Although I think it's a good idea to refrain from hyperbolic statements against Trump, and at the risk of committing a reductio ad hitlerium fallacy, it is rather interesting that some of his tactics are consistent with the advice of Adolf Hitler regarding propaganda (see these two quotes from Mein Kampf). I bring this up because Adams has frequently extolled Trump's talent as a "master persuader".

Trump's tactics seems consistent with the following:

"The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another...

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side... The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.

I don't know if Trump's behavior is consciously intentional. It might just be an evolved trait that sticks around because of a lifetime of positive reinforcement. Nevertheless we need to remember this is just style, and it is the substance to which we should respond, and I'd like the response to be analytical rather than emotional. As an example, it's worthwhile to continue exposing the various ways he strays from the truth (e.g. normal political spin, naivete, hyperbole, as well as bald-faced lies), and distinguish these from mere differences of political viewpoint, and show why this is not a good thing in a political leader (to his supporters: would you tolerate this behavior in a liberal?)

Not sure what you mean by this. I’m most interested in what others think of Adams application of cognitive dissonance theory to Trump derangement syndrome.

I strongly disagree with Adams that cognitive dissonance is at play. Things only seem different because Trump makes so many problematic statements that rile people up, in evoking backlash. However the reactions are the same as always: demonize those you disagree with by assuming the most sinister of motives. For this reason, I propose a more analytical response, which includes the avoidance of hyperbole, because that just turns too many people off.

"Adams says that liberals can't believe that someone like Trump could be elected "just by having policies people like" and so they're forced to contrive a narrative that includes things like rampant racism, Russian election interference, etc."
A portion of the response to Trump has been hyperbolic, but hyperbolic response is normal political reaction by a portion of both sides. For example, see this, and this

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon.

.

I have not persuaded anyone on TPF (so I voted no) but I did persuade someone on a forum once. The issue was: should we allow foreigners to come to the US to attend college. He was only thinking of the cost of education, and the absence of a ROI since most return to their native countries. I pointed out something that he had overlooked: we benefit by exposing them to our culture, our values, and our political system.

It was a minor victory, but it demonstrated the need to establish common ground, and that is important to respect the other guy and his position.

"I suggest that what Putin wants Trump to do is to not want war."
Putin does not want war, but he wants to gain advantages (economic and influence) with other countries. Putin got his money's worth these last couple weeks by Trump's treatment of allies.

Again, I'm not declaring he's necessarily guilty, but here are a few of the laws that he might have broken:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

As a reminder, my question was: can you conceive of the possibility he broke the law or did something unethical (even if not a violation of the law)?

"None of this is really defensive of Trump as much as it's just an acceptance of politics being politics. "

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but keep in mind that "politics being politics" includes the negative political impact to Trump, both domestically and internationally. This has hurt his ability to do his job (it's astounding how much time and effort he expends with his crazy tweets degrading the investigation and about the intelligence agencies that are under him), it may impact Republicans chances in the midterms, and it may hurt his chances for reelection. All these are also "politics being politics." Had he simply acted like an adult and accepted that an investigation was under way, then with his full knowledge of being innocent, he could have simply ignored it and concentrated on the job of being President.

"Relativist: that you can't even conceive of the possibility he did something wrong"


raza: "Wrong with regard to what? Everyone has done something wrong whether caught out or not."

1. With regard to the law (prime importance)
2. With regard to ethics (not all unethical activities are illegal).

What facts support your claim? Is it just faith in the virtues of all things Trump, and faith in the evil nature of all things Democrat?

"I think desire plays a role, for sure. But it has to be a certain kind of desire. "
We often choose to believe things despite an absence of rational support. Is that only a lie if for virtuous purposes? Is it never a lie?

What is a lie? I tend to consider it the deliberate telling of a known falsehood. Did Trump lie when he proclaimed the inauguration crowd biggest of all time, or did he actually believe it? Did Obama lie when he said you could keep your doctor under the ACA?

"Lie" may be too black and white a term.

"Mueller is the current face of a protection racket. To protect "business as usual"."
Do you have any facts that support your claim?

What about the many indictments? Are they fiction?

I can understand why you might like Trump's policies, but I cannot understand why anyone would have such faith in his character that you can't even conceive of the possibility he did something wrong. I, for one, don't assume he's personally guilty of a crime - and won't until (and unless) facts support it.

You didn't answer the question. You referred to entrapment.

What must be the case in order to successfully lie to yourself?

Quite simply: motivation.

I want something, so I manufacture reasons why I should have it or why I should believe it.

