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

I agree, but I also believe we have an innate capacity for morality - one that seems rooted in empathy - and such a capacity is consistent with natural selection.

Jesus could only have knowledge by acquaintance of that limited set of experiences that he had while he lived, so God cannot be omniscient in that respect. Some (most?) philosophers of religion define omniscience more narrowly as knowledge of all and only true propositions.

"All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic."
I agree, but philosophy of religion is not a religion. One can learn some things by considering the various arguments for "God's" existence. Do brute facts exist? Is there a first cause? Is there such thing as "knowldege"? Is there something special (teleologically) about sentient life, or is it just an unintended consequence of nature? Do objective moral values exist? I come down on the atheist, or agnostic, side of these - but consideration of these questions does get you thinking.

Presidents rarely have any real impact on the economy, but that's beside the point if people (irrationally) attribute the state of the economy to the president.

That said, I think the enormous corporate tax cuts indeed is contributing to GDP growth a bit. The problem is that the deficits are out of control - and this will have a longer term negative effect that some future president will be inappropriately blamed for.

Thumbs up. I agree wholeheartedly.

There are two levels to this. It may not be unreasonable to suggest the Democrats have made some choices driven by politics (such as failing to notify the entire committee of Ford's original letter). I'm reserving judgment on that, but let's assume they were. Optimizing political gain from facts doesn't imply the facts aren't FACTS. Since there's going to be politics being played, I'd rather it be played this way than by making stuff up (as Trump does..almost every day).

Poltics is....political. Why lament this fact? It SHOULD nevertheless be relevant what the facts are, despite the political theater. It's still good to discuss what we think is the right thing to do, despite the fog of politics.

I also suspect that the political theater isn't really going to change any votes. If a couple Republicans fail to vote to approve Kavanaugh, it may very well be for reasons of good conscience.

So I guess my question to discuss is this: Is there some crucial, essential meaning to words or concepts (whatever) which, if you ever define differently than, you've inherently changed the subject or something?

Effective discourse depends on intersubjectivity: both subjects need to associate the same concept to each word. In practice, we often don't - but we can arrive at a common definitions through discussion. Of course, there are some commonly accepted definitions for many things - even then, there can be different senses of a word.

Okay, so sets are by definition, conceptually finite collections so any attempt to define or talk about infinite collections is incoherent on pain of contradiction. But let's create a new concept and a word to refer to it: "Schmets". Schmets are just like sets, except some schmets can have infinite members provided they are defined appropriately. So now the question is, are there sets or are there schmets? Well, since sets are, by hypothesis, necessarily finite, they aren't very useful in mathematics since nearly every standard and non-standard maths uses infinity in some form or fashion (ultrafinitism doesn't look very promising). So it seems mathematicians are using Schmets and so we can just dispense with using sets in maths.

Case in point. When you say "schmets can have infinite members" do you mean "schmets can have infinitely many members" or do you mean "schmets can have infinity as a member"?

Here's a list of mathematical objects that are potential topics of discussion, each corresponding to a more general Cantorian definition of set but which have important distinctions:

Finite collections of finite objects (e.g. {1,3,5}
Infinite collections of finite objects (e.g. the set of real numbers)
fine collections of infinite objects (e.g.: {aleph-0, aleph-1})
infinite collections of infinite objects (e.g. the set of cardinal numbers)

" I'm hoping Blasey Ford remembers a salient detail about Kavanaugh's anatomy and he's forced to drop his pants. "
ROFL. Are you thinking what I'm thinking about Stormy's description of der Fuhrer's mushroom? (I actually think she was trying to get Melania's attention).

I don't know if he'll be reelected, but if he's not reelected, it will be because of his crazy behaviour. Look how poorly he's doing in the polls despite the economy doing well - it's because of this behaviour. Such behaviour matters to some people; it remains to be seen how big a factor this will be. I anticipate Democrats will run against Trump's behaviour.

The economy could be a 2-edged sword: higher GDP growth doesn't result in every individual making more money. People who feel left behind could easily react.

Philosophy of religion is philosophy. It touches on metaphysics an epistemology, so certainly it's worth discussing.

Relativist: Consider the future: it doesn't exist.
Sophisticat: Neither does the past, whether finite or infinite, according to the A theory of time, which you brought up for no apparent reason. The A theory of time is a red herring; this metaphysical position is irrelevant to the argument that you are trying to make.

You are free to disagree with my conclusion, since it's not a deductive proof. It's just an explanation as to why I personally consider it more likely the past is finite. A-theory is a critical assumption because under B-theory, all points in time have identical ontological properties. In A-theory, past, present, and future are ontologically distinct. Tomorrow and yesterday have in common the fact that neither exists, but yesterday has the distinction that it actually DID exist. In general, causation is not a transitive relation: A causes B does not entail B causes A. Yesterday caused today, not vice versa - so the relation to the past is different from the relation to the future.

The reason a temporal process will never reach infinitely far into the future is that there is nothing for it to reach: a process can start at point A and reach point B, but if there is no point B, then talk about reaching something doesn't make sense. Turn this around, and you get the same thing: you can talk about reaching the present from some point in the past, but if there is no starting point (ex hypothesi), the talk about reaching from somewhere doesn't make sense, unless you implicitly assume your conclusion (that time has a starting point in the past).

I agree with what you said, but it's beside the point. We agree that infinity is not reached to or from, but that just implies we need look elsewhere for our conception of an infinite future. The future is NOT the destination, it is the unending causal process following the arrow of time. The concept of "completeness" is key: the process for the future is never complete. On the other hand, the past is certainly complete - there is no continuing process - the process has completed (except for the finite process of appending an additional day every 24 hours). That is another way that the past has ontologically distinct properties from the future.

You can decide these distinctions are irrelevant, but you cannot claim the distinction isn't there if A-therory is true.

This just in.

A former Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez told Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker that he allegedly shoved his penis in her face while she was intoxicated. 

"We don't know what actually happened. "
I agree. I'm just asking if you agree IN PRINCIPLE that 1) if he did lie, he ought not to be approved; 2) that the judgment of whether or not he lied should be based on a preponderance of the evidence (i..e. it's more likely than not).

"Does "lying" carry the same weight as "misrepresenting the facts?"
Not necessarily in general, and I don't see how that's a factor in this case - but I'm fine with taking that into account if that is indeed a factor.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved. That's a lower bar than in a criminal case, but it seems absurd to put someone on the court if we feel they PROBABLY lied, despite there being a reasonable doubt that he lied.

You didn't address the issue of Kavanaugh possibly having lied. I suggest that IF he lied, it would be inappropriate to approve his appointment. Even if these hearings are 90% political theater, I would hope we can all agree that they ought to mean SOMETHING, and accepting lies implies the hearings are completely worthless.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved.

First of all, please refrain from calling me stupid. I could very well be mistaken, and you are welcome to identify flaws in my reasoning or to just disagree since I'm not claiming my position is mathematically provable. But if you'd like to critique me in a reasonable way, please try to understand what I'm saying.

I am trying to show that there is a distinction between abstractions and the ontic objects of the real world. There cannot have not been infinitely many paths TAKEN, there are only infinitely many possible paths that could potentially be taken, but it is impossible to actually follow them - no matter how long we have to try. So these paths exist in the abstract, but not in the real world.

Those large numbers and quantities of things that manifest in the universe are countable: if we can conceive of one number (i) we can conceive of each number that follows (i+1). Infinity is not a number, in that sense. Each natural number can be reached by successive addition; infinity cannot be reached. Transfinites have mathematical properties just as do groups, rings and fields in abstract algebra, so having mathematical relations does not imply they have a referrent in the real world.

Lying under oath crosses the line. If there is a preponderance of evidence he lied, that seems a reasonable standard.

'Your "conceptual mapping" of a finite past was a semi-infinite number line. You say you cannot think of a corresponding "conceptual mapping" for an infinite past? Really?'

No, it's not just a semi-infinite number line, because that omits the temporal context. Time does not exist all at once, as does an abstract number line.

Consider the future: it doesn't exist. Rather, each future day just has the potential for eventually existing. The mapping of days to a number line is a real time process: the present moves to a new day every 24 hours. Each future day is a future present. At no point will we reach a point in time that is infinitely far into the future from today: each individual future day is a finite distance from the present. What is infinite is that this temporal process is unending. The future procession of time is a journey without end.

Contrast this with the past. The present is the END of a journey of all prior days. That would be the mirror image of reaching a day infinitely far into the future, which cannot happen. A temporal process cannot reach TO infinity, and neither can a temporal process reach FROM an infinity.

Re: statue of limitations, there has been a trend to remove these in instances of sexual abuse of children, so Maryland is not exceptional in this regard. Nevertheless, it is still unclear in this particular case- they have no statute of limitations for FELONY assault, and it's ambiguous as to whether or not this would qualify. That wouldn't stop her from reporting the crime, and possibly getting a police investigation. My guess is that it's unlikely they could get enough evidence for a conviction, since the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And of course, that needn't be the standard in the case of a judicial appointment. "Beyond reproach" would be a better standard.

I think we can agree that mere accusations ought not to be sufficient grounds for assuming the guilt of the accused. On the other hand, the testimony of high school friends doesn't amount to much. The alleged party only had a few people present, and their observations of his behavior while sober has little bearing on how he might behave when drunk - ESPECIALLY if he did not drink very often. Not that this should be fully discounted, but it cries out for a thorough investigation - don't you think?

That's an ideal sphere. Nowhere did I mention an ideal sphere. Now why don't you address the point. You want a collected "infinity"? Take any sphere-like object. The number of possible paths on the sphere is not less than aleph-c. — tim wood

A "sphere" (or "ideal sphere") is an abstraction, not an actually existing thing. You bring up another abstraction: the number of possible paths being infinite. This is hypothetical; in the real world, you cannot actually trace an infinite number of paths. So in the real world you cannot actually COLLECT an infinity. All you can do is to conceptualize.

"Sexual assault and rape are among the least reported crimes in the United States."
I'll bet the President is carefully studying that report as we write this.

....
hahahahahahahahahahaha!

I was addressing the specific issue raised by Bitter Crank ("How far back should we go to hold people accountable?"). So while one might argue that a 35 year-old incident should be overlooked, a recent lie should NOT be overlooked. This completely negates his point, but it doesn't settle the entire matter.

I generally agree with Dfpolis, but I suggest that one COULD devise a language with qualia. This would entail mapping various qualia onto other concepts - just as words map to concepts.

E.g. the scent of roses = love; the scent of feces = hate. Greenness = action, redness = cessation.

There is a mathematical relation between the various transfinite numbers, and these relations are analagous to size and quantity, but these are not "quantities" in the exact same sense as the quantities of individual real (or natural) numbers.

"How far back should we go to hold people accountable?"
How about 1 week? Hold Kavanaugh accountable for lying about his teenage misbehavior.

"Conceivability, the way you are using the word, is nothing more than an attitude, an intuition, a gut feeling. "
No, I outlined a mapping of a possible finite past, and pointed out there are cosmological models based on a finite past (Hawking, Carroll, and Vilenkin to name 3). I am aware of no such conceptual mapping for an infinite past.

Admittedly, I am basing my view on A-theory of time: only the present actually exists, while the past represents a sequence of all prior existing times. This sequence is completed, and I see no way to conceive of a completed, infinite sequence of ordered events, one following the other.

I invite you to find flaws in my conception of a finite past, or to provide a conception of an infinite past. But please avoid a handwaving dismissal.

"All we factuality have is the memories of 3 people of an act from 35 years ago. That is it. Every thing else is speculation."
A couple days ago, I might have agreed. But now we have Trump and McConnell's statements. McConnell said Kavanaugh will be approved, implying that Ford's testimony is irrelevant, and no other evidence need be (or will be) considered. Trump essentially called Ford a liar. These comments have tainted the process, and are sufficient reason to reject Kavanaugh. I could give Kavanaugh a chance only if he were to rebuke McConnell's and Trump's statements. A competent judge should advocate for open-minded evaluation of the full set of available facts.

Moral judgments and moral behavior are the product of moral beliefs. This is true irrespective of whether or not "objective moral values" (OMVs) exist outside of humanity.

Let's assume OMVs exist. How do you know what they are? How do you know your moral beliefs are true? If you can't, then how do you know they exist?

Why would Ford make up a story that places a witness who is likely to be against her at the scene? To me, that one fact alone brings a lot of credibility to her complaint. "

This is good evidence she's not lying, but couldn't she still be mistaken? Not that I think she's mistaken, but this is why I'd like to see some investigation done.

Relativist: “The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.”

MountainDwarf: “So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?”

I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm.

"Well, inconceivable is a subjective assessment, it's a far cry from being provably impossible. If you just want to say that you don't believe the past can be infinite because an infinity of elapsed time seems inconceivable to you, you are welcome to it. Does an absolute beginning of time, such that right at the beginning there is no before, seem more conceivable to you?"

It's straightforward to conceive of a beginning of time: an initial state. It maps onto a real number line, with a completed past that contiues to be appended, , a continuously changing present moment, and a potentially infinite future. There are cosmological models consistent with this conception.

Yes, conceivability is subjective, but conceptions can be intersubjectively shared, analyzed, and discussed. Belief is similarly subjective. When there are two mutually exclusive possibilities, one of which is conceivable and the other is not, which should be considered more likely to be true?

Is it ever reasonable to believe in something that is inconceivable? What would one actually be believing in?

I do not rule out the possibility of an infinite past, but for the reasons I just discussed, it seems more reasonable to believe it is finite.

"'Successive addition' implies a starting point, which obviously precludes an infinite past. Your argument simply begs the question. An infinite past is a past that does not have a starting point."

But an infinite past still entails an infinite series that has been completed; that is the dilemma. Consider how we conceive an infinite future: it is an unending process of one day moving to the next: it is the incomplete process that is the potential infinity. The past entails a completed process, and it's inconceivable how an infinity can be completed.

"You don't need any hunches in order to believe that a mathematical entity exists: all you need is a mathematical theory that says that such and such entity is infinite - and such mathematics exists, there is no question about that."
Mathematical entities are abstractions, they have only hypothetical existence.

" If a model that makes use of infinities provides a good fit for many observations, is parsimonious, productive, fits in with other successful models, etc. then we consider it to be empirically established, infinities and all."
How is this different from the infinity of mathematical operation of dividing 3 into 1? Just because it equates to an infinity of 3's after the decimal doesn't imply infinity exists in the world. The real world dividing of a thing into 3 equal parts entails no infinity, the infinity just arises in the math. Mathematics is descriptive (or purely hypothetical), not ontic.

" if anything in reality is infinite or not is an empirical matter, there's no strictly logical argument against it being instantiated."
I don't see how an instantiated infinity could ever be established empirically since we can't count to infinity. On the other hand, I think in some cases, infinity can be ruled out. For example: the past cannot be infinite. Here's my argument:

1. It is not possible for a series formed by successive addition to be both infinite and completed.
2. The temporal series of (past) events is formed by successive addition.
3. The temporal series of past events is completed (by the present).
4. (Hence) It is not possible for the temporal series of past events to be infinite.
5. (Hence) The temporal series of past events is finite.

How else could you explain 1/3 = 0.33reapeating if not with infinity? [/quote]
That's indeed how you explain the mathematical relation between thirds (which have real world referrents) and the abstract mathematical process of dividing 3 into 1 - which does not have a real world referrent. As Devans99 alluded, any real world representation of the result of this division (such as in a computer) will be an approximation.

Ryan - You're engaging in a false dichotomy between libertarian free will and absence of choice. A compatibilist account of free will gives you both free will and determinism. You can read about compatibilism at this link.

Your choices are freely willed if they are a product of your mind. But your choices are a product of the beliefs you hold and the strength of these convictions, your desires and impulses - and how strongly these are felt. You may decide upon the choice that you believe will make you happiest, or that you believe will have the most beneficial outcome. Or you may make a non-optimal choice because of a streak of perverseness that you have, perhaps to spite yourself or someone you're pissed off at. But all of these factors are consistent with determinism - they are the collective set of factors that determine what you will choose. Determinism doesn't imply you are under the control of something else, or there's an absence of control. It just means that your mental functions are the product of the machinery of your mind.

"Libertarian" free will is defined as nothing more than "non-deterministic" free will. It is impossible to know whether or not we have it because there is no act of free will that isn't explainable under compatibilism.

I just think it's misleading to say, "addition and multiplication can still be done with transfinite numbers" , and that's because (as you say)- it's not the same operation. But sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from. I thought you were claiming the mathematical relations involving infinities implied they had real world referrents.

The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.

It doesn't behave non-numerically, that doesn't make sense. The normal operations can be performed with such numbers, but that doesn't mean you'll get the results you would expect with finite numbers. And the reason is clear: Because you're dealing with a different type of number.

It's not true that the "normal operations" can be performed with transfinite numbers. Analogous operations can be defined, but the are not the SAME operation. The fact that transfinite numbers have mathematical properties has no bearing on whether or not they have a referent in the real world - mathematics deals with lots of things that are pure abstraction with no actual referent (look into abstract algebra).