I do not believe the universe is a purposeless accidental event. — prothero

Can you make a case for your belief, or is it an article of faith?

I wondered about that, but this article says religious people are less likely to believe in UFOs than are atheists.

https://religionnews.com/2021/08/23/for-atheists-the-idea-of-aliens-seems-real-religious-people-doubt-it/ — Hanover

The survey showed that atheists were more likely than Christians to believe there was life elsewhere in the universe. That's probably because they believe God created the universe for humans.

what makes me take notice is the context- that it is being taken seriously by a major superpower. — schopenhauer1

UAP does not entail aliens; the concern is that a foreign government might be using technology beyond ours. That is potentially relevant, but that may be an excuse, since the alleged behavior often breaks the laws of physics.

The notion that aliens are here is an irrational conspiracy theory. Members of Congress are as susceptible to this as anyone (former Senator Harry Reid was a believer). Space opera science fiction is so common that it's made many of us receptive to the presence of aliens. Meanwhile, few understand why the liklihood of aliens is of vanishing low probability.

The broader question is: why do so many people embrace conspiracy theories? The answer is: poor critical thinking skills. Where there are unanswered questions, there will be wild guesses to explain them. The guess gains traction as more facts are shown to fit the guess (applying confirmation bias), and contrary facts ignored or treated as a cover-up by those in authority. A recent example is the attempted killing of Trump, which spawned pro-Trump conspiracies (the deep State, or Democrats were behind it) and anti-Trump conspiracies (it was staged to help his campaign).

If you're interested in critically analyzing any specific claims about UAE, go to the METABUNK forum. They have subforums on other conspiracy theories as well.

Thanks

How does superdeterminism differ from the Bohmiam interpretation of QM?

It would be nice to know whether or not QM is actually deterministic, but it has no bearing on the question of free will.

Randomness in mental processes does not make a will truly free. What would matter is whether or not there is a non-physical aspect to mental processes, that would set it apart from the physical universe.

The presumed absence of constraints on the origin of the world does not imply a multiplicity of possible outcomes, because there is no space of outcomes given to us. Note that I said "no space" - not an empty space and not a singleton space [consisting of a single possibility]. The latter is what you would need to make your conclusion of necessity, but assuming such a singleton space would beg the question. Assuming any space of possibilities would take you outside your original formulation, and so, the right conclusion is simply that contingency/necessity does not apply in this degenerate scenario. — SophistiCat

I disagree. I don't see any reason to call this a "degenerate scenario". Everything that exists, either exists contingently or necessarily: they are the converse of each other; there is no third option.

Take it as a premise that there is a first cause/foundation of existence- because that's what we're analyzing here. The context of the discussion is metaphysics- so the relevant modality is metaphysical possibility/necessity. Discussions like this often mistake conceptual possibility with metaphysical possibility. Just because I can conceive of a world grounded in a different first cause does not mean an alternative first cause is metaphysically possible.

I've proposed that it is a metaphysical axiom that contingency needs to be accounted for: X is contingent iff whatever accounts for X could possibly account for ~X. In the absence of such an account, X is metaphyically necessary. A first cause is not accounted for by anything else, therefore it cannot be contingent. This conclusion follows from my axiom

Why believe this axiom to be true? Because it's consistent with what we know about the world through physics. Events that are the product of classical physics are not contingent: causes necessitate their effects. OTOH, quantum mechanical events have a "space of possibilities" (a probability distribution), so the specific outcome is contingent (although the specific space of possibilities is necessitated by the quantum system - which evolves deterministically per a Schroedinger equation). So the laws of nature suggest the world is basically deterministic (outcomes are necessitated) with contingency present only where there is quantum indeterminacy (with a necessitated probability distribution of outcomes).

You also alluded to an "absence of constraints" applying (I assume) to a first cause. It is contrained to being whatever it was, conceptual possibilities notwithstanding.

