrational credulity on the left, it's a product of Trump's rhetoric. Nevertheless, who's being more irrationally incredulous: those who refuse to see or acknowledge Trump's daily litany of untruths, or those who call him out?

Sacked Vindman's brother too. Not that Vindman's brother did anything wrong. But facts don't matter. Only loyalty. — Wayfarer

Remember when Trump said Comey lied about Trump asking for his personal loyalty? Since then, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated how right Comey was.

Here's the highlights of your link:

13% trust the media "a great deal," and 28% "a fair amount"
69% of Democrats, 15% of Republicans, 36% of independents trust media.

Conservatives have been bashing media for years, and THAT propaganda has been effective for them, within their clique.

A healthy skepticism of reporting is a good thing, but it becomes irrational when it's used as an excuse to dismiss the inconvenient news that exposes things you don't like. Trump has exacerbated this to the extreme, labelling all negative reporting as "fake". Many of his lemming followers emulate this. In a sense, this has been a brilliant propoganda tool for Trump, but it means they're being played in the worst way.

If you're trying to say that the problems in Iowa are just accidental software deployment issues that could happen to anyone, you are politically naive and not following the up to the minute news out of Iowa. — fishfry

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable.

The Dems want to run health care for 300 million but can't count 170,000 votes in a small state. — fishfry

That's a silly, political slogan that appeals to the ignorant.

I'm a retired project manager and software developer. There are robust ways to run projects and develop software, and there are poor ways. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Here's my definition of infinity, and for simplicity I'm only referring to positive infinity: infinity is a number, but it has a characteristic that all real numbers do not possess. Namely, it is a number that is greater than any particular real number. All the rules of arithmetic applicable to real numbers do not carry over to use of infinity. Examples: infinity plus a real number is infinity: infinity divided by infinity is not equal to one: infinity subtracted from infinity is not equal to zero. — Michael Lee

Notice what you're doing: you're defining an extension to real numbers and real arithmetic. This doesn't magically transform infinity into something it's not (it's not a real number) it just means that the concept of infinity within your extended system, is coherent.

In ordinary arithmetic, infinity is not a number to which arithmetic operations can be applied. It is false to claim that (1/infinity) = 0. Rather, one can abstractly consider where this series leads:
1/n, for n=1,2,3...
the series never ends, but it gets increasingly closer to zero. This leads to the (extended) concept of "limit". The misconception that (1/infinity)=0 is an inexact way of saying that the limit of (1/n), as n approaches infinity, =0. It's useful math, it's fundamental to calculus, but that doesn't "prove" infinity exists in the real world - not in the sense that "7" exists in any collection of 7 objects in the real world.

EDIT: Ok, how about this: by "belief" I mean assent, without warrant (i.e. falsified OR unfalsifiable) and by "knowledge" assent, with warrant (i.e. test but not (yet) falsified) -- clearer? :smile: — 180 Proof

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at, so I went back through some of your posts. This one seems relevant:

theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. — 180 Proof

I almost agree with this, except for one caveat: you can't falsify personal experience. If someone believes Jesus Christ is talking to them, and that he is affirming their beliefs, you cannot defeat that person's belief. Setting that aside, I completely agree that belief in a god of religion cannot be (otherwise) warranted....but...

Belief in deism (a generic creator who is the foundation of existence and having some form of intentionality), may be warrantable. I'm not sure, but I am sure defeating it is NOT shooting fish in a barrel.

If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. — Xtrix

But If the country isn't ready for it, is it fine to have another 4 years of Trump? Does the self-satisfaction of having tried make that OK? Our only real difference seems to be one of priorities. My top priority is to get rid of Trump, and that leads me to choose the person who seems most electable.

It's possible that Bernie or Warren will be that person, or close enough to it. But it's up to them to convince swing voters, especially in swing states, to make that so. If they don't succeed, I have to support whomever has the best chance.

Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular. — Xtrix

Sanders is doing better than I expected, but it looks to me like Biden is still the current best hope to beat Trump. Here's latest polling data for battleground states (each state name is a link to the poll):

Florida - Trump beats everybody, but Biden is closest.

Colorado - Trump losing to everybody, but Biden and Sanders are tied for size of lead. (poll was from August, 2019)

Iowa - Trump beats everybody, but lead is narrowest for Buttigieg (Biden a close second)

Michigan - Everybody beats Trump, but Bloomberg has the biggest margin

Minnesota - Everybody beats Trump, but favorite daughter (is that a thing?) Klobuchar trounces him bigly. Biden is #2

Ohio - 3 candidates ahead of Trump, others behind. Biden#1, Sanders#2

Nevada - Everyone beats Trump, but Biden is tops.

New Hampshire - Most recent poll has Trump beating everyone, but prior poll (Jan 25) has Trump losing to everyone, with Buttegieg tops.

North Carolina - Only Biden and Sanders beat Trump, with the edge going to Sanders.

Pennsylvania - Trump beats everybody, but Biden and Bloomberg are closest.

Virginia - Trump beats everyone except Biden.

Wisconsin -Only Sanders and Biden can beat Trump, with Biden having the bigger margin.

That's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds. — 180 Proof

A Mormon could believe the Catholic god doesn't exist, but believe the Mormon god exists. These respective gods have some characteristics in common, but their differences make them unique
.

