He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Christians rationalize this as the product of his human nature. That human nature could experience real human suffering, without which there could be no atonement.

A more objective view would treat this as evidence the author of Mark didn't view Jesus as being truly one with God. Luke chose to put different last words in Jesus' mouth: "Into your hands, I commend my spirit".

A couple of recent events that add to the concerns about Trump: his firing of 12 Inspectors General, and his pardoning of the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the 1/6 Capitol break-in.

“Success is going to be retribution...We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.” -Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys leader, convicted of seditious conspiracy for conspring to break into the Capitol on 1/6.

I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective. — Philosophim

If you assume morality is either objective or subjective, then one can consider the metaphysical implications. This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false.

Regardless, what's the basis for the premise that OMVs exist? It's typically based on our moral intuitions. But in your op, you said:

A subjective morality is based on our own feelings and intuitions. An objective morality would be something that could be evaluated apart from our feelings and intuitions using logic and objectively measurable identities. — Philosophim

I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings.

The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications. It's consistent with the possibility that OMVs exist but doesn't entail their existence, and doesn't require simply assuming they exist (as you proposed).

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio calls for retribution in chilling interview with Alex Jones hours after prison release

Among the criminals pardoned by Trump is Enrique Tarrio. Tarrio was given a 22-year sentence after being convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the break-in of the Capitol on 1/6. The message this sends: loyalty to me is more important than rule of law.

Tarrio was a guest of Alex Jones, where he said, “The people who did this, they need to feel the heat, they need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted."

“Success is going to be retribution,” he added. “We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.”

Since they would feel unconstrained by law, they have a lot of power to wield. The parallels to Hitler's brown shirts do not seem hyperbolic.

Yet another chilling action to loosen the administrative constraints on Trump's power:

Trump uses mass firing to remove independent inspectors general at a series of agencies

The Trump administration has fired more than a dozen independent inspectors general at government agencies, a sweeping action to remove oversight of his new administration that some members of Congress are suggesting violated federal oversight laws...The Washington Post, which first reported the firings, said that most were appointees from Trump’s first term.

Now, I would say that I reject that encoding entails that a being must have parts; or that, perhaps, knowledge entails the requirement to encode/decode it. I think you are thinking of something like an AI or human brain, when God is disanalogous to this. God is pure will and being. Willing requires knowledge, but not knowledge necessarily in the sense of computation. — Bob Ross

So you assume some magical sort of knowledge is metaphysically possible in order to prove there exists a being who has it. Circular reasoning.

So, although you are right that a being with one property is simpler than a being with more than one; my rebuttle is that God’s properties are reducible to each other — Bob Ross

More circular reasoning.

But then you are saying that two things which are have absolutely no ontological differences are ontologically distinct! — Bob Ross

I'm referring to identical intrinsic properties. Example: the elementary particles. Every up-quark is identical to every other, except in its external relations to other particles, and they're certainly ontologically distinct.

This depends on Thomist metaphysics which I see no reason to accept (e.g. that an ontological object can have "actual" and "potency" as intrinsic properties).

I didn’t make an argument from change: I didn’t import that part of Thomistic metaphysics. My argument is from the contingency relations of composition. — Bob Ross

So what? You made assumptions that would entail a God. To be effective as an argument, you would need to use mutually agreed premises. You're just rationalizing something you already believe.

I'll give you a few objections:

knowledge = organized data;
data entails encoding;
encoding entails parts;
Therefore omniscience would entail parts.

6. Therefore, an infinite series of composed beings is impossible.
7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3) — Bob Ross

This seems to be equivalent to argument I've made that there must be a "bottom layer" of reality, This is called metaphysical foundationalism. I agree with it, but...[

8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts. — Bob Ross

This is problematic. A being with one property is simpler than a being with multiple properties, even if cannot be decomposed into more fundamental parts.

9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.

non-sequitur. Two identical beings could exist, and a set of multiple "simple" beings (no parts) could exist with non-identical properties. Because of this, both of the following are non-sequitur:

10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist

This next one is loaded with metaphysical assumptions that I see no reason to accept:

12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other. — Bob Ross

This depends on Thomist metaphysics which I see no reason to accept (e.g. that an ontological object can have "actual" and "potency" as intrinsic properties).

Suppose the bottom layer of reality consists of electrons and protons (pretend they are both non-decomposible). Protons would interact with because they have opposite electric charges, and would interact with each other because they have the same charge. Such a scenario seems logically possible - and it's inconsistent with your framework.