I'd love to believe that, but I don't think it's realistic. Trump does not like to be pushed around. I expect he'll use every tool imaginable: challenging a subpoena in the Supreme Court, pardoning the folks who might testify against him, and even pardoning himself. All this in the name of terminating the "witch hunt."

AND his son’s meeting with Russian operatives in the Trump Hote — Wayfarer


That was set up. Typical entrapment attempt by opposition which had, and was only designed to be, for media optics. — raza

How does this make sense? The meeting was not arranged by the Democrats, so who is it that was trying to entrap him? For that matter, what's the relevance to guilt/innocence?

Michael Ossipoff: “I suggest that a physical world is a logical-system, consisting of abstract logical implications that just 'are'.”
Relativist: “That doesn't make any sense. Logic is an epistemological tool; it applies to propositions”
Michael Ossipoff: “No, it doesn’t make any sense in terms of Materialism.”
My statement doesn’t depend on materialism being true – e.g. minds can exist as immaterial entities without entailing logic having an ontic status. It’s undeniable that logic is an epistemological tool since it provides a means to infer propositional truths from prior truths. That fact doesn’t preclude it being something more than that, but you need to make a case for it.

Michael Ossipoff: “Uncontroversially, there are abstract facts, in the sense that we can state them or speak of them.”
100 years after the big bang, no one was around to state, speak, or contemplate any such abstract facts. Did abstract facts exist at that time? My point is that these “facts” of which you speak are merely descriptive, and reality exists with or without it actually being described. If you have a different view, then make a case for it.

Michael Ossipoff: “There’s no physics experiment that can establish or suggest that this physical world is other than that. As Michael Faraday pointed out in 1844, physics experiments detect and measure logical/mathematical relational structure, but don’t establish some sort of objective reality for “stuff “.
Physics pertains to physical relations among ontic objects, relations that are describable in mathematical terms. These physical relations do not exist independently of the objects that have them.

Michael Ossipoff:” there’s no justification for claiming that all of the true abstract facts would suddenly become false if all conscious beings were to somehow vanish.”
Relations exist as constituents of states of affairs, and we can think abstractly about these relations but that doesn’t imply the relations actually exist independent of the states of affairs in which they are actualized.

Michael Ossipoff: “What it means is that you needn’t worry about it, complain about it, or agonize about it.”
Your assertion isn’t the least persuasive, and in fact it merely seems dismissive – since you aren’t actually confronting the issues.

Michael Ossipoff: “I take it that you’re referring to the God that you believe in”
No, I’m referring to a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It seems unlikely that such a God could exist given the gratuitous suffering that exists in the world.


Michael Ossipoff: “Don’t glibly make statements about the indescribable, as by attributing those inevitable abstract implications to God’s will or making. Don’t be so quick to blame God for your being in this life that you wanted or needed.”
I don’t blame a God for anything. What I do is to draw inferences about what sort of God makes sense. Given the nature of the world: a 3-omni God doesn’t make much sense.

Michael Ossipoff: “… however bad this planet’s societal situation is (and it is bad), worldly incarnated-life is just a blip in timelessness. …so you’re making too much of it.”
It seems to me that you make too little of it. You haven’t really addressed the issue of the problem of evil, you just assert it’s not a big deal.

Omnipotence entails that God can lift all objects that can possibly exist. An object that God cannot lift is therefore (broadly) logically impossible. Therefore his inability to create something he can't lift does not constitute a problem because omniscience does not entail doing that which is logically impossible.

God can't do something that humans can do (i.e. humans can create things that they can't lift). i.e. God can't make himself non-omnipotent. No problem here either: Omnipotence is part of God's nature. He can't be both omnipotent and ~omnipotent - that would be a contradiction.

"The UN was FDRs idea as far as I know."

Nah. The UN is "League of Nations" 2.0. It was Wilson's idea.

" I suggest that a physical world is a logical-system, consisting of abstract logical implications that just 'are'."

That doesn't make any sense. Logic is an epistemological tool; it applies to propositions (descriptions of some aspects of reality) not to the ontic objects of reality. If there are no intelligent minds articulating descriptions of reality, then there are no propositions (except in some abstract sense that every aspect of the world is describable, in principle).

"Anyway, when the "problem of evil" is stated, there's over-emphasis on this physical world and its importance. Sure, this life matters, in the sense that how we conduct ourselves in it matters.
But this life and this world are a blip in timelessness. In fact, the long but finite sequence of lives that you're in is likewise only a blip in timelessness."

That seems a self-defeating position. Why bother continuing to live, and to improve your life and that of your loved ones?

More importantly, why did God bother to put us into this hellhole (as it is for some, at least)? Did he want some maleficent amusement?