Loosely, for the sake of discussion, — 180 Proof

Please just state how you're defining it instead of referencing something else. My biggest issue is that generally, knowledge of x entails belief that x, but you are treating belief and knowledge as two different things.

I’ve read every testimony except for the one the house hid. And simply repeating the accusations of the House without any reference to the defense does not convince — NOS4A2

Of course you're not convinced. Faith is never defeated with facts.

We previously discussed the evidence you considered exculpatory, and I showed how it's consistent with Trump's guilt and therefore not exculpatory.

1. "god" is not defined
2. How are you defining "knowledge"? The strict philosophical definintion is justifed belief that is true and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing, given the way you distinguish between belief and knowing.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

You must have some concept of "god" in mind in order to make these statements. What are you referring to?

This question pertains to my position, wherein I think it highly unlikely that a "god of religion" exists. That's fairly specific - it implies an intelligent creator who cares about humans, has interacted with some humans, and provided a life after death. It seems to me the evidence for such a being is quite weak, and therefore there's no good reasons to believe in such a thing. On the other hand, I'm a bit more open to the possibility of a being possessing intentionality and efficacy, that was capable of choosing to make a world of the sort that exists. However, since this being is probably not a god-of-religion, its existence is irrelevant.

Like I said, your entire argument was premised on the fantasies of the House and the admitted presumptions of one testimony. You didn’t show Trump’s behavior violated “government ethics standards”. You showed how Biden violated them. — NOS4A2

Labeling the House's inferences "fantasies" demonstrates your pre-judgment. There was much more than one bit of testimony, so you obviously just didn't pay attention. Lack of attention also explains why you didn't pick up on there being an appearance of conflict of interest by Trump on his Zelensky call, and this would call for a closer look at the surrounding facts. Instead of being forthcoming with those facts, he stonewalled the collection of facts. Contrast this with Biden, which I acknowledge has the appearance of conflict, but a closer look at the facts does not support it. And with Trump, it's more than a conflict of interest - he was violating his oath of office and due process by asking for an INDIVIDUAL to be investigated; due process directs investigation of crimes, not fishing expeditions of people. You ignore all this, because you like the spectacle of political dirt digging, and seem to have a quasi-religious faith in Trump's virtues.

I disagree, I do not think you gave good reasons, and in fact gave specious reasons as to why he engaged in wrong-doing. Worse, like the House managers, it was all premised on fantasy and presumption. — NOS4A2

You identified no errors in reasoning nor false assumptions that I'd made. On the other hand, you didn't understand federal government ethics standards and how Trump's behavior violated them. Your judgment seemed rooted in bias against Biden and in favor of Trump, whatever he might do.

I am giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. — NOS4A2

Claiming Romney displayed "pious sanctimony" does not sound like giving him the benefit of the doubt. Romney knew his vote would hurt him politically, and yet he cast it - that's an act of courage that you should applaud, even if you disagree with his judgment.

Romney was wrong because he falsely believed Trump did something wrong and, in a fit of pious sanctimony, betrayed his president. — NOS4A2

Falsely believed?

You should at least pretend to exercise objectivity. I gave you good reasons to support the judgment that Trump did wrong, reasons which you could not refute. Regardless of your personal judgment that Trump did "good" (setting aside your poor defense of that judgment), you should at least try to understand that reasonable people could indeed judge that Trump did wrong, and give Romney the benefit of the doubt that his judgment was sincere. For that matter, there were other Republicans who agreed with Romney that Trump did something wrong, they just didn't consider it a "high crime" sufficient for removal.

It's pretty revealing that you refer to "betraying" the President: loyalty to country OUGHT to come before loyalty to party, and loyalty to a person should come dead last. I Romney's case, I take him at his word that HIS first loyalty is to his God, and therefore felt bound by the oath he took. Contrast that "piousness" to Trump's comments at today's prayer breakfast.

What disagreement? I mean, when's the last time there was any policy discussion where you could have meaningful disagreement? — Benkei

True. I was trying to convey that many people demonize vocal members of the alternative party, solely because they belong to, and advocate for, that alternative party. It's shallow and chauvinistic.

Consider Pelosi. She's a smart, effective politician. No scandals. And yet, many Republicans demonize her.

If I am asked to check a box, where the choices are a list of religions and "atheist", I check "atheist". On a philosophy forum, I describe my position - which often results in getting more detailed than I gave you. And that's really my point: labels tell you very little, particularly among those of us who are not theists. Different people mean different things by the term - it can be defined narrowly, or broadly, and it's a waste of time to argue for one definition vs another. It's just a word.

It was hysterical, whatever it was. It proves to me the saltiness and hatred of the anti-Trump faction. I hate to accuse others of being “triggered”, but Pelosi’s very public display was the epitome of it. — NOS4A2

I also liked watching nervous Nancy get the snub. Quite a sight. — NOS4A2

This "spectacle" that you so enjoy seems very much like a football game, for which you are rooting for your team. When team Trump says or does something rude or obnoxious, he's "fighting back". When the other team responds in kind, it's something bad ("salty", "hatred").

Trump has dragged the game into the gutter. Sure, people hate him - he gives them many good reasons to do so (would you like a list?) I contrast this with the hatred many Republicans have toward people like Pelosi and Schiff - it's rooted entirely in political disagreement.

0 P

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa

What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).

My point is that "God" is a fuzzy term.