A bottom layer of reality seems likely to be quantum based, and I suspect Thomist metaphysics isn't compatible with QM.

Thomist is a theistic metaphysics - Aquinas developed it from Aristotelian metaphysics, in order to make sense of God's existence. So it's unsurprising that it would entail a God. I get the fact that this would appeal to theists, but it has no power to persuade non-theists, unless you succeed in fooling them into treating the metaphysical framework as true.

Relativist I said I disagreed about the Bishop. Not quite sure why you're asking about Trump's post? — AmadeusD

I was trying to understand what you were actually disagreeing with when you said, "I disagree about the Bishop"? I thought (mistakenly?) you were disagreeing with my assessment of Trump's post.

I disagree about hte Bishop, and that's fine. — AmadeusD

I said Trump's post was irrational, rude, and full of lies. Do you think it was rational, polite, and factually true?

DACA he has more recently said he's going to find ways to ensure they can stay. — AmadeusD

He said that in 2017 too. A few months later, tried to terminate their protected status. SCOTUS stopped it. He can just as easily change his mind this time around, and try to find a way around the SCOTUS ruling.

Fwiw, I have no issue with teh Bishop. I have no issue with Trump having an issue with her either. — AmadeusD

Her message was perfectly reasonable. His criticism was not - it was irrational, rude, and full of lies.

No, whatever you were quoting lied, — NOS4A2

He absolutely said those things, on "Truth" Social. Here's the full text:

The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart. She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into the Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology! t

Trump told several lies here. The quote I gave contained no lies.

It requires you to factor in people’s race or gender or sexuality as a factor in how you treat people. Do you do that? — NOS4A2

I try. When I've failed to do that, I've offended people needlessly. I've seen other people who've underestimated individuals because of their gender. I've worked with other managers who used language that is racist and sexist. All these things are related to DEI.

I've worked in environments in which my workers were entirely male. We sometimes interacted in ways that would be offensive around women. I came to learn this sort of behavior is inappropriate. This is DEI.

I worked for Exxon-Mobile when the company began off-shoring jobs, to take advantage of cheap labor - and I led a group of 150 people based in Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia. I was glad I'd received some DEI training specifically addressing their cultural perspectives.

You identified no lie. I referred to "apparent logic' - I drew an inference. An incorrect inference is not a lie. If you think my inference was indeed incorrect, then explain Trump's negative reaction to the Bishop's comments - specifically her statement that the vast majority of them are 'not criminals' but rather “good neighbors," (which is absolutely true) - which tacitly acknowledges that there are some criminals. Is it reasonable to expect a Christian bishop to focus on the minority that are criminals to a man that routinely overstates the situation and almost never demonstrates empathy? Is there something wrong with preaching a value consistent with her faith?

How so? Remember that I asked specifically about all aspects of DEI, not affirmative action.

When I worked for Exxon-Mobil as a supervisor I had to attend DEI training. I found it informative and eye-opening. There was nothing about it that was discriminatory to any groups, including the white people that you seem concerned about.

See my response to @Amadeus.

Well, he's embraced the H-1B visa holders, so it's technically not *all* immigrants, but his intentions are broader than just pursuing undocumented immigrants.

He has often attacked immigrants who are here legally with some protected status. Example: the Haitians who he told us "are eating the dogs". He's vowed to deport them (see: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-attacks-haitian-immigrants-have-stop-2024-09-13/).

He's cancelled admissions for refugees previously approved for entering. (https://apnews.com/article/refugees-flights-trump-immigration-border-resettlement-33ebaa34bc4d0c069a22ee7aa5f8ff6d).

He's indicated he will deport mixed-status families - which means deporting US citizens with family members who are undocumented. (This is one specific group the bishop asked Trump to have empathy for). https://www.axios.com/2024/12/08/trump-immigration-deportation-us-citizens

He's claimed the 14th Amendment doesn't grant citizenship to anyone born in the US. https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order-immigrants-fc7dd75ba1fb0a10f56b2a85b92dbe53

In 2017, he tried to eliminate DACA: https://www.nilc.org/articles/supreme-court-overturns-trump-administrations-termination-of-daca/

No doubt, but I'm curious to see if there's any deeper thought beyond the view that DEI oppresses the poor white race because it's kinda like affirmative action.

