Prima facie, No. No i shouldn't. And prima facie, these above two quotes are contradictory. If i can be 'agnostic' to the rock, i can be agnostic to my wife's potential alienality. I have no evidence one way or the other. I cannot make any reasonable conclusion. I have no reasons.

However, I know my wife. I can observe and experiment to ascertain whether she has any inhuman properties in some way to deduce whether there's an alien element to her. I do not need to take either conclusion on faith without reason. — AmadeusD

By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien,

I simply have absolutely no intuition as to whether it exists, despite it being logically possible. So i abstain. Not seeing an issue here, other than a bully-ish determination to force me into a position I do not hold and have no reason to support. At least, in this case, it could be established. — AmadeusD

We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.

We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens.

something, the existence of which, could not be observed in that same way requires a different process to establish as 'extant' to my mind. — AmadeusD

But something more than logical possibility is needed, otherwise we're embracing extreme philosophical skepticism. It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. Similarly with unicorns and gods. Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth.
.

This is why your 'deism' cannot be agnostic. It admits of a discoverable God (but this goes to the wording issue I re-traverse below).

"Discoverable"? Not sure what you mean. I consider deism to be more than a logical possibility, but based on it having explanatory power for the problem of consciousness - so it's a simply a metaphysical hypothesis I can't rule out. Seems pretty similar to your inability to rule out a cabbage sized rock on the moon.

you're precluded from using 'agnostic' as it relates to God. — AmadeusD

I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess.

So this isn't an actual objection to my position - just a restating of the problem I had identified. I would prefer new words to discuss 'Deism' since the word 'Atheist' literally doesn't touch it - therefore, using Agnostic to refer to both deism and theism is really unhelpful. — AmadeusD

Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse.

X becomes logically impossible if we accept a theory in physics, — Bob Ross

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines physical possibility as:
p is physically possible iff p is consistent with the laws of nature.

Broadly accepted scientific laws (including laws of physics, chemistry, biology...) are typically accepted as proxies for laws of nature, and these are therefore used to assess whether something is physically possible. This helps us differentiate the different modalities of possibility. This basis is appropriate only for those who accept the terms - that there ARE laws of nature, and that science at least approximates them. If you're going to challenge that, then there's no common ground for labellng something physically (im)possible - so that modality is off the table for discussion.

X is not logically impossible even relative to P — Bob Ross

This is how one might discuss different theories of natural law. Under one theory, humans flying might be physically impossible, while under another theory -it's physically possible. But it seems pointless to even discuss physical modality in this sort of context.

I think you are conflating the logical impossibility of someone accepting X outside of the theory logically contradicting the theory (i.e., !{X ^ [P → !X] }) with the theory itself demonstrating the logical impossibility of positing X. — Bob Ross

No, I'm not conflating it - I just think the discussion context is what matters. There's often common ground about using known science to identify what is physically possible. Only then does it even make sense to discuss physical possibility. If there's not this common ground, then it's meaningless to reference physical possibility - it might only make sense to discuss what is entailed by one theory of laws vs another.

We could draw a distinction between things we believe to be true and things we don't believe to be true, but act as if it is true due to its productivity — Lionino

I think they're fooling themselves.

What would be an example of something that is metaphysically impossible but does not reference the axioms of the operating metaphysical system? — Lionino

Anything that is broadly logically impossible, such as the existence of square circles or married bachelors.

What other things should we believe in? — Lionino

Anything we can justifiably believe. We navigate the world based on beliefs we hold about the world that aren't strictly provable. It can't even be proven there's a world external to our minds.

Agreed, and I also think it's become fashionable to make the non-committal assertion, "I lack the belief in God's existence". It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven".

I don't even think that all propositions which are regarded as metaphysically impossible are reducible to an axiom in the metaphysical theory. — Bob Ross

I agree.