Let's see... Me buying milk today was logically necessary, because I obviously did buy milk. — SophistiCat

That's not my reasoning.

Your buying milk was contingent iff the purchase was contingent upon something. If your purchase was the product of libertarian free will, then it was contingent upon your will making the decision.

OTOH, if determinism is true, then your choice to make the purchase was logically necessary, given your genetic makeup and history. There may be quantum indeterminism somewhere in the past that influenced your history or genetic makeup- in which case, your purchase was contingent upon the outcomes of those indeterminate events.

The first cause cannot have been contingent upon anything, because nothing is prior to it. So, whatever it actually was, it is metaphysically impossible for it to have been anything else.

But some things in the real world also have metaphysical identities or essences. Even if we suppose that the world is merely physical, which means that everything supervenes on matter and energy, then at least matter and energy have identities (i.e. as matter is not the same thing as energy, they have different identities), and thus also have essential properties. E.g. matter has the essential properties of having a mass, volume, shape, etc. So, if a thing is made of matter, then it necessarily follows that it has a mass. — A Christian Philosophy

This doesn't imply that an object has "necessary" or "contingent" as an intrinsic property. You're still just equating a definition with essence, defining matter as an object that has volume, shape, mass, etc. Either an object has those properties (in which case it is "matter") or it does not (in which case it is not "matter"). Defining a term with some set of properties doesn't entail that any objects have an individual essence. And the only role of "necessity" in this is the necessity of having the defined set of properties in order to be classified with the term.

If I understand correctly, you say that the first cause's existence is necessary, but only because there is no prior cause and not because its existence is an essential property of its identity. — A Christian Philosophy

That's basically true, but it's based on the principle that contingency needs to be accounted for.

But then, how do you explain the fact that its existence is necessary, if not inherently? If this fact is left unexplained, then it violates the PSR.

If you use the simplest definition of the PSR, that everything (both necessary and contingent) has an explanation of its existence, then there would be an infinite vicious regress of explanations. Should we prefer 1) a vicious infinite regress, in order to keep the PSR intact, 2) entirely reject the PSR because of this, or 3) redefine the PSR to exclude something foundational?

I think the latter is the most reasonable option. There can be no explanation for the foundation of existence, and (as noted) it can't be contingent. Since it's not contingent, its existence is logically necessary: it can't not exist.. (i.e. if the foundation of existence didn't exist, there would be no existence at all; which is logically impossible because we obviously exist). You are free to assume this foundation = a god, although it obviously doesn't entail a god.

You left out this part:

"Whatever the number in a second Trump term,the recent immigration surge has probably ended. Mr. Biden’s crackdown since the summer has caused net migration to drop sharply, and Mr. Trump has promised even tougher border policies when he takes office. Many would-be immigrants will be less likely to try to enter the country, knowing that their chances of success are lower."

It was politically costly for Biden to wait so long to do something about the surge, but it's not clear that we really need to do anything more draconian that what Biden put in place.

It sure would be nice if laws were changed, so that all the immigration issues could be dealt with on a more permanent basis. Expect legal challenges to executive orders (there's already lawsuits against Biden's anti-asylum policy).

Undocumented labor is one of the ways the government undermines the power of labor in the US. Tariffs plus deportation would lay the groundwork for an economic revolution. — frank

This "economic revolution" can only have negative effects during the foreseeable future, as domestic laborers will need to be paid more to pick crops, and other "menial" jobs (homebuilding, custodial work, lawn care). Also, the cost of imported products will rise, due to the tarriffs.

There are additional downsides to Trump's "Operation Wetback 2.0". Every person who is deported is one less consumer in the U.S., so it will generally reduce demand for products (lower GDP). It will also result in less social security and income taxes being paid (undocumented workers pay into social security, but never get to collect).

Further adding to the misery will be the effect of retaliatory tarriffs on US exports. If Trump follows through on his threats to violate the USMCA, it will make other countries less apt to negotiate deals with us.

