I agree with Metaphysician Undercover and LD Saunders about science, but add that there is also a metaphysical stance called "scientific realism" - which treats theoretical objects as ontological. E.g. one could commit to the ontological stance that space is actually curved (per general relativity) - not merely that the equations seem to make reasonably accurate predictions. That particular stance is fairly well justified. On the other hand, if one commits to some particular interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g. many worlds) they are still being "realist" but the justification is much weaker.

Some people equate science (which is empirical/epistemological) with scientific realism (what is ontic). That said, a lot of scientists actually are scientific realists.

I see nothing "intelligent" in the behavior of particles. Their "behavior" is a consequence of their properties, not due to decision making or anything else that is typically described as intelligent behavior.

Are you equating "complex" with "intelligent"? Complexity is due to the fact that particles interact and entropy is increasing, but unevenly.

Perhaps the growing originalist majority on SCOTUS will overturn Marbury v Madison. It's a prime example of judicial overreach.

According to Quantum Field Theory, waves -not particles- are fundamental. There's a field for every particle: a quark is a quantum of the quark field. All fields exist at every point of spacetime. So-called "virtual particles are actually non-quantized effects of the fields.

"So time has to have a start and there has to be something causing time to have a start"
Monday cause Tuesday, Tuesday causes Wednesday...So what's wrong with an initial Monday? Just like any other, it will still cause a Tuesday.

Our universe seems to have a absolute beginning of space-time, so that means causality must extend beyond time. — Devans99

All known instances of causation entail a cause that is temporally prior to the effect. How can something that is causally efficacious exist "beyond time"? This is a key premise and is in need of support.

photons are timeless yet they change.

Photons (which are quanta of the electromagnetic field) don't change. Rather, the energy of the field ripples across space.

There must be a timeless realm in which our universe was created:

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed

No problem with #1, but #2 is more precisely written as: base reality exists at all times.

3. If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid an actual infinity of time)

Non sequitur. An initial state, with a potentially infinite future is not timeless.

4. Also something without a start cannot exist so time must have a start

The initial state constitutes a "start".

5. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality

non-sequitur.

Why think anything that is causally efficacious can exist timelessly? Abstractions (if we regard them as existing at all) exist timelessly, but they aren't causally efficacious. The universe is not "timeless" - it experiences time.

"The only world the hangs together logically/does not need magic is the one with nothing in it. All the others present a logical conundrum. "
Show that this worlds depends on magic:
A world with an absolute beginning of space-time, and therefore cannot have been caused - because causes temporally precede effects and there is no time before the beginning of time.

"
I used Occam's razor in a hypothetical sort of way; the question of what we should expect; 'what should be?'; by way of reality, I answered with the simplest model possible: nothing. "

We should have no specific expectations, including the expectation that there would be "nothing".

Imagine all the metaphysically possible worlds, only one of which obtains by chance. There are very simple worlds, and extremely complex ones. There is a minimum complexity (e.g. one object, but ni maximum. Each level of complexity is low probability, but one of those obtains. The actual world is at the low end of the possibilities.
"

"The universe has a start in time and space"

If the universe=spacetime, then the universe didn't start IN time and space. Rather, there is a start of time and space.

I would have preferred that the options stated "lean towards" but I voted that way anyway: I lean towards materialist/atheist. However, materialist theories of mind are not quite complete - there remains the hard problem of consciousness (although I have a vague idea about how this might be solved).

"causally inert objects are not indispensable, and therefore useless."

It helps to consider what abstract objects refer to: they refer to properties of (causally efficacious) things that actually do exist. We develop a broader understanding of the world by thinking abstractly about the properties apart from the objects that have them. "-1 charge" is a property of electrons, "+1 charge" is a property of protons. Electrons and protons attract because they have these respective properties: there is a relation between any pair of objects that have these respective properties.

"The fact that there IS something rather than nothing is truly remarkable. How can this have occurred? We need some sort of magic to have occurred just for us to exist. Is this evidence for a creator?"
Why should we expect nothing rather than something?

Occam's razor is a epistemological rule requiring that we have evidence for our beliefs. Occam’s injunction is not an ontological truth avowing that the world has a simple constitution (paraphrasing Grunbaum). But if we treat it as such, then we must answer: why is there a god rather than not? The shows the theistic position is self contradictory.