That X ^ M is logically impossible is not the same as X being logically impossible, which is what you need for this to work. — Bob Ross

Both work, but one needs to be clear what one means. Your approach is appropriate when comparing metaphysical systems, mine is appropriate when considering what is possible within a metaphysical system.

my argument is that as soon as we choose a metaphysical system, which will have its own semantic system (such as equating "all that exists" and "physical things"), the metaphysical impossibility collapses with logical impossibility. Giving us no way of finding something logically possible but metaphysically impossible. — Lionino

I agree.

let's say, in this particular physicalist theory, everything must be natural--so spiritual beings cannot exist because that is incoherent with, not logically contradictory to, these beliefs they have. — Bob Ross

This metaphysical system is incoherent because it entails a contradiction.

What's the problem with non-commitment to something you don't claim any knowledge of? I'm unsure whether there's a rock the exact size of the cabbage in my fridge on the Moon, so i abstain from any take. — AmadeusD

There's lots of rocks of varying sizes on the moon, so there's a decent chance there's a cabbage sized one - so it's a live possibility. You can't justifiably believe there is such a rock, and you can't justifiably believe there isn't.

But consider unicorns. It's correct to say I lack belief in their existence, but that statement alone doesn't fully convey my position. I see absolutely no reason to believe they exist, no basis even to think it's a live possibility. Therefore I believe they don't exist.

If there's no credible reason to believe something exists, we ought to conclude it doesn't exist. The belief isn't incorrigible- good evidence will result in revising the belief, but without that evidence we should believe it doesn't exist. I think most atheists actually believe God doesn't exist, but are reluctant to admit that, so I say they're wimps.

My understanding of 'theism' is that it entails belief in a 'Creator' personal God. In that light, IFF you actively reject this (believe theistic God/s cannot exist) you're anti-theist. As for 'agnostic deist' that seems incoherent. — AmadeusD

"Cannot" is a modal claim - like saying it's logically impossible. That's going way too far. There's no basis to claim God is logically impossible.

We should be realistic about our beliefs. We form most beliefs through abduction- based on the evidence we're aware of. Your wife could be a alien, but there's no evidence of it- so you should believe she's not an alien.

I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. — AmadeusD

"Anti-theist" is yet another term, one that some would infer to mean I'm against theism. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it. I expect that's not the way you mean it, but there's no way I'd use it.

If you're going to label me a "deist", based solely on the fact that I think it's worth considering, then you're grouping me with people who actually believe an impersonal creator exists. Why do that? Why not keep "agnostic to deism" as a category (if you feel compelled to categorize)?

If agnosticism is meant to be a position on Theism... — AmadeusD

It's not. People use it all the time with respect to other beliefs, and it generally means withholding judgement. One can certainly withhold judgement with regard to God's existence. IMO, this entails considering both God's existence and nonexistence as live possibilities.

agnostic deist' makes absolutely no sense given the above — AmadeusD

If I can be agnostic as to economic theories, why can't I be agnostic as to the existence of an impersonal, non-interacting deity?

When I've used the term, I've always explained what I mean. But again, the problem with any labels is that they will not convey the position one holds. Debating terms seems a pointless tangent. It's a fact that these terms are not understood consistently by everyone.

If atheism and agnosticism deal with the same thing, but only agnosticism can relate to deism we can't be having a worthwhile discussion about htem, using these words only. — AmadeusD

My position is that worthwhile discussions depend on going much deeper than the meaning attached to labels. Labels only serve as an imperfect introduction to one's position. The next productive step would be to explore that position further, not to debate semantics.

I'm no expert in epistemology, but it would seem to me to be a contested space, with various competing approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that makes it another component of the discussion. With my definition of knowledge, most of us are agnostic. But much of this can be sidestepped by referencing belief, rather than knowledge. Knowledge is always belief.

You can do both. — AmadeusD

You can label me however you like, after hearing the nuances of my position, but why argue the semantics? I'm inclined to continue to use the labels I mentioned when talking to others- most of whom, won't use the terms as you do, and it will get across the aspect of my view relevant to the occasion.

Just for fun, tell me how you'd label me. Here's some of my thoughts:

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just "absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist.