On the bright side, if we stay the course, and accept the suffering, it will all settle out in 10-20 years.

necessity also applies to things with essential properties. E.g. "3 sides" is an essential property of a triangle. Thus, if a thing is a triangle, it logically or necessarily follows that it has 3 sides. Therefore, we can call essential properties "necessary properties". — A Christian Philosophy

Triangles are abstractions, and don't exist in the real world. Rather, objects exist that have 3-sides. What you're calling "essential properties" is simply the definition we've assigned to the word "triangle". A word necessarily having its definition is just semantics, not metaphysical essentialism.

Would this mean that this type of first cause exists without a reason, and thus would violate the PSR? Whereas my first cause, the being whose existence is an essential property, has a sufficient reason to exist: it is an internal reason, that is, its existence is explained logically or inherently. — A Christian Philosophy

No internal reason is needed for a first cause to exist necessarily. A first cause cannot exist contingently, because it is logically impossible for it to be contingent upon anything*. So there's no need for the (ad hoc) contrivance of treating a term in logic as an ontological property.

----------------
*Y is contingent iff there exists an X that accounts for Y, and it is metaphysically possible for X to account for ~Y.

Potential is a characteristic of things. You seem to be reifying it, suggesting it exists independently. That seems unwarranted.

a better reasoning for existence than something coming from nothing. — Benj96

False dichotomy: something from nothing is logically impossible, so any alternative would be "better".

:up: :up:

Grounds and explanations intersect: if X grounds Y, then we can explain X with Y. In terms of causation: a cause grounds it's effect.

Causes seem to be what explain things. — Clearbury

Causes are one kind of explanations, but there are also constitutive explanations: the constituents of water (hydrogen and oxygen) explain water. Grounding covers both.

My issue is that explanations are communications. The universe evolves irrespective of whether anyone is around to explain it. Explanations are superfluous (except inasmuch as they influence people). When we provide a causal explanation, we are refering to things out in the world. The explanations themselves are within or between minds. "X causes Y" accounts for the existence of Y. Calling this an "explanation" is an inter-mind thing that adds nothing to the ontological relation between the cause and efffect.

I think you're right. I'll add this about the majority of Republicans in Congress: they embraced Trump in order to enhance their own power (better a Republican President than a Democratic one). The question is: how far will they bend toward Trump's will, in order to effect the policies THEY hope for.

The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of this First Cause is grounded by logical necessity (reason type 1 in the OP) because to deny the existence of a thing with necessary existence is a contradiction. Then this First Cause also serves to explain the existence of everything else as their cause, direct or indirect. This summary should serve to explain why there is anything at all. — A Christian Philosophy

Why think "necessary" is an ontological (de re) property of any being? The concept of "necessary" applies to logic: e.g. in a valid deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. I'm aware that Alvan Plantinga has proposed that God has de re necessity, but it seems to me a contrivance.

I suggest that any first cause (including a natural one) would exist necessarily: it exists autonomously, and without a cause that could account for its contingent existence.

I am not sure I quite see that an explanation is a proposition.
I'm not a fan of 'grounding' as it is not clear to me that it's a good alternative to explanation.

For example, let's say I decide to order a pizza because I'm hungry. I am the cause of my decision. But I could also say that my decision was grounded in my hunger, as that was why i made the decision. — Clearbury

OK, set aside "proposition". My point is you're describing something in a series of sentences. The sentences are ABOUT something going on in the world, they are not the thing itself.

Grounding refers to the thing itself.

I'm not a fan of using "facts" to refer to existences, but I am a fan of using "grounding" instead of "explanation" because explanations are propositions, not existences. In that vein, "autonomous" seems appropriate, although "substantive" is weird.

Princeton philosopher, Shamik Dasgupta, uses the term "autonomous facts" to refer to the bedrock, you guys are discussing. All other facts, are "substantive facts".

