Regarding taxes, it appears that Trump has only promised to extend the current tax schedule that's soon to expire - not lower current taxes. By contrast, Biden says he'll keep current tax rates for everyone making under $400K. Trump has also said he's thinking about lowering corporate tax rates. So I don't see a real benefits for most folks.

Trump has also talked about imposing more tarriffs, including 60% on imports from China, and 10% on all others. This will increase the costs of many things, and likely lead to a trade war.

The culture wars issue sounds more like offering rhetorical support.

Trump is charged with a felony because, per state law, the falsification of the records was allegedly undertaken with the intent to commit another crime: the scheme to keep the public from becoming aware of the allegations of his sexual conduct. The scheme was executed prior to the election, Cohen made the payments before the election. Critically, these payments were approved by Trump prior to the election - and in the indictment, this constitutes Trump's "causing" the false business records to be produced - albeit that the actual false recording occurred after the election.

Nevertheless, I do think it's a tenuous case, because of the legal technicalities involved. The prosecution has a difficult burden to meet.

the crime you're alleging is what the Clinton campaign did when they funnelled money through Perkins Coie to fund the Steele dossier, which they then hid as "legal fees — NOS4A2

It's misleading to call this "funelling money... to fund the Steele dossier" because it suggests intent by the Clinton campaign. The campaign was not involved with the decisions on what to investigate (other than approving opposition research) nor on whom to hire to conduct that research, nor did they direct anyone on invent facts to support a narrative.

The fact that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded opposition research was not withheld from the public. The expenditure wasn't associated with a crime or coverup, nor was it improper: conducting opposition research is normal. The crime was simply a failure by the campaign to properly report the purpose of an expense by Perkins Coie. It was reported only as "legal services". The FEC ruled that it should have been reported as opposition research. The Clinton campaign argued that it was correct to consider this a legal expense, since it was an expense incurred by the law firm they used, but the FEC ruled against that interpretation.

Help me understand why one would vote for Trump

I live in Texas, and know more people who support Trump than who oppose him. I would like to better understand their point of view by hearing rational reasons why one might vote for him.

I'm not interested in hearing praise or condemnation for Trump's personality traits (e.g. lecherous, lying, bullying, insulting, xenophopic, racist, conspiracy-theory minded, etc), crimes he's committed (or alleged to have committed) such as sexual assault, fraud, election interference, conspiracy.

I'm mostly interested in hearing what policies you expect him to implement that may be perceived as positive by supporters. You don't have to be a supporter to understand why some would find policies attractive to supporters, even if you don't agree it's a good idea.

I'm open to hearing about things he did while President (policies implemented by law or executive order) - but explain what this has to do with future policies he's promised to implement.

If you point to differences in conditions (e.g. inflation, deficits, immigration rates...), explain what he did (and/or what Biden did) to create those differences in conditions.

I hope NOS4A2 takes advantage of this to make his case, but it's a useful exercise for everyone to try and understand the attraction.

"The signed statement with the denial was publicly released on Jan. 30, 2018. Not long after, Daniels recanted the statement and said that an affair had occurred. She said her denials were due to a non-disclosure agreement and that she signed the statement because parties involved “made it sound like I had no choice.”" -source

The statement will certainly be brought into evidence, and Daniels (Clifford) will probably testify that the affair did occur. It will be up to the jury to assess whether her in-court testimony (under oath) will convince the jury.

But I'm not sure it matters a great deal. Worst case, it's like the doorman who claimed to have knowledge of a "love-child" of Trump's, and similarly got paid off to prevent going public with it. Even after it was shown to be a false accusation, Trump still wanted the story killed until after the election. It is the killing of these stories, and reporting these as legal expenses, that is the crime. Not any affairs.

But if a child's alleged memories of a previous life can be validated against documentary records and witness testimony, that amounts to some form of verification. — Wayfarer

I'm not challenging the fact that it's verification that the child has some knowledge of someone who's dead, and the knowledge was not obtained from contemporary sources, but rather due to something paranormal. Although it's consistent with reincarnation, it could be some other mechanism - and I was lamenting that there's no way to test what is actually going on- to know if it is reincarnation, or some form of ESP.

In the Teletransporter cases, someone who is not you, is exactly continuous with you. — AmadeusD

Or it could be considered a discontinuity: you are being destroyed and a new entity, an exact physical copy, is being produced. I tend to think there's no right answer; all answers are paradigm dependent.