I believe it's possible that some sort of intentional entity exists, that may account for the existence of the universe, and/or for the nature of consciousness (ie an immaterial solution to the hard problem). If I actually believed in this, I'd call myself deist (but still.an a-theist). But I don't actually believe it, I just think it's worth considering. Hence, I call myself an "agnostic deist", but still a-theist, and my general position on knowledge in makes me virtually an agnostic (we can't know much of anything) in general.

So how would you label me, and why should I start using that particular label?

Since both atheists and agnostics lack belief in God, we need a way to distinguish the two. — Hallucinogen

I disagree that a sharp partition is needed between them, and with the idea that it's even worthwhile to debate the semantics. There are a variety of nuanced positions a person may have, and the label one starts with is never going to convey that. For example, I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes an agnostic, and other times an agnostic deist. Each is true in some sense of the word, and no one is going to understand my position without discussing further. I simply choose the label that I think will best work in the context of my discussion.

Even our views of knowledge are relevant. IMO, we have very little actual knowledge, but we may have lots of rationally justified beliefs (and we could also debate how strong a justification should be). I could call myself "agnostic" simply because I acknowledge we have so little actual knowledge. We could debate when to call a belief knowledge, just like we can debate where to apply the labels "atheist" and "agnostic", but it seems pointless.

To really understand someone's views, it requires a dialog - not a label. It seems more reasonable to discuss a person's viewpoint, than to debate the label he chooses. Suppose you come up with a set of definitions that meet your hopes, and then you encounter someone like me who says he's an atheist. Are you going to argue my use of the label, or are you going to enquire as to what I really mean?

When one forms a causal chain mathematically, one can assume that at each step a single causal function exists. But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. — jgill

Not if one is considering the total universe at points of time. Where U_i is the universe at time i, it is true that U_i causes U_i+1

Error creeps in when we examine subsets of the universe, because everything in the universe is causally connected.

I just don't think that 'going against one of the theorems [or beliefs or statements]" in M entails necessarily a logical contradiction. — Bob Ross

I don't think that makes sense. Under physicalism, it is axiomatic that only physical things exist. Any statement that entails a spiritual being is contradicted by that axiom.

While it's correct to say that a spiritual being is logically possible, it's a contradiction to say a spiritual being exists & physicalism is true.

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft tweeted: “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”
Of course the standard should apply equally! If Biden supports an insurrection, he should be also be barred. The problem, of course, is that Ashcroft (and others) are trying to treat policy disagreements as insurrection.

I previously predicted that SCOTUS would not put forth a definition of "insurrection". I'll amend that slightly: if they DO rule in Colorado's favor (which I think possible, but unlikely) they will need to define the term to prevent such nonsense as Ashcroft threatens.

If his actions "undermined confidence in the system" then there wasn't any worthwhile confidence in the system before to begin with. — baker

Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?

IMO, SCOTUS will not rule on the question of whether or not Trump participated in the insurrection, nor will they formally define "insurrection". All they need to do is to declare the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President or deny that this clause is "self-enforcing" and requires Congress to pass law to make it enforceable.

Babbit was murdered. She was a slight, unarmed woman executed in the capitol building because she jumped through the wrong window. — NOS4A2

That's a ludicrous characterization. She was among a group of people breaking a window that barred entry to a corridor members of Congress had recently passed through, in their escape from a mob that had already injured policemen. Babbit was climbing through that broken window when she was shot. Her presence in the Capitol was illegal, breaking that window was illegal, and the cop exercised his personal judgement while doing his duty.

Babbit was in DC because Trump had riled her up with lies and said to come. Sad that she died because of the lies.
.

That’s not up to me, or the courts. That’s up to Congress, as only they have the power to enforce the provisions of the article. — NOS4A2

I thought you were refraining from making legal judgements. If you're going to dabble in it, don't treat your personal opinion as dispositive (as lawyers say).

As I told you several days ago, the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has exclusive right- that is an inference you are making. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment is self-executing (some legal scholars agree)., and pointed (among other things)to the fact that SCOTUS has previously ruled that other sections of the 14th are self-executing, and thus inferred this one would also. A dissenting opinion disagreed. So it appears that intelligent, knowledgeable people can disagree on this point. The only opinion that will ultimately matter is that of SCOTUS. When they do, it will make new law.