But if definitions like "greateer than" and "less than" are only defined within a system, it follows that they cannot be applied outside it. Isn't that at least close to the OP's conclusion? — Ludwig V

Actually, because the reals and integer systems are applicable to the real world (they were developed by analyzing aspects of the real world), the terms "greater than" and "less than" do apply meaningfully.

The transfinite system was not developed directly from real world analysis, but from analysis of implications of sets.

There is a constant tension here around the fact that counting cannot be completed and the temptation or desire to think of the infinite as some sort of destination or limit. — Ludwig V

Agreed- it results in people treating infinity like a natural, or real, number. Then when non-mathematicians hear of transfinite numbers, it reinforces that false view - because it turns infinities into "numbers" but only in a very specialized sense.

And like that, racist affirmative action and DEI was ended in America. Another pernicious failure ended with the stroke of a pen. — NOS4A2

Is every aspect of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion bad? Could you please explain how it's been a failure?

In this case, Trump communicated his narcissism quite eloquently. ;-)

And yet, I expect most of his supporters will agree with him. Because he has spoken.

Unsurprisingly, Trump has demanded an apology:

"She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart," said Trump, adding that Budde didn’t mention that some migrants have come to the United States and killed people.

His apparent logic: because some immigrants have killed people, no immigrants (nor LGBTQ) are worthy of empathy.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-inaugural-prayer-service-washington-national-cathedral-interfaith-a95b36f962be93c8647cc5144266da11

My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; — A Realist

That's an unreasonal leap. Yes, your senses CAN deceive you, but that just implies your senses are fallible - not that they are completely untrustworthy.

Face it: you do trust your senses every single day. If you didn't, you'd quickly die. Consider why you trust them: it's innate. It's a properly basic belief. Basic, because it's innate - not deduced or learned. Properly so, if the system that produced you would tend to produce such a belief. Being properly basic, it's rational to hold the belief- unless you encounter some sort of epistemic defeater. The mere possibility that this is wrong is not a defeater.

Your reasoning is correct, but I'll try to give a mathematician's perspective (I received a B.S. in math in 1976, so I'm not really a mathematician - but I'm familiar with some foundational points). The real number system, natural number system, and transfinite math, are "mathematical systems".

Here's a good definition (from this source) of the term:

A mathematical system consists of:

1) A set or universe, U.[/b]

2) Definitions: sentences that explain the meaning of concepts that relate to the universe. Any term used in describing the universe itself is said to be undefined. All definitions are given in terms of these undefined concepts of objects.

3. Axioms: assertions about the properties of the universe and rules for creating and justifying more assertions. These rules always include the system of logic that we have developed to this point.

4. Theorems: A true proposition derived from the axioms of a mathematical system based on the axioms and derived by the logic.

In my abstract algebra course, I had to learn about a variety of mathematical systems (e.g. groups, rings, fields), that have no relationship to the real world, and to prove theorems about them. As long as the system has the 4 components, it's valid math.


The real number system and integer number system are mathematical systems, and both of these relate directly to the world. They also relate to each other: the integers are a subset of the reals.

Transfinite math is just another mathematical system, and it's one with no direct relationship to the real world. It has an indirect relationship, in that it pertains to the sets of integers and the sets of reals - but that doesn't mean all the concepts of the reals&integers are applicable.

The mistake is to treat all of mathematics as a single system, with a single set of axioms and definitions.
Example: the ordinal numbers (the ordered set of integers) have a "successor function" - an operation that produces the next integer: "+1" There is no successor function with the reals, because there is no "next" real number.

More to the point, the real number axioms don't apply to transfinites. What matters is that there is a universe (the transfinite numbers) and that there are operations that can be performed with them - including a successor function for the transfinite ordinals - which allows treating them as greater than or less than.

It's still true that there is a conceptual relation between the transfinites and the reals and integers, and that was the basis for Cantor defining them. But it needs to be remembered that definitions (like "greater than" "less than" etc) are intra-system.

Trump Revokes Biden's Order to Lower Drug Prices for Medicare
President Donald Trump has been busy rescinding Biden-era Executive Orders in his first days in office, including one that had the potential to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans on Medicare.

Known as Executive Order 14087, it was designed to identify a list of prescription drugs that would, under the plan, require only a $2 copay a month for anyone on Medicare. Former President Biden had directed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, an arm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to look into ways to make prescription drugs cheaper for Medicare recipients.

No, your point was that I overestimated popularity. I didn’t.