He also recasts the PSR in terms of grounding:

PSR: For every substantive fact Y there are some facts, the Xs, such that (i) the Xs ground Y and (ii) each one of the Xs is autonomous.

The PSR is a reasonable epistemological principle (up to a point), but in terms of metaphysics, I think grounding is a more suitable term.

Reasons are explations- semantic descriptions that carry meaning to intelligent minds. Atoms are grounded in their constituents (quarks and electrons). Of course, we can explain the nature of atoms in terms of their constituents (more or less supporting the PSR), but IMO we should draw sharper boundaries between ontology and epistemology than the PSR suggests.

“Reason finds truth." — A Christian Philosophy

Rather: reason directs us toward truth. Induction doesn't necessarily fund truth, but it tends to lead in the proper direction.

It is correct to think logically because reality behaves logically. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no reason to think logically.
It is correct to look for reasons to things because reasons exist in reality. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no reason to find sufficient reasons. — A Christian Philosophy

This sounds like you're reifying logic; logic is semantics- it applies to propositions, not to reality. We devise propositions that describe reality, and apply logic to these propositions, but logic itself is not part of the ontological fabric of reality. The world operates per laws of nature, and because of this - we are able to draw correct (or truth-tending) inferences from observations.

It is correct to look for reasons to things because reasons exist in reality. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no reason to find sufficient reasons. — A Christian Philosophy

We look for "reasons" - i.e. prepositional descriptions of the grounding of some aspects of reality, and we are successful because such groundings exist.

If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like Trump — NOS4A2

:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

https://www.axios.com/2019/02/03/donald-trump-private-schedules-leak-executive-time

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/11/11/how-often-has-president-trump-played-golf-since-he-took-office-infographic/

Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the show — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, so you "know" this to be the case. Based on what? Mental lapses that we all see on video? We also see videos of him speaking rationally, and demonstrating a command of the facts.

I absolutely believe Biden has had some cognitive decline, but there's no rational basis to jump to the conclusion he's incapacitated to the degree that shadowy figures are actually exercising control.

I'm curious if you buy into other conspiracy theories, because support for them is similar to support for the "dementia Joe" narrative that the GOP pushes for political gain.

I don't remember you pointing that out. — Gnomon

Obviously.

I've had to repeat myself multiple times. I'm not going to continue doing this. If you want any more responses from me, read through my responses and ask questions about what I said.

What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. — Gnomon

To infer design depends on the premise that there exists a designer. As I've discussed (and you failed to respond to) the qualities a designer must have are exactly the sort of thing that are suggestive of design. So such design arguments are a special pleading, as I previously pointed out (and you ignored).

And hence Patel will be just this laughing stock and afterwards Americans will ask just what happened to the FBI. — ssu

Even if that best case scenario comes to pass, he will be able to do a great deal of damage along the way. He threatened to release all the national security documents Trump illegally possessed, claiming that it would expose the "deep state" conspiracy against Trump (the same conspiracy that Durham investigaged, but found no evidence of). He claimed he could do this because Trump had made a blanket declassification of all the documents before leaving office. Even if it were true that Trump had done this, doing so would have violated the Espionage Act (which involves any documents pertinent to nation defense, irrespective of classification). So, Patel was either planning to break the law, or he's ignorant of it. Either possibility implies he's no qualified to have a position of authority in the DOJ. The risk is high that he'll put national security at risk if he's FBI director.

Thanks for the descriptions. I'll consider reading Cartwright's book.

If you don't see any evidence of Teleology, maybe you believe that random accidents are capable of causing complex organizations to arise without any prior tendencies in that direction. Even Spinoza, who equated God with Nature, saw evidence of teleological power*2 in the natural world. So, acknowledging Teleology in the Cosmos does not entail accepting the Biblical account that the purpose of humanity is to serve as slaves of God*3 — Gnomon

I define "evidence" in the broadcast possible way: a set of facts. I do believe that no complete set of facts actually entails teleology. I acknowledge there are facts which are consistent with teleology. However, those facts are also consistent with a naturalistic interpretation. For example, a balanced ecosystem is consistent with design, however it's also consistent with natural selection.