It's fascinating, but frustrating. How best to account for these, metaphysically?

If actual reincarnation, it implies some (traumatic) memories are stored non-physically.

But it could be some telepathic connection across time, implying something about the nature of time and of mental activities.

It's frustrating because there seems to be no way to test any theories.

:grin:
Corrected.

But you can never be identical to yourself in even the shortest amounts of time — RogueAI

In terms of strict identity, we can consider ourselves AT a point of time: RogueAI at t1 is identical to RogueAI at t1.

RogueAI at t1 has the same loose (perduring) identity as RougueAI at t2, t3, ...tn. This holds even if memory loss commences at some point - all are on a unique causal chain.

Let's suppose you die at tn, and all your memories cease to exist. Should we consider your loose identity to continue existing? The paradigm doesn't dictate an answer; it's a matter of semantics - what do we wish to refer to. We could talk about (loose identity) RogueAI in any of 3 ways:

1. The living person (which ceases to exist at death)
2. The physical body (which gradually decomposes after death)
3. A bare identity (a haeccity) that is your propertyless essense.

I don't believe in haeccity, so I generally wouldn't use sense #3. But we've been discussing an afterlife in which one's memories are gone. This seems to be a bare identity. Perhaps it reincarnates in a new infant.

To be ME at this point in time, 100% of my memories must be present.

Me (now) is not identical to the me of yesteday, much less to the infant me of 70 years ago.

I take the identity of indiscernibles seriously: entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa

In terms of having an identity over time, it is a looser sort of identity. Perdurantism makes some sense: my identity has temporal parts: today's me was caused by yesterday's me, in a temporal chain that goes back to whatever we might call my origin. But there's a vast difference between 70 year old me and zygote me. Zygote me lacks an entire lifetime of my memories. Similarly with losing memories from dementia or trauma. In some sense, it's stll me - but a vastly different me depending on how much is lost, and if it's sudden or gradual. If it's gradual, then it's the mirror image of growing up and gaining memories- each day not much different from the last. But loss of all memories at death is a discontinuity. I don't see any sense that it's me. It's similar to zygote-me, but without the temporal connections to the subsequent temporal parts the zygote has. We'd label it me only if we choose to define individual identity that way, but that's arbitrary.

Consciousness doesn't, on it's face, consist in memories, so I see no reason to have them at-base — AmadeusD

If memories aren't preserved in my after-life consciousness, in what sense is that still me? It hardly seems like something to look forward to.

This touches on the concept the individual identity, and essence. It sounds like Penelope Mackie's minimal essentialism - which entails a bare identity with no attached properties.

The ability to criticize is a precious right. — NOS4A2

Criminal defendants forfeit some of their liberties, as noted in the Appellate court ruling:

"after indictment, criminal defendants are frequently subjected to 'substantial liberty restrictions as a result of the operation of our criminal justice system.'"

there is little to no evidence these threats even occurred — NOS4A2

The Special Counsel's filing on that appeal listed a number of instances in which these have occurred (see pages 3-7). Trump's attorneys did not dispute these allegations.

It's only through voting for a third party that corruption will be held accountable. — boethius

How does voting for a 3rd party (that has zero chance of winning) hold either the winner or loser accountable? Ross Perot received a whopping 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Walk me through how Clinton and/or Bush were held accountable (and for what)?

The threats, if there really are any, are strictly caused by the motives of the threatener. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure what it means to be "strictly caused", but there's a clear, predictable connection between Trump's verbal attacks on named individuals and threats by Trump supporters to that individual. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think Trump is unaware? For that matter, it wouldn't even matter if Trump were too stupid to see this - the effect is obvious.

This comment is pertinent:

If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. — NOS4A2

So... it seems you feel they deserve to be threatened, irrespective of its impact on the administration of justice. So I don't take your legal analysis seriously - you grope for all available rationalizations.

Then lets discuss a few of your examples.

Biden said Trump was "sort of like [Joseph] Goebbels".

Goebbels was Nazi Germany's chief propogandist, who spewed disinformation. Trumps pews a great deal of disinformation.
Seems an apt comparison.

You mentioned Hillary saying "half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic". The "half" was an exaggeration (which Hillary regretted the next day) but it's accurate that Trump attracts those sort of people.