Your second point was how I underestimate how difficult it is to pass legislation. I didn’t— but that’s a different issue. — Mikie

You seemed to be unhappy with the job Biden did because he failed to do these things. Because of this, I inferred that you meant those things were so popular, they could pass easily. Sorry if my inference was wrong.

What's your point? Mine is that nothing could pass without some Republican support.

Take a look at any reputable polling on the issue. Public option — child tax credit — taxing the wealthy — child tax credit — unions, emissions reduction, etc. All have majority support, some well over 2/3rds. — Mikie

I found a Kaiser poll. It showed that only 40% support of Republicans for a public option, and 25% supporting medicare for all. These numbers imply little, if any, support in Congress by GOP.

I doubt there'd be much GOP congressional support for anything in your list except for child tax credits- which Biden achieved in the American Rescue Plan. This is an example of something with no specific objective- it could always be higher.

Eh, that’s kind of nonsense. Or one could say the same thing about conservatism, or anything really. Just an east slogan for those who like to talk in generalities— because the actual work of details is too time consuming. — Mikie

What makes you think it's nonsense? Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else?

The fact is there were plenty of concrete measures that could have been taken, that were very popular, and that would have helped the majority of Americans. — Mikie

You overestimate the popularity of the things you listed, the ease with which they could be passed, and the negative consequences (real and perceived) of any specific proposal.

I agree on all points.

Biden and democrats could have done a lot more to help the majority of Americans instead of taking baby steps.

True, a lot of things were blocked by the reactionary courts or thwarted by Sinema and Manchin— but that’s only some of the story. He could have pushed as much as Trump is pushing now— and he didn’t. He half-assed it. So he lost. — Mikie

A political problem for social liberalism is that there is no reachable goal. It can only ever be a direction. Biden successfully pushed the US in that liberal direction through his actions. There could always be more. There are a complex set of reasons why there wasn't. Among the reasons: 1) improvements are never universal; some are helped, others aren't (consider the student loan forgiveness program). 2) each positive step typically has some negative consequences for some.

It makes no sense for one quantity of 10 to be bigger than another quantity of 10. 10 is one quantity. Similarly, it makes no sense for one quantity of infinity to be bigger than another quantity of infinity. Infinity is one quantity. — Philosopher19

In the everyday use of the term, a "quantity" is always a fixed, real number (e.g. a number of liters, a number of tomatoes, a number of molecules in a mole...). Infinity is not a real number. Your mistake seems to be that you're treating it as one.

This is where I disagree. I don't believe Cantor's diagonal argument shows anything. Infinity is one cardinality/size, it makes no sense for one infinity to be bigger than another in terms of size. — Philosopher19

What's the basis for your claim that it makes no sense?

Agree with all of the above. But you can't map one infinity to another with one being bigger than another because there isn't more than one. — Philosopher19

Infinity is not a thing that exists. It is a concept, and when it is applied to sets - it can lead to inconsistencies. There are infinitely many integers and infinitely many real numbers, but infinity is not a member of either set. Rather, "infinity" is a property of each of these sets. But is it the same property in both sets?

We can compare sets by defining a mapping between them. There is a 1:1 mapping between the set of even integers and the set of all integers. So although it may seem like there "more" integers than even-integers, that's not the relevant comparison. The comparison that is made is based on abstractly mapping the members of one set to the other. In this example, each integer can be mapped 1:1 to the set of even integers. 1->2, 2->4, 3->6...The mapping applies to all members of both sets; no members are left out.

However, there is no 1:1 mapping between the reals and the integers. Reals map into integers, covering all the integers, but you can't cover all the reals with integers. This is the basis for saying the "size" of the set of reals is greater than the "size" of the set of integers. The formal term for "size" is cardinality: the cardinality of the set of reals is greater that the cardinality of the set of integers. This is the basis for saying there are "more" reals than integers, but this isn't "more" in the everyday sense of the word.

How would a difference in size be established between them when there is no counting involved? And if there is counting involved, how would infinity be reached? — Philosopher19

There are "countably many" integers. That doesn't imply they can all be counted, but one can map a counting process to the set of integers. In the real world, that process would never end.

On the other hand, the real numbers can't be counted. There are infinitely many numbers between 1 and 2. In fact, there are infinitely many real numbers between any 2 real numbers. This is the rationale for stipulating that there are "more" real numbers. It's not "more" in the real-world sense of your intuitions; it's "more" in a mapping sense.

For the first cause, its necessary properties are essential to it. — A Christian Philosophy

Aren't all of its properties essential to it?