A philosophical argument for Teleology is the Watchmaker notion that a universe capable of creating creatures capable of inferring intentions from actions is evidence of an intentional designing Cosmic Mind. — Gnomon

A cosmic mind has features that suggest design too, does it not? In particular: it contains knowledge: an organized set of facts. Furthermore, the existence of knowledge suggests learning and experience. So it seems to me these arguments from design are a special pleading: select some facts, ignore others, and uncritically accept the existence of an omniscient mind existing by brute fact- an intact set of organized knowledge that just happens to exist without being designed or even developed over time.

And yes, of course, complexity can arise over time. This is discussed in the paper I linked to twice before (here it is again).

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. — Gnomon

Sounds like a rationalization, not a argument.
It seems to suggest God exists necessarily, but everything else exists contingently. That's consistent with my analysis- that a first cause exists necessarily, however that doesn't entail a God. As I've asked multiple times: is it more likely an infinitely complex mind just happens to exist by brute fact, than that much simpler minds developed over time in just a small number of places in a vast (possibly infinite) universe over billions of years of change?

I don't know about Craig. but the Kalam argument and Kant's critique were both ignorant of our modern notion of a specific origin of space-time (t=0), which has motivated Atheists to think of alternatives to that first tick of the clock. — Gnomon

Do you read my posts? You just repeated something I have disputed at least twice before. I'm happy to answer any questions you have and respond to anything you think I'm wrong about. But I'm tired of repeating myself.

No, but I browsed it. It appears she suggests there may be a greater disconnect between laws of physics and true laws of nature, than is commonly believed. Is that correct?

But if mental life is part of reality, and I’m sure you would agree it is, and physics doesn’t explain that, then there is an explanatory gap. — Wayfarer

The fact that the (human developed - and limited by our perspectives ) science of physics doesn't have explanations available for mental activity doesn't mean it is not actually grounded in the fundamental, actual, laws of nature.

Excuses? So...you are assuming the worst about Martin, and the best about Trump.

Why didn't Trump's attorney ask Martin about the comment when she was on the stand? It was tactical. He's a smart lawyer- he wanted to use his negative characterization in his closing without giving her the chance to explain it. Surely you can see that. It's what a good defense attorney should do.

Carroll's lawyers were smart too; they would have discussed this text with her in advance- so they were in position to know the answer.

Still, lawyers' statements aren't testimony, so all they give us are two competing interpretations of the texts. You didn't acknowledge this fact. Instead you latched onto the defense interpretation because it fit your pre-conceived view that Trump was innocent.

“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say. — NOS4A2

I put myself in the shoes of a juror, examining the evidence (testimony is evidence, btw) and it's clear that the preponderance of evidence is in Carroll's favor. My conclusion is the same as the jurors. You are the outlier. You have given no indication you've weighed the evidence- you just parrot the defense case, and complain about the absence of DNA or video evidence- which is dumb. The case should be decided on the evidence presented at trial, not the absence of evidence you'd like to see.

Of course, his character and pattern of behavior is relevant. Why wouldn't it be? That's why trial defenses often put character witnesses on the stand. No one could possibly testify that Trump is too virtuous to commit the alleged act. But you apparently think he is.

Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None. — NOS4A2

Trump's attorney tried a trick: he introduced Martin's text messages into the evidence, but when he cross-examined her, he didn't ask her to explain what she meant by "hasn't really happened". Instead, he pulled this rabbit out of his hat on closing, asserting this "proved" the 3 women conspired on a lie about Trump.

In the prosecution's rebuttal, they explained that Martin was referring to the fact that the passage of the LAW had not happened. Here's a summary of what occurred.

Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings. — NOS4A2

Recordings of Trump, and the allegations by other of his victims, are relevant in establishing his character.