Please provide your definition of "insurrection". The Colorado Supreme Court ruling surveyed a variety of definitions, and I don't see that any apply. For example, they quoted Trump's attorney, saying it's "more than a riot, less than a rebellion". An objection raised in a parliamentary procedure doesn't even constitute a riot.

[

His fitness for president has already been proven. — NOS4A2

How does any past actions erase the fact that Trump was irrational in his judgement of the election result? You've chosen to excuse his falsehood by assuming he truly believed he won, but then refuse to recognize the negative implication this has on Trump's intellectual capacity. You'd be better off calling it a shrewd lie.

No, not a single person was hurt because of “Trump’s untruths”. The nation suffered because there was four years of hoaxes, and many are trapped in a moral panic the likes of which have never been seen. — NOS4A2

People went to prison as a result of Trump's election falsehoods. Police were physically injured; Babbit was killed. Trust in the election system and rule of law is at an all time low, and division at an all time high. Only an anarchist would applaud this.

Yes, Trump's "Russia hoax" hoax is a factor - one of his own making. The Russia investigation was legitimate, albeit that some mistakes were made. Trump should have celebrated the process since it exhonerated him of conspiring with Russia (we'll never know how much his obstruction played a role in this, but it's moot now). Instead, he undermined confidence in the system, and fanned the flames of conspiracy theorists.

Willful ignorance entails poor reasoning. If Trump reasons that poorly, he's not fit to be President. You keep avoiding this.

Regarding the legal issue: by holding people accountable for willful ignorance, it encourages one to avoid it where matters of law are at hand- especially when it negatively impacts people. People were hurt, and the nation has suffered, from Trump's untruths- and it's morally correct to hold him accountable irrespective of whether he intentionally lied, or was willfully ignorant.

Assuming Trump truly believed he won, the morally optimal approach would have been to pusue all legal paths, but to concede when these legal paths failed. That would show respect for the Constitution. This was what Gore did in 2000. Instead, Trump showed disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law.

You’ve found me another reason why law in general and the legal profession in particular are stupid. — NOS4A2

You seem to be opposed to rule of law. I can't say I'm surprised.

The law strives for impartial, reasoned judgement, even if it doesn't always get it right. It's still far more reliable than any alternatives. Undermining the rule of law is thus morally reprehensible- it gives primacy to a personal, biased judgement.

Nonetheless, Appeals to authority and the claims of state bureaucrats and council are not the evidence of critical facts. And there has to be a crime. — NOS4A2

This seems incoherent. He's been charged with crimes, and ideally he'll have the opportunity to defeat the prosecution's case. What "appeal to authority"? Are you referring to legal precedent? State bureaucrats? Who are you referring to? The eyewitnesses? Or are you just insisting we all consider him virtuous until proven guilty? (That would be extremely hypocritical, coming from someone who's complained of Biden's "litany of lies" - but who can't identify any specific lie).

ROFL! You ignored the relevance to Trump's fitness to serve!

Regarding the law:
"The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-6.ZO.html

Why should I care who told him what? — NOS4A2

Because your position implies Trump was willfully ignorant. That's relevant to the crimes he's charged with and to his ability to serve as President.

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime? — NOS4A2

The election wasn't fraudulent. Trump was told this by White House Counsel, DOJ Leadership, and had received the findings of 2 independent research agencies that confirmed there was no widespread fraud - findings Trump never shared. You must truly have a low opinion of Trump's intelligence if you think he actually believed the election was stolen despite all the information he was given. At best, he was guilty of willful ignorance.

he wanted Congress to makes a stink about certification just as the Democrats in Congress did to the certification of Trump in 2016 — NOS4A2

That's silly. He wanted much more than this: he wanted Pence to block the certification.