As I first pointed out, there's no paradox if one examines the metaphysical and epistemological issues carefully. An individual engaging in sloppy (i.e. typical) epistemology may fall into a paradox (i.e. engage in hypocrisy) if he's not careful, but that doesn't mean a paradox is intrinsic to the issue. It's intrinsic to poor critical reasoning skills.

What's the paradox for someone who believes the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is too negligible to warrant action?

"
"The answer often comes first, and we fit the justification in. And our values are malleable"

That is an unfortunate fact of human nature, and it is well manifested in political discourse. Nevertheless, the paradox is in the eye of the beholder. To a "global warming denier" (I hate that term) there is no paradox because they've convinced themselves global warming is false (e.g. it's a Chines hoax, as our beloved leader has said). Pro-lifers convince themselves a fetus is not an individual human life valued equally with that of a mother - so again, no paradox.

Your judgment that there's a paradox depends on treating fetuses as individual human lives and treating global warming as factual.

I see no paradox either. Abortion hinges upon a metaphysical principle: what constitutes an individual human life; no amount of empirical analysis can provide a definitive answer. On the other hand, climate change is entirely an epistemic issues associated with propositions such as:

There is global warming (i.e. global temperatures are, and have been, trending hotter)
Global warming will negatively effect humans
Human activity is contributing materially to global warming
Modifying human activity can mitigate global warming sufficiently to avoid or significantly reduce the negative impact
Benefits (mitigating the negative impacts) outweigh the cost of modifying human activity.

Each of these can (in principle) be analyzed empirically.

"You may not be you" is equivalent to saying "the law of non-contradiction may be false". i.e you=you is necessarily true.

At any rate, the concept of identity needs to be well defined before any analysis can be done.

That would increase the money supply beyond what is needed for growth, and therefore be inflationary.

It is complicated, and the main thing I want to convey is that intuition will lead you astray. National debt is not like household debt. We don't necessarily need to pay it off. We depend on perpetual growth of the economy to make it work. And fiat currency is not really a problem - we're still bartering things of value (ie the stuff that money can buy).

I assume you realize that "printing" money is not the issue, it is the money supply - which mostly consists of figures in computers.

If the money supply grows at the same rate as GDP, then dollars retain their value. Adding to the money supply can stimulate the economy because more is then available for investment. Conversely, shrinking the money supply would constrain investment, lower growth and risk recession.

If the debt is paid down, the risk is that it could reduce the supply of money available for investment, but the risk can be managed (e.g. commensurately increasing the money supply). The real problem with the debt is servicing it: paying the interest. If the debt grows faster than the economy, these interest payments will be on an unsustainable growth path - debt service will eventually overwhelm the budget, causing hyperinflation and economic collapse.

"A popular question. Why am I me? Why am I not the person next to me? When I die, will I be another person in the past or future? Was I another person before I was born? If so, why am I not everyone?"
The answer depends on one's positions on identity and essentialism.

Does a car maintain the same identity over time? Is it the same car if the oil gets changed? New tires? New engine and transmission? What, if anything, is essential to the car's identity?

Similarly, what is essential to a human's identity? DNA doesn't even stay constant over time?

Do you have a point? I don't care to semantics.

No.

You just answered your own question, but is TPF a place?

'Where's the referent in the sentence, "I like this place."'

It is the specific place that the speaker of the sentence has in mind, and has presumably referenced in another way.

Consider how we form abstractions in our mind: it entails a partial consideration of actual objects - contemplating one or more of their properties.

Square objects in the world have squareness (and other properties, including spatio-temporal locations). "Square" has no real world referrent, so squares do not exist in the world.

If God exists, there is a real world referrent for the abstracted properties of God-ness.

I absolutely agree that a life should not be ruined by an uncorroborated allegation. The debate about whether or not Kavanaugh should have been approved is moot now. But of continuing relevance is how Ford is treated, and how other alleged victims are treated.

Judge Ford independently of Kavanaugh. We shouldn't treat accusers as liars until proven to be telling the truth. Credible accusations should be given the benefit of the doubt. If we don't, we're giving carte blanche to future abusers to do what they will, with the expectation they will get away with it if it's just the victims word against his.

The House of Representatives, not the Senate, votes for impeachment. It only takes a simple majority - so yes, this could occur. But impeachment is analogous to indictment, it does not remove someone from office. It moves to the Senate for the decision to remove. That takes a 2/3 majority vote, so it would require 67 Senators to vote to remove him from office. So it's probably not going to happen.

This Wikipedia article on the impeachment of Bill Clinton makes the process clear.

That would have been perceived as moving the goalposts. Nevertheless, the perception that he may have lied provides justification to vote against him - for those so inclined.

"I don't get the point of not believed without corroborating evidence - what are the correct actions that should be taken when with non-corroborated allegations ??? "
Kavanaugh's name has been dragged through the mud a bit, but he's compensated if he gets the job he wanted. Ford's name has also been dragged through the mud by Trump, Trump Jr, and many of their supporters. She must not be treated as a liar, because what she said is possibly true - and the possibility she is stating facts must not be dismissed. She should be shown respect for having the courage to come forward. Senators voting for Kavanaugh should express sentiments to this effect. Kudos to those who condemned Trump's comments.

Collateral damage: victims of abuse are discouraged from coming forward because they will not be believed without corroborating evidence.

It's ironic that a Kavanaugh win may fire up Democrats for the midterms, while a loss may fire up Republicans.

Mark Dice (who I'm not particularly a fan of but who has made some good points at times) has here demonstrated how accepting atheistic premises will lead people to accepting incest as okay.

However, the matter is very basic.

There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram

How does one prove incest is wrong using objective moral values (OMVs)?

It seems wrong, but I can point to biological risks and the related possibility our instinctive feelings are a product of evolution. Surely it's such feelings (irrespective of their source) that are the basis our moral judgment. So how does one account for these moral feelings under the premise OMVs exist, and how does one show this account more likely to be true than the alternative?

And who finds his comments inappropriate other than those who were already his opponents? — Hanover

That partisan lens works both ways: who's defending the partisan rant?

I can understand his reaction to a false accusation (if it IS false) most of us would react similarly. However most of us aren't candidates for the Supreme Court. It was a missed opportunity for him to demonstrate how a judge should evaluate evidence and respect the alleged victim.

Kavanaugh did not dispute Ford's claim of an assault. He only disputed that it was him. He should have built on this and the impossibility of proving a negative. The politics on both sides of this are completely irrelevant to the charge- in a courtroom, a judge wouldn't allow it to be presented because it appeals to prejudice.

His reputation is already shredded" — frank

So is Ford's, and all she did was speak what she believes to be true. Worst case for her, she is misremembering who did it. Worst case for Kavanaugh is that he did it and lied about it.

Kavanaugh may very well be innocent of the assaullt, but he is guilty of defending this innocence with a partisan rant.

IMO, the best outcome will be to vote him down, but with each "no" vote accompanied wirh a justification that acknowledges that we should not assume his guilt, and every "yes" vote noting we should not assume she's lying.

Trump just doesn't care. — Marchesk

I think much of his reaction is due to this hitting home. Imagine if every woman he ever behaved inappropriately with came forward. He wants accusers to be considered liars until proven truthful.

I agree. What makes me sadder is that so many people are perfectly fine with his behaviour. Rewatching the video of Trump ridiculing Ford, I was focussed on the women sitting behind him, smiling and laughing as he made these comments.

There have always been crackpots, but none has ever been this popular.

That may indeed be portion of the motivation, but if you set partisan motivation aside - there's still good objective reason to extend the investigation: Ford presented a credible allegation.Credible allegations of sexual assault should be taken seriously. Alleged victims shouldn't be treated as liars until proven to be telling the truth.

If no corroborating evidence is uncovered, which seems likely, the evidence is equivocal. Kavanauh is not proven innocent and he's not proven guilty. Senators are free to decide what standard to apply. If it were me, I wouldn't approve him because there's a good chance he actually assaulted her and lied about it. On the other hand, were I on a jury evaluating a criminal charge against Kavanaugh I would acquit because I have a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

I'm going to set aside political motivation. I see two legitimate reasons: 1) the belief that no relevant new evidence existed. 2) further enquiry was a rabbit hole - one lead would lead to more, but none could ever support or refute the charge.

This is worse:

"Trump went on stage at a rally in Mississippi Tuesday, mimicking Ford’s Senate testimony and attacking her for gaps in her memory.

“I don’t know. I don’t know. What neighborhood was it? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it — I don’t know. But I had one beer, that’s the only thing I remember,” Trump said in his impression of Ford’s testimony.

In August, (pro-choice) Collins met with Kavanaugh about Roe v Wade, and was satisfied with his assurance that he would "respect" the prior precedent. That ambiguous statement seemed to be enough for her, at the time. I wonder if his questionable performance last week will alter her perspective.

A month ago, I thought there was a 90% chance he'd be confirmed. Now I think it's even money.