You mentioned AOC saying, ""Trump is compared to Hitler because he demonizes immigrants and refugees, denies science and facts, and promotes hate and division."
Again, that sounds accurate (Immigrants are "destroying the blood of our country. That's what they're doing. They're destroying our country" )

Omar: "The President is an open racist, a bigot, and has repeatedly showed strong shades of Hitler in his policies and actions."
Trump's degrading comments about immigrants sure sound racist, and his Muslim ban sure seemed bigoted. But even if he's not truly racist in his heart, these words and policies clearly appeal to those who are- so it's worthwhile drawing attention to them and discussing.

Sanders:"Trump's authoritarian tendencies and attacks on minorities are reminiscent of Hitler's tactics."
Is he wrong?

"Trump is a dictator in the making, following in Hitler's footsteps with his racist and xenophobic policies." - Tlaib
A bit over the top, but his immigration talk certainly sounds racist and xenophobic (He has
lamented that people were not immigrating to the United States from “nice” countries “like Denmark”).

Cohen: "What he has done and what he is doing goes to the Joseph Goebbels playbook. The big lie. You say the lie over and over and over, again and again, and it becomes the truth."
100% accurate. About 70% of Republicans believe the "stolen election" lie, and that he was completely exonerated in the Muelller probe.

So what's your take on these?

All your examples entail various people attacking one individual: Trump, based on things he has actually said. The comparisons could be debated. By contrast, Trump (and Trumpists) are making assertions about classes of citizens based on their party affiliation - displaying and encouraging bigotry toward the group. That's quite different.

The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. — NOS4A2

I recommend reading the DC Appellate Court ruling that upheld Chutkin's gag order. It provides important context that is applicable to all the gag orders imposed on Trump.

For example:


"after indictment, criminal defendants are frequently subjected to “substantial liberty restrictions as a result of the operation of our criminal justice system.” More specifically, as a less restrictive alternative to pre-trial detention, Congress granted courts the authority to release indicted defendants under the “least restrictive * * * condition, or combination of conditions [of release], that * * * will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Such conditions commonly include measures that burden criminal defendants’ ability to act, associate, and speak...
...like any other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump does not have an unlimited right to speak. “Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated to other interests that arise in [the trial] setting.

...The record before the district court and its factual findings demonstrate that some of Mr. Trump’s speech poses a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the criminal proceeding against him...

...The record also shows that former President Trump’s words have real-world consequences. Many of those on the receiving end of his attacks pertaining to the 2020 election have been subjected to a torrent of threats and intimidation from his supporters...

...The former President has repeatedly attacked both the presiding judge and his law clerk in a New York state-law lawsuit. Since those attacks, the judge’s chambers have been “inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, and packages.” New York v. Trump, No. 452564/2022, NYSCEF No. 1631 at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 3, 2023). In addition to threatening death or serious harm, callers have labeled the judge and clerk “Nazi[ s],” “dirty Jews,” and child molesters...

...Mr. Trump himself recognizes the power of his words and their effect on his audience, agreeing that his supporters “listen to [him] like no one else.”...

...Mr. Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case in two respects

Mr. Trump’s right to a fair trial does not give him “the right to insist upon the opposite of that right”—that is, a trial prejudiced in his favor. See Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965)...”

The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint — NOS4A2

A non-point. All gag orders entail prior restraint.

You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. — NOS4A2

"Guide my reasoning"? It's perfectly rational to rely on authorities, as long as one doesn't treat them as infallible and remains open to revising one's view when there are compelling reasons to do so. A Trumpist dogmatically stating their opinion isn't compelling.

The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust...not applying a single thought of your own. — NOS4A2

Re-read that post and you'll see that I'm open to argument and evidence. You seem upset that I don't simply embrace your dogmatic statement.

If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship — NOS4A2

I don't think censorship is preferable to free speech, but it's a leap to call the gag order "censorship". As I mentioned, there are no withheld facts, the gag order is narrow, and the constraint is temporary, and it has not caused Trump harm. You've provided no facts or reasoning to support your contention, and have ignored what I said about the Constitution. Dogmatism is not persuasive.

Being a conservative, to an anti-conservative, is tantamount to being a literal Nazi. — AmadeusD

I'm sure there are such people, but I haven't noticed Democratic leaders promoting that sort of thing. On the other hand:

Trump ha promoted the message "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" (see this)

Trump's 2020 campaign sent a faux survey to supporters asking if they were "American or democrat?"

Trump has called Democrats "treasonous" for failing to applaud his SOTU.