You said:

I said he lied about having no knowledge of his son’s business dealings. — NOS4A2

He doesn't say this in the video, and I heard nothing that can't plausibly be interpreted as true (or believed true by Joe)- which one should do when presuming innocence. If I missed something, identify it.

On a related note: do you agree Comer has failed to presume Joe's innocence throughout his investigation?

You said all the things I mentioned, and failed to give him a presumption of innocence.

Now you're making a new claim. Point me to a specific quote.

You construed Biden's assertion that he's not been involved with Hunter's business as a lie. Joe can reasonably consider a dinner and phone calls as non-involvement in the true nature of the business- so no lies.

You only identified a falsehood by some unnamed White House representative.

It is not only a human right, it is stupid to do otherwise. — NOS4A2

Were you being stupid when you claimed Biden lied about Hunter's laptop? You never showed he personally lied.

Every part that defines the office, electoral process, and the qualifications.

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here. — NOS4A2

How is that a human right? Clearly, it's a legal right - but exclusively in criminal trials. It's not applicable to civil suits, and individuals are free to make judgements - such as your judgement of Biden's actions.

I think it's US society as a whole, through its Constitution.

U.S. Society, through the Constitution.

Thank you for clarifying that you were arguing that the decisions were morally wrong. This was not obvious- considering you referenced the Constitution several times, which seems irrelevant to the morality of the decisions.

That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights. — NOS4A2

The ability to run for President is a" basic human right"?! Is it therefore immoral to enforce each of the qualifiers (over age 35, native born, max of 2 terms)?

What if the decision makers believe Trump actually participated in an insurrection? Aren't they morally bound to enforce the legal restriction? Do you deny their right to make moral judgements?

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.

A fair trial is required before imprisoning someone. Running for President is a privilege, not a "basic human right".

The Constitutional right to free speech does not imply it is virtuous to lie for self-gain. Do you deny that Trump lied for self-gain?

I think what you're getting to is something similar to "broad logical necessity". It's not uncommon to equate this with metaphysical necessity. It does constitute common ground for evaluating metaphysical systems. It has its place, but can also lead to confusion - such as with a modal ontological argument.

Thanks - I have now read through that. He obviously disagrees with the decisions, but it seems entirely based on regurgitating Trump's defense points- all of which have been considered by Colorado courts, and weighed against the contrary points. That's what Colorado courts did, and Maine's soon will - as is their prerogative in both cases. Same with SCOTUS. How THEY weigh the facts will be all that matters, irrespective of whether it changes anyone's mind about what "should" occur. So I'd simply like him to recognize that the correct processes are being followed, no one has done anything wrong (legally or morally, irrespective of one's agreeing with the decisions), and that the final result is yet to come - but we should respect whatever decision is made - because it will be the final word.

Elaborate on the Maine case.

My point was that she was required by law to make a decision, and she followed the correct process. No one has done anything wrong. Of course, you can disagree with her decision, but it was her decision to make- just as (ultimately) it will be a decision for SCOTUS to make. If you feel she made a reasoning error, then identify it. Bear in mind, this was an administrative hearing and decision, and it will next be taken to court.

Re: Colorado, you said: "Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?"
Whether or not their decision is "correct" will be determined by SCOTUS. But there's nothing prima facie incorrect about basing the disqualification on the trial that found there to be clear and convincing evidence Trump participated in insurrection. I don't see how an impeachment acquittal has any bearing: an acquittal doesn't preclude a criminal indictment for the same acts, and besides - the Senate Trial didn't entail a relevant finding of fact - it merely denied the articles of impeachment.

I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it — NOS4A2

Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?

That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. — NOS4A2

The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three".

This footnote is also relevant:
"President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of
proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal,
claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a
constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the
Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because
President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it."

I'm not sure of this, but I think "abandoning it" means this particular point isn't subject to appeal.

ROFLMA! Trump's attorneys are almost certainly going to make that argument!

He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding. — NOS4A2

That is one of the Constitutional questions that SCOTUS will have to decide on. The question was evaluated by the DOJ's Office of Legal Council, in 2000.Their conclusion was:

"The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office."

Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.