"Proven"? The standard of proof it's a preponderance of evidence. It sounds like you will refuse to believe Trump did anything wrong unless is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Such an attitude just shows how devoted you Trumpists are to the morally bankrupt criminal.

When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods. — Gnomon

I've never seen a physicist refer to a "brute fact", but Sean Carroll proposed a cosmological model that entails a finite past (he proposes that time is associated with thermodynamics). It entails an "uncaused first cause", although (AFAIK) he didn't assign this label.

We agree that we're engaging in speculations that are beyond physics. I objected to your treating the big bang as the beginning of material existence because the physics doesn't tell us it is, and because it seems too specific for a metaphysical assumption. It's inconsistent with some cosmological hypotheses (e.g. bouncing branes and loop quantum cosmology), and IMO a metaphysician ought to stay out of the way of science.

Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile: — Gnomon

Teleology pervades the Aristotelian paradigm (see this). We disagree on whether or not teleology exists, so I'm not going to concede a paradigm that assumes it exists.

In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; t — Gnomon

Sorry, Dr. Google, but this is not strictly correct. In his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig does not depend exclusively on the assumption the big bang is the beginning of material existence; he simply argues that the past is finite and that it is THIS that entails an uncaused first cause.

A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. — Gnomon

Dr. Google is again being a bit misleading. My description is more accurate: it's a mathematical singularity. No modern cosmologist actually believes there existed a "singularity with infinite density and temperature". It is not strictly true that our "current understanding of physics breaks down at this point." Rather, it breaks down NEAR this point.

According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, — Gnomon

Wrong again, Dr. Google. Cosmologists have proposed a number of hypotheses that proposes causes of the "big bang" from prior states. I mentioned two above, but there are a number of others.

While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. — Gnomon

This omits the basis of the notion that there was a "single incredibly dense point": General Relativity. Virtually all cosmologists recognize that GR breaks down, and becomes inapplicable somewhere around the time of the inflationary period. Most believe a quantum theory of gravity is needed to understand this.

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge. — Relativist

Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. — Gnomon

I've said from the beginning that a God is logically possible. My contention is that it is implausible. It seems a pretty huge assumption to make, if you wish to convince anyone. Nevertheless, if you are a theist (for whatever reason), it's reasonable to embrace a theistic metaphysics. I've read a couple of Ed Feser's books on Thomist metaphysics, and it seems coherent (although unpersuasive to non-theists).

And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:

“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."

“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."

This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right. — NOS4A2

You're just repeating a line of attack by Trump's defense during the trial. This line of defense depends on the unsupported assumptions that both 1) the email was referring to the sexual assault allegation; and 2) The allegation is false.

Martin testified that the 2017 email was unrelated to the sexual assault allegation. Even if she lied about this, it doesn't imply the allegation was false. That the allegation was true was supported by a second confidante ,(Birnbach).

I previously failed to mention that two other women also testified that they had been assaulted by Trump.

If you want to appear credible, try to show that you're examining a fuller context than simply repeating a defense allegation. That reeks of confirmation bias. Try to show that you're making a judgement based on the totality of evidence.

I don't see that dualism has a better answer than physicalism. I was just thinking that mental life is best understood on a basis other than physics. Psychology, for example.

I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. — NOS4A2

You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.

The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise. — NOS4A2

You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.

physics does not 'explain reality — Wayfarer

It explains more about reality than does anything else, and in a way that is directed toward truth. I grant that it doesn't explain mental life.

That doesn't refute what I said about modern physics being "better" than the Aristotelian paradigm, nor that physics isn't still the best available means of understanding nature. We're seeking an understanding, and understanding is necessarily in terms we can relate to.

Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. — Gnomon

That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity.

So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago — Gnomon

Jeez, I've explained this twice before to you. An initial state doesn't mean "popping into existence". Popping into existence implies there is something (existence) into which it could pop, and that there was an earlier state at which it did not exist. "Initial state" means exactly what it says: there is no earlier time at which it didn't exist.

the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists... — Gnomon

Right. It should make sense to no one. An initial state does not mean "something from nothing". We discussed this, and you seemed to agree.

...dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? — Gnomon

As I said, the "singularity" is mathematical, not ontological. It means it is beyond the predictive power of general relativity. That's precisely why earlier times are unknowns. At no time have I claimed the big bang represents the beginning of existence. It's possible that the initial state was around that time, but that's pure guesswork. It's also irrelevant to my position.

Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words — Gnomon

Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"?
How do you know there was no matter and energy? For that matter, how do you define these? Are quantum fields "matter"? Some define matter as the stuff that is composed of atoms, but this ignores the fact that atoms are composed of particles that are (per Quantum Field Theory), quanta of quantum fields.

I gather that you believe the initial state consisted of a God- sans universe. How did this God know how to design a universe? You seem to believe he designed it for intelligent life, so how did he know life would actually be possible when he created it?

Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. — Gnomon

An initial state is not an event. Events occur in time: there is a time prior to the event.

The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely. — Gnomon

Yep, that's what cosmological arguments purport to do, but they convince no one because they depend on ad hoc metaphysical assumptions, including the plausibility of an unembodied mind, and that it contains magical knowledge (e.g. knowledge of a design plan.

In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity: — Gnomon

It's an outdated paradigm. The nature of reality is better explained by modern physics.

Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain — Gnomon

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge.

You didn't respond to my statements about "luck". Did you see my point? I hope I won't have to repeat it later, as I did with my discussion of first cause/initial state.

As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact.
— Relativist
Is that "belief" based on reasoning from evidence, or just accepted for no particular reason, other than to allow "brute fact" to arbitrarily take the place of transcendental pre-time (eternity/infinity) and intentional causation? :chin: — Gnomon

My belief is based on reasoning from conceptual analysis, in the manner of most metaphysicians.

I infer the past is finite, because an infinite past entails completing an infinite number of consecutive steps, of finite duration. This is impossible. You suggest I'm "substituting" for "transcendental time". No. I simply see no reason to believe there exists such a thing - there's no evidence of it. But even if there were, I would still infer a finite past, so I don't see that it matters.

Re: the necessary brute fact:

The state of the universe today, was caused by past states of the universe - so there's a causal chain, that necessarily begins with an uncaused first-cause. Because it wasn't caused, it follows: 1) that it exists as brute fact; 2) that is is not contingent (for reasons I previously described).

If the First Cause is "not contingent", that means it is self-existent or self-caused, yes? — Gnomon

"Self caused" seems unintelligible. It is UNcaused.

So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity.

Yes, a first cause is consistent with a "creator god" -- but it doesn't entail a creator God.

Yes, if there were a creator God, it would provide a source of contingency. But a natural first cause is also a source of contingency. The only contingency we see in the world is purely natural: quantum indeterminacy, so the simplest explanation is that the first cause is natural.

Is your "natural state of affairs" the same natural laws that Hawking assumed existed eternally before space-time Nature even began with a Bang? — Gnomon

I doubt it. I didn't arrive at it this way, and Hawking was a poor philosopher.

Are you saying that your deterministic First Cause possessed the power of Determination, including the laws of nature? — Gnomon

I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state.

Or are you saying that the cause of this complex world is a Brute Accident? Fortuna was the Roman goddess of dumb Luck. If so, she has been on a statistically impossible streak of Gambler's Luck for 14B years. — Gnomon

As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent".

Lucky? Luck implies there is a set of contestants, one of which (the lucky one) wins. If this fits your view, then who exactly are the contestants? Frankly, it sounds like you're treating life as a design objective - such that a series of "lucky" coincidences had to occur in order to achieve it. As I said, life is a consequence of the way the world happens to be. Perhaps there are contingent factors that might have produced a lifeless universe. So what? --unless you assume it failed to meet the design objective.