I'd say only if its creator designed it with that function in mind. It is the designer that gives the man-made object its identity - that's the reason why it exists. — A Christian Philosophy

First of all, thanks for pointing out my error. Sorry about that.

So at this point, I don't see any logical inconsistency in your position. I don't agree with it, and your view that an object's designed function is intrinsic to the object is non- standard. The only implication is that any arguments you make will not be compelling to many of us.

One question: the first-cause/ontological foundation was not designed. Does this mean it lacks essence?

Sorry for the long delay in respoinding.

I agree that an inherent property must be intrinsic. But I still claim that the function of a designed thing is intrinsic. A paper-cutter, i.e. a thing designed to cut paper, remains a thing designed to cut paper whether we use it to cut paper, use it as a door holder, or don't use it at all. — A Christian Philosophy

I earlier brought up the fact that a paper cutter could be used as a torture device, even though it wasn't designed for that purpose. I believe you said this changed the essence. It seems weird to suggest that the discovery of a new purpose for something constitutes an intrinsic change to it.

Suppose the human race gets wiped out next week. 10 years later, aliens from Tralfamador arrive and discover a paper cutter. They have no idea it was meant to be a paper cutter; they instead use it as a musical instrument. Then the Tralfamadorians all from the common cold, and a time traveler from 2025 arrives and begins cutting paper with it. Did the essence change several times?

Is it even correct to say something's essence can change? That treats the object as something existing independent of its essence, but a variety of essences can become attached to it - even though nothing changes about its physical structure.

Just because a function could be found in natural things, it does not follow that it is not an inherent property of man-made things as well. "3 sides" is an inherent property of triangles, and yet a shape can also have 3 sides and not be a triangle (if the sides are not straight). — A Christian Philosophy

Read about the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties here:

"We have some of our properties purely in virtue of the way we are. (Our mass is an example.) We have other properties in virtue of the way we interact with the world. (Our weight is an example.) The former are the intrinsic properties, the latter are the extrinsic properties. "

Function is extrinsic (irrespective of whether natural or man-made): it pertains to the way the object interacts with other objects.

Regarding triangles: they are abstractions; they don't exist. Triangular objects exist, and their shape is indeed an intrinsic property.

The heap of parts is not a paper-cutter because it cannot cut paper in that state. — A Christian Philosophy

Function is not an intrinsic property, but it's shape and structure is.

I don't disagree with the rest of the paragraph; though I find that identifying individual man-made things is not impactful.

Nevertheless, you haven't accounted for individual identity. A microscopic change to an object means it is not identical to what it had been. What makes it the same object? This is important because you earlier said:

Essence is the same as identity, metaphysically speaking. As per the law of identity, everything has an identity. — A Christian Philosophy

So if you're going to use the term essence, and defined it as identity, you need to be able to account for individual identity.

What do you mean by "natural kind"? — A Christian Philosophy

"Natural kind essentialism is a specification of the intuitive idea that there are some mind-independent or objective categories in nature."
(Definition taken from this paper, but it's pretty standard).

I agree that categories are arbitrary. But the function of a man-made thing is more than that. While not everything is designed, a design is a type of identity. — A Christian Philosophy

It's still not a mind-independent category.

And what is designed is always designed with an end goal, or purpose, or function. This is to fulfil the PSR: all voluntary acts (including creating man-made devices) must have an end goal; otherwise, the act would be random which would violate the PSR. Thus, the function is an inherent property of a voluntarily created or designed thing. — A Christian Philosophy

I agree that design entails a goal (by definition).

I do not agree that randomness violates the PSR. The outcome of a quantum collapse is random (within a probability distribution). IMO, having a reason just means it can be accounted for, and in this case - randomness can be accounted for. If one were to rule out the randomness of quantum collapse based on a metaphysical assumption, like the PSR, then one's metaphysics in on shaky grounds.

I also do not agree that a function is an "inherent property" of a designed object. It is a relational (extrinsic) property. A sharp stone can be produced by natural forces, and it can then be used to cut things - so a function can be found for things even without being the product of design.

What individualizes man-made things with the same function, e.g. 2 paper-cutters, is the individual physical parts or molecules they are made of. — A Christian Philosophy

I suggest that it's not just the set of physical parts, it's the way they are configured, down to the molecular level. If you take apart a paper cutter, the heap of parts is not a paper cutter. Even so,
this works only for point-in-time identity, as I've described. If you use the paper cutter even once, there will be a slight change to its physical make-up at the molecular level.