"Metaphysically impossible" depends on "broadly logically impossible", which depends on how the terms are defined. So "metaphysically impossible" is dependent on the definitions of the terms. "Square circle" could be metaphysically possible if the terms were defined such that this would not be contradictory."
That's right.

"Since we can define the terms however we please, how is this relevant to whether something exists or not? "
If you define “circle” and “square” differently from me, then you and I won’t be able to have a meaningful discussion about circles and squares. We need to agree on semantics to discuss the logic.
Consider this proposition:
Prop A: X is a circle & X is not a circle
Is it possible for X to exist? No, because it violates the law of non-contradition. Now consider this statement:
Prop B: X is a circle & X is a square.

“Square” is generally defined in such a way that it is not a circle. So with this definition in mind, Prop B entails Prop A. Therefore the X of Prop B can’t exist because it violates the law of non-contradition.

My argument does not depend on the non-existence of mental entities qua mental entities. I resolved your original issue when I replaced "logically impossible" with "metaphysically impossible." A state of affairs is metaphysically impossible if its existence is broadly logically impossible. A square circle is strictly logically possible (logic alone does not entail a contradiction), but it is broadly logically impossible because the meanings of "square" and "circle" entail a contradiction; i.e. its actualization would violate the law of non-contradiction.

"The entire Mueller process is a political stunt for the midterms."
How do you account for the fact that Mueller (a Republican) was appointed by a Republican (Rosenstein), and Rosenstein was a Trump appointee? I'll certainly grant that Dems have, and will continue to use this politically, but isn't this typical of our political system? Need any reminders about Trump's making political capital out of the negative Hilary news?

" If the Mueller team had anything they would have leaked it by now, since this has been the pattern. They are looking to stain Trump by associations to third parties."
What pattern? There have been no leaks! We don't know what Mueller might uncover - and there's no justifiable basis for believing that an absence of leaks entails either Trump's guilt OR innocence.

The best case scenario for Trump is to let it complete and have him fully vindicated. If the Republicans are hurt politically in the meantime, that's unfortunate - but the same thing happens to Democrats. Personally, I'd like for our system of government to work, but it won't work well by applying double standards - so we have to expect political fallout, both deserved and undeserved.

" isn't the meaning of the proposition part of reality as well"
Meaning is something that exists only in the mind. It constitutes relations among other elements of the mind, so meaning is still just another abstraction. Abstractions are a special kind of existent, and one can argue that they do not actually exist. e.g. circles do not actually exist; rather, circular objects exist from which we abstract out the concept of circular via the way of abstraction.

This seems a digression. At issue is: what non-mental objects exist? Contradictions exist only as mental objects.

" How do you account for the existence of impossibility?"

Impossibility is a property of propositions, not of the elements of reality that may be described by the propositions. True propositions correspond to elements of reality, but propositions are false because they do not correspond to elements of reality (i.e. I subscribe to correspondence theory of truth). An impossibility = a proposition that is false out of logical necessity, so it cannot correspond to an element of reality.

OK, contradictory semantic constructions exist - but they have no referent in the actual world. How's this?:

1. An object that is describable as a logical contradiction is metaphysically impossible. (e.g. square circles are metaphysically impossible)
2. If x exists then x is metaphysically possible (converse of 1)
3. Omnipotence entails the ability to directly create any contingent entity whose existence is metaphysically possible.
4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin (e.g. the departed souls of faithful Christians). (Christian doctrine).
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin
7. In this world, evil befalls the innocent due to the sinful acts of free-willed individuals
8. God created this world instead of a world of free willed beings that do not sin.
9. Therefore God chose a world with needless pain and suffering.
10. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent.

"the beings in heaven have had that ability and, by the decisions they chose to make, have qualified for entry to heaven"
Yes, but God set up this process - he defined the qualifications, and they are contingent - God had a choice (i.e. the qualifications do not appear to be metaphysically necessary). It is basically a game that God created that will inevitably lead to harm coming to good people while on earth, and eternal harm coming to those who don't pass the test. Both sets of harm seem inconsistent with omnibenevolence. Further, it doesn't even appear that the test is administered fairly - obviously some have a harder time of it than others.

it is enough for an apologist that the qualified being once had free will.

That is certainly a distinction, and any distinction can provide an escape hatch. That's why I don't suggest my arguments could convince a committed Christian - they can always resort to "God moves in mysterious ways." Arguments such as mine are only relevant to someone who is actually willing to entertain the possibility that a 3-omni God does not exist. The real lesson is that such a God's non-existence seems more likely than his existence.