He's called Democrats "fascists" and he's called them "vermin".

What I said is that free speech is a constitutional right that must be interpreted in the context of the Constitution, and that the courts have the authority and responsibility to interpret it. Gag orders are indeed prior restraint, but courts have upheld them for the purpose of ensuring the constitutional right to a fair trial. Such orders seem a very limited constraint-the speech limitation is narrow and persists only for the life of a trial. I don't always agree with SCOTUS decisions (e.g. Dobbs), but I defer to them by default unless I encounter compelling arguments they're wrong. You've given none other than proclaiming unlimited free speech is a "human right".

Is there a situation where a gag order prohibits voicing something in the public interest or that is grossly unfair? Conceivably yes, but the constraint on Trump is a poor example of it. He's not harmed (as you noted- it's politically helpful to him to claim martyrdom), and there are no facts being withheld from the public. So again, your complaint seems based solely on free-speech absolutism as a "human right". Labelling me a "censor" for not agreeing with you seems ad hominem- not a rational case.

I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. — NOS4A2

My bad, I jumped to the conclusion that you were parrotting GOP talking points. Sorry.

I acknowledge there's evidence Bragg was politically motivated to charge Trump. However that doesn't imply it's a false accusation, or even that it's unfair: Cohen went to prison but his co-conspirator didn't even get charged until Bragg indicted him.

Bragg's possible political motivation doesn't have any bearing on the federal charges brought by Smith. Rather, those charges are of the utmost seriousness and reflect on Trump's fitness for office. It's a pity if those cases are delayed until after the election; the public does have a right to know if the GOP candidate is a criminal.

One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect — NOS4A2

You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:

Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence — Relativist

The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. — NOS4A2

And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.

There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.

There is no evidence for it. — NOS4A2

Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".

Here's an article about some acts carried out by Trumpists:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate — NOS4A2

Being a Democrat appears to anti-Democrat bigots as a conflict of interest. No evidence of personal gain has been identified. Loren Merchan works for a firm that does digital campaigning and online fundraising. Those activities will continue irrespective of the outcome of the case.

It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored. — NOS4A2

I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?

You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.

The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. — NOS4A2

You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.

Trump routinely alleges bias. He also asked for Judge Chutkin's recusal. In the Trump University case, Trump asserted that the Judge would be biased because he was "Mexican". You have parroted Trump's assertions, while providing no actual reasoning - with the exception of your applying your principle of free-speech absolutism. We simply disagree on that, as I explained. But on that front, I asked you to explain how Trump is harmed by the constraint on verbal attacks on the Judge's daughter, and you said:

"Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. "

The 2nd part is downright false: the public is already fully aware of the information. But you need to explain how ad hominem attacks on a judge's daughter helps his case. (Legal case? political case?)

Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it. — NOS4A2

I'm fine with getting information out in the public, but it's ironic that this case is about Trump working to prevent information about himself from becoming public. Do you agree we're all better off knowing what he did: the affairs and election-interfering coverup?

This case is the weakest of the 3 federal cases, both in terms of Trump's actions and in terms of the strength of the case (apparently it depends on pinning other uncharged, federal crimes on Trump). But it's very interesting to see Trump's reactions, because they confirm his unfitness for office. A President should support the criminal-justice system, not try to undermine it. A reasonable person would simply argue his innocence, and that the facts presented at trial will demonstrate this.

You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what? — Relativist

He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections. — NOS4A2

A familial connection to a daughter engaged in political campaigning does not entail a judge acting unfairly. What WOULD imply unfairness would be a pattern of questionable, one-sided decisions. Trump may hope that occurs because it will be grounds for overturning a conviction on appeal.

The gag order does not prohibit Trump from attacking the judge, but please explain why it's a good idea to do so. Also explain the negative impact to him for being unable to attack the daughter.

I'll speculate: it's the same pattern he has displayed in elections: "if I lose, it was because of corruption". It plays well to his base (critical thinking isn't their strong suit), in a way that is totally self-serving while also undermining trust in the criminal-justice system. That's one of the real dangers to Trump becoming President again. To his non-fans, his attacks spark outrage - diverting attention from the damning facts.

Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial? — NOS4A2

He can, so why doesn't he? Attacking a judge's daughter is not a defense of the crimes charged. At best, it's childish. At worst, it taints the jury pool and could lead to violence.

Free-speech is a right granted by the Constitution, and needs be interpreted in the context of that Constitution. That's the job of the Courts irrespective of the way you'd prefer it be treated.

Daniels and Cohen telling their perspectives through books is hardly the same thing as personal attacks. Trump is equally free to write a book explaining his perspective - that would be a rational way to defend himself.

A restraint on verbal attacks will not hurt his chances at trial. But if the judge does treat Trump unfairly, and this leads to conviction, he will have grounds for appeal. That's the way the system is designed to work- and with Trump's financial resources, he can take full advantage of Constitutional protections to ensure he is treated fairly. Contrast this with poor people who go to trial and can't afford to take every nuance all the way to the Supreme Court.

The corrupt deserve to be threatened — NOS4A2

Trump will have the opportunity to defend himself at trial, based on evidence. You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what?

Are you a fan of vigilanteism?

So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism — NOS4A2

Gag orders are not uncommon, and are arguably constitutional (see this) - because there is a tension between personal free speech and the right (by both defense and prosecution) to a fair trial. Trump's previous appeal of a gag order was upheld, and it seems like this one would be also. Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence. The political activities of a family member (or of a judge, for that matter) have no bearing on the ability of the judge to be an impartial arbiter.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie

Their approach to foreign policy also differs greatly. Trump is prone to a tactical approach that is often driven by impulse (e.g. Trump's dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal against the advice of his advisors; imposing tarriffs). Biden's more strategic approach is most apparent in his dealings with China (see this Brookings analysis).

Policies aside, the general approach of the MAGA "movement" is pretty troubling, with its embrace of conspiracy theories, alternative "facts", weaponization of victimhood, disrespect for rule of law, and courting of racists. The sooner this "movement" gets defeated, the better - so that there can be a greater emphasis on policy debate based on an agreed, common set of facts.

It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is. — Tzeentch

The problem is complicated by the fact that it is PERCEIVED corruption that triggers populism - and those perceptions can be manipulated through lies.

My favorite Protestant joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Relativist, maybe I believe some things uncritically. But I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, partly because I study documents from the Early Church. If you read them, I think you'll know that they confirm Catholicism instead of Protestantism. — BillMcEnaney

Protestants generally defer the Apostolic Fathers as well, but they deny they were necessarily of one voice. Regardless, the Reformation was a reaction to the undeniable corruption that grew in the Catholic Church. If the institution couldn't be trusted - where else to place their faith other than Scripture and reasoning?

Thanks to sola scriptura, Protestants have splintered into about 47,000 sects. — BillMcEnaney

Agreed. Here's a Protestant who also agrees.

IMO, the Protestants were right to mistrust the Church, and you're right to mistrust sola scriptura. All this shows is that Christianity is a human creation. If you get some good out of it, continue to embrace it. But recognize that others may gain something from their own unique beliefs- so why not let them embrace whatever they believe? No one can be proven right.

Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things. — Benj96

Aren't you referring to the change in entropy over time? If you just mean the fixed value of entropy for a state of affairs, it explains nothing.

The guiding question of Aristotle's Metaphysics is the question of 'being qua being", that is, what it is for something to be the thing that it is. What is it, for example, that distinguishes man from other beings. And, what it is distinguishes Socrates from other men. The puzzle is laid out in Plato's Phaedo. Each attempted solution proves to be problematic. — Fooloso4

That is essentially my point. One cannot point to a set of necessary and sufficient properties as the essence of a thing, so what's left other than the assumption that there is some unanalyzable, immaterial aspect of a thing. The notion that a bread wafer is essentially flesh is based on some such assumption. Why accept it, other than to rationalize Catholic dogma?

One didn't fabricate this living organism from thin air. It gradually emerged. — Benj96

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive. — Benj96

Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time?

Sounds reasonable, and it sounds very much like Illusionism. From this:

"Illusionists deny that experiences have phenomenal properties and focus on explaining why they seem to have them. They typically allow that we are introspectively aware of our sensory states burt argue that this awareness is partial and distorted, leading us to misrepresent the states as having phenomenal properties. Of course, it is essential to this approach that the posited introspective representations are not themselves phenomenally conscious ones. It would be self-defeating to explain illusory phenomenal properties of experience in terms of real phenomenal properties of introspective states. Illusionists may hold that introspection issues directly in dispositions to make phenomenal judgements – judgements about the phenomenal character of particular experiences and about phenomenal consciouisness in general. Or they may hold that introspection generates intermediate representations of sensory states, perhaps of a quasi-perceptual knind, which ground our phenomenal judgementts. Whatever the details, they must explain the content of the relevant states in broadly function terms, and the challenge is to provide an account that explains how real and vivid phenomenal consciousness seems. This is the illusion problem. "

I had replied based on confusing you with RogueAI - so I based it on something he said. When I realized you were a different person, I erased that.