BTW, Mary being "immaculate" just means she was born without original sin (see this)

Thanks for your comments - I agree with everything you said. If I decide to put this into an essay, I'll try to be more comprehensive. For now, I'm working through bits of it at at time.

Incidentally, I previously raised this question on a Christian forum, and almost everyone who replied actually agreed with the premise that the souls in heaven have free-will and do not sin. They could not explain why God could not just create such beings directly - they just asserted he can't. The reasoning appeared to be: he would've if he could've, but he didn't so he couldn't.

The PSR may commit a category error by asserting there are "reasons." There are causes for everything, and when we understand the causes we can label this the "explanation." However, the presence of causal "explanations" for everything does not imply that everything necessarily has an explanation. In particular: if there is a first cause, then by definition it was uncaused. There's no basis for claiming it must therefore have a non-causal explanation. i.e. there's no basis for claiming the first cause "must" be something that exists out of metaphysical necessity. In fact, that seems unlikely because all known objects that exist out of metaphysical necessity are abstractions, and abstractions lack causal efficacy.

Asimov's robots have positronic brains which give them full consciousness (self-awareness, intentionality, etc). They think as we do, except for being unable to violate the 3 laws.

My main point is that, IMO, goodness is not dependent on truly free will. In a sense, God lacks free will: he can't do evil because that is against his nature. And yet, he is considered the personification of goodness.

OK, Thanks. I agree that my argument is tied to that premise, but if the premise is false this just changes the problem.

Assuming the souls in heaven lack free will: If the ultimate fate of good people is to live eternally without free will, then why would God ever put us in a state of free will? Less good comes of it because it results in some good souls unnecessarily experiencing evil done to them on earth, and it results in some souls choosing evil and not receiving a good, eternal life with God. It's a contingent fact that God put this system in place, and it does not exhibit maximal goodness. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent.

Assuming the souls in heaven HAVE free will, then Christianity is false.

Are you suggesting Christianity is incoherent (since Romans 6:7 is generally accepted), or are you suggesting the souls in heaven lack free will? I can't tell what you're disagreeing with.

At death, we stop having these choices — Relativist

Not necessarily. — EnPassant

You previously said, "They would give up the freedom to sin but would still be free in infinite possibilities of goodness" This seems to imply we stop having these choices to sin or not.

What good comes from this brief period of moral freedom? — Relativist

Great good. If we become good we will be closer to God in the next life. — EnPassant

You seem to be suggesting it is a good thing to be close to God in spite of a loss of moral freedom. Well and good, but then why not create beings with that absence of moral freedom to begin with? Then everybody wins: this results in more good than the merit system God devised - a merit system that results in good people suffering. How is God's merit system better than what I proposed?

"i do not see how, "Because freedom is necessary if goodness is to be freely chosen"
is a tautology"

It just defines what it means to be a free choice. A free choice is only free if there is freedom.

" It is not real goodness if it is not freely chosen."
This seems a different statement, but I disagree with this one. I don't see a good thing must be freely chosen to be considered good. Hypothetically, a robot that follows Asimov's 3 laws of robotics can still do good, even though it cannot choose to do harm.

Do you agree with the both of the following:

1. If there are free-willed souls in heaven, then:
at least some of them will sin & Romans 6:7:
(" anyone who has died has been set free from sin") is false

2. If the souls in heaven do not sin then they lack free will.

I think you will agree, but I'd like you to verify.

"freedom is necessary if goodness is to be freely chosen. "
Sure, but that's a tautology. We make choices every day, sometimes choosing good and sometimes bad. At death, we stop having these choices (according to your theory). What good comes from this brief period of moral freedom? Is it good because some will fail and suffer damnation? That makes no sense.

"They would give up the freedom to sin but would still be free in infinite possibilities of goodness. "
Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God just create beings like THAT - without a freedom to sin, but free in infinite possibilities of goodness?

Are you really choosing to give up free will, or is that an unexpected consequence? Is it a good thing to lack free will? Why bother with suffering on earth (a consequence of free will) for our brief stay here, while spending eternity as robots? If it's good to lack free will, why ever give people that chance to fail?

Thanks for spotting the numbering error. I corrected it.

"What is choice?

I undersand it's a road crossing. There is more than one path to take and, if we have free will, we can choose, unaffected by any factors, to travel down any one of those paths."

It is problematic to say free will choices are "unaffected by any factors." Choices are the product of factors ( e.g. beliefs, objectives, desires, whims, perverseness...). What you're missing is that there is an agent who is responsible for the ultimate choice.

A computer program is not responsible for the outcome of following a decision tree. A human is responsible because the decision is based on factors of his own choosing - even if he chose to follow a scripted decision tree. i.e. we own our choices.