Just suggesting our technology will improve and allow us to see things we can't see now. But there's no way of knowing how much farther it will let us see, or if it will let us see as far as we need to for this line of thinking. — Patterner

I agree we'll expand what we can see - but there are things we will never see. For example, it's possible there is a multiverse - but because each universe is causally isolated - we'll never have empirical verification. At best, it will be entailed by theory - but theories that can't be empirically verified are less credible. That's a problem with String Theory - it's an elegant theory that explains a lot, but it defies empirical verification.

Catholics must believe that the essences of bread and wine became the essences of his body and blood. — BillMcEnaney

Then they have to accept the metaphysical assumption that there are non-physical essences to the objects of existence - including physical objects. Isn't it true that you uncritically accept this? If one denies this questionable metaphysical assumption, he could still interpret the Last Supper figuratively.

, I believe I've shown that Dr. Craig's theology is logically inconsistent with the Bible. So maybe you didn't find eough time to read the post where I argue that his theology is inconsistent. My point about the vicious infinite regress presupposes that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics and the PSR are true. So, if someone falsifies them, that will show that I argued unsoundly. — BillMcEnaney

I may have missed it, but my impression is that you've merely shown that Craig's theology is inconsistent with your interpretation of the BIble. Still, you admit your claim of an infinite regress depends on the premise of A-T metaphysics, so that doesn't entail an inconsistency on Craig's part.

Monothelites believe that Christ's only will his the divine will, and the will his the faculty a person chooses with. Can God the Father have a human. will when he hasn't adopted a human nature? No, he can't. That means that the divine will God the Father uses must be distinct from Christ's human one. Our Savior asks his Father to take Our Savior's suffering away if God the Father chooses to do that. But Jesus distinguishes between his will and the Father's will. So, if Christ's only will is the divine one, his prayer is self-contradictory. It's absurd to say "Not my will but mine be done." — BillMcEnaney

Craig associates a will with personhood, so that if Jesus has 2 wills then he is 2 persons (i.e. Nestorianism). This also implies there can't be a single "divine will" because that is contrary to there being a 3 person trinity. He references Luke 22:42 in the same link:

"When Jesus prays in the garden, “Not my will but thine be done” he is not praying to himself. That is not the human will of Christ talking to the divine will. That is the Son talking to the Father. The Son is saying, Not my will be done, but Father, thy will be done. I think this implies Monothelitism. Christ had a single will which was perfectly submitted to the will of the Father....
...If we define “mind” to mean a self-conscious subject, the doctrine of the Trinity is, I think, that there are three minds in God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you think that God has a single self-consciousness, you are a unitarian...we want to affirm that there are three self-conscious subjects in the Godhead, and that these three all agree. In that sense, they are of one mind. They all agree. But that is in a metaphorical sense."

I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound. — RogueAI

Show your reasoning and conclusion.

It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result? — RogueAI

I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. That's very different from the question you asked. We only know life is possible, we don't know how probable it is. You suggested a scenario in which we searched for life for a million years and didn't find it. That would imply life is very rare: perhaps only one instance within a galaxy (it's physically impossible to search beyond our galaxy in a million years). That would still imply 2 trillion instances of life in the visible universe.

OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs? — RogueAI

How many galaxies exist within a million light years of earth? Answer: 1. There are 2 trillion galaxies in just the observable universe.

Life exists today, but it didn't exist early in the life of the universe. If only the natural world exists - then it necessarily arose naturally.

I do not see that a failure to figure out abiogenesis somehow implies that something unnatural exists. If you think it does, then share your reasoning.

Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know? — AmadeusD

Makes no sense. If we measured or observed something, we know what we measured/observed.

One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know.

If you're refering to cases where there is sufficient empirical evidence to develop theory - then sure, we'll probably develop theory. But our theories will necessarily be limited by what we can test and observe. Suppose there's a multiverse: other universes are causally isolated from us, so we could never verify such theory.

I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.

I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating.