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

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

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

Re: the necessary brute fact:

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

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

"Self caused" seems unintelligible. It is UNcaused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you. — NOS4A2

Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.

The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. — NOS4A2

ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.

On what grounds do you give credibility to Trump's denial? You know he lies all the time; and nearly every criminal claims they're innocent.

Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal.

No, the most important crime was sexual assault, which is criminal. The fact that the statute of limitations had expired doesn't erase the fact that he committed the crime. It's true that the guilt finding was based on the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The implication: at minimum, this establishes that it's more likely than not that he committed the crime.

Why does it matter that it's appealed? The facts speak for themselves, irrespective of whether or not Carroll will receive a payout from Trump.

You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. — NOS4A2

Repeating Canon's ruling a million times doesn't make it either authoritative or binding, or relevant to his guilt. You love to obsess on red herrings.

There is no law against contesting an election. — NOS4A2

He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.

What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault? — NOS4A2

The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife. Trump also lied when he publicly denied ever having met Carroll.

On the Access Hollywood recording, Trump bragged that as a celebrity - he could get away with grabbing women by "the pussy". He doubled down on this during his deposition. This is among the reasons to believe Trump has no moral compunction against doing what he was accused of.

She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism. — NOS4A2

The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.

Regardless, whether or not SCOTUS would overturn the statutes is a red herring; it has zero bearing on Trump's guilt or of the ability of DOJ to prosecute with staff already employed. The AG has the authority to hire people, so he could easily get around Canon's issue if he chose to do so (I mentioned this before, but -as usual- you ignored it).

I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. — NOS4A2

So...you don't care if Trump engaged in fraud. I didn't think you did, but wanted you to admit it. You used to care a bit, when you denied that Trump lied (knowingly told a falsehood). Now that I backed you into a corner, you don't care at all (ROFLMAO!)

Your prior allegations against Biden and former national security officials, suggest a double standard: it only matters when it's the "other side". (IOW, you're a hypocrite). I would hope that most Americans would actually care.

The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism.

The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore. — NOS4A2

The repository includes court filings by the prosecution, the defence, and court rulings.

The most straightforward is the sexual assault case. I pointed you at the jury's ruling. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation against the woman he assaulted.

The most significant case is Trump's fraud case- his attempt to illegally overturn the election. You said you didn't care, so what's the point of pursuing that?

I've previously brought up Trump's obstruction of justice in both Mueller and in the documents case. Refer back to those discussions, particularly where you stopped responding when you exhausted your excuses.

He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime. — NOS4A2

You're reaching. One lone district judge claimed an AG cannot appoint a special counsel, a judge who's pro-Trump rulings have been overturned on appeal on multiple occasions. Appellate Courts (in OTHER districts) have ruled that AGs indeed have the authority. AGs have been appointing special counsels for decades, so Garland was clearly not acting in a rogue manner.

What's even more significant is that this is a red herring: it has no bearing on the evidence of Trump's guilt, or the appropriateness of indicting Trump for his crimes. If it were to reach SCOTUS, they agreed with Canon, and the case were to be reinstated - it could be re-litigated with other DOJ attorneys.

I did not "lie", but I accept that I misunderstood what you were saying. Now that I've cleared that up, please clear up your view of Trump's spreading of the falsehoods about the 2020 election.

What crime did Trump commit again?

Thanks for proving my point that Trumpists are unaware of the facts. In the unlikely event you are interested in exploring the facts, here's good starting points:

2020 Election case

Documents case

Sexual Assault case

.

But NOS4A2 right. The American people had all the evidence in front of them and they didn't care about it. Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman. — RogueAI

An actual jury is forced to review all the evidence. Few (if any) Trump voters actually considered the evidence against Trump. NOS4A2 is a good example of this: he avoids considering the evidence against Trump, and just regurgitates what the criminal himself says about the prosecutions.

Your position is beyond ludicrous. There's abundant evidence Trump committed crimes, but you refuse to consider it* and proclaim him innocent. By contrast, there's zero evidence Smith committed a crime, or even that he did anything inconsistent with DOJ standards. But you make the baseless claim he's gulity of some crime.

*Symptomatic: Despite my asking you at least 5 times, you have avoided explaining how you account for Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: is he liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what?

Do you have a better idea --- sans intention --- to explain the existence of our spacetime universe, gradually being deconstructed by Entropy, yet populated by highly-evolved beings who question their origins? — Gnomon

As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact.

I also believe that this initial state/first cause is not contingent, and this is because I believe contingency depends on a source of contingency. IOW: x is contingent iff there exists some y, that x is contingent upon. This is equivalent to:

Y accounts for (X or ~X).

It is logically impossible for an initial state to be contingent upon anything else. So, whatever this initial state/first cause was, it is metaphysically impossible for it to have been anything else.

What that first cause/initial state IS, is unknown. Although it's logically possible, I see no reason to think it is a "mind" (i.e. an entity that acts with intent). The universe has evolved in a manner fully consistent with laws of nature, which are deterministic (in some cases: probabilistic determination). This purely naturalistic evolution of the universe means there's no evidence of intentionality.

Life exists as a consequence of the way the universe happens to be. However, I see no objective basis for believing life, or intelligent life, to be objectively special. It's just a type of thing, and there are uncountably many types of things that actually exist, and that would exist if the universe had been different (irrespective of whether or not it is metaphysically possible for the universe to have differred).

Intelligent beings engage in mental activities and have mental experiences. These have a clear dependency on physical aspects of the central nervous system, so there's no empirical basis to think mental activity can take place without some such physical "machinery". The emergence of this machinery through evolution accounts for its existence. So the notion that a mind might exist without this complex "machinery", or that it might just exist by brute fact, has no empirical basis. It's logically possible, but logical possibility alone is too weak a basis to form a justified belief about. That's why it seems ad hoc to just postulate that a mind is the first cause.

If you require a hypothesis as to what the first cause was, I can simply state that it was probably some natural state of affairs that evolved (in whole or in part) deterministically (inclusive of probabilistic determination) due to laws of nature. That seems the best explanation, because it's consistent with what we know about the world, and doesn't depend on ad hoc assumptions (e.g. minds can exist independently of complexity physical "machinery").

I disagree with almost everything you said, and you haven't really refuted anything I said, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing.

Apparently, even this has a 5 year limit. However, Smith works around this by suggesting that Trump's time in office should be "tolled", which means the clock stops ticking during Trump's term. See this article.

I would not be surprised if Trump pardons himself at some point during his term.

The cases have been dismissed "without prejudice". This means they can be reopened in the future. Had they been dismissed "with prejudice", the cases would be dead for all time.

Regardless of this fact, I heard that the statute of limitations may expire before the 4 years is up.

How do you account for your "world-causing mind" having the ability to design a complex universe that will produce life over the course of billions of years? Did it acquire knowledge by trial and error, and reasoning?
— Relativist
The default religious answer is Omniscience. But I don't pontificate beyond the bare facts of an inexplicable beginning. Everything else is amateur speculation. And your guess is as good as mine. But, of course, I prefer mine. — Gnomon

Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. Why think this unknown state of affairs is a mind and that it acts intentionally? Labelling it "mind" suggests it has some minimum set of properties common to all minds what are these?

The development of complexity over time is consistent with statistical thermodynamics. See this.
— Relativist
I agree. But only if you include in the statistical analysis a complementary principle (law?) to counteract the destructive effects associated with Entropy. My name for that constructive principle is Enformy. :nerd: — Gnomon

Your "enformy" is based on the false premise that entropy is a measure of disorder. From the paper I linked:

"Misinterpretations of entropy and conflation with additional misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics are ubiquitous among scientists and non-scientists alike and have been used by creationists as the basis of unfounded arguments against evolutionary theory. Entropy is not disorder or chaos or complexity or progress towards those states. Entropy is a metric, a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged."

Apparently, since you "don't know" the cause of the beginning, the "speculative" Multiverse hypothesis --- "infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps" --- must be just an article of faith for you — Gnomon

Nope. There may, or may not, be a multiverse. Either way, it has no relevance to anything I've said. Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the term "this universe". I just meant the actual universe, as opposed to any non-actual, possible universes (where the possibilities are due to the instances of quantum indeterminacy in our history).

Do you act with Intention? If so, how do you think that ability to foresee the future emerged from nothing but random fluctuations? — Gnomon

Yes, of course. We form intentions and act upon them. This ability emerged through evolution- there's clearly a survival value.

Yes. We no longer debate the evidence for "gradual development", just take it for granted. What we do debate is how that process began : by accident or by design? If you don't see evidence of Design in the world, then your definition of "design" may be different from mine. In college, I participated in a Design by Accident exercise, and the lesson learned was that the result of accidents is Chaos instead of Cosmos. — Gnomon

A Japanese Cosmologist has estimated the probability that a self-replicating molecule could have formed by pure chance. See this. The probability is low in any given instance, but the larger the universe is, the more likely it would occur at least once. And this is a worst case scenario. This is sufficient to start evolution.

The development of complexity over time is consistent with statistical thermodynamics. See this.

I make no assertions about a "complex mind". Instead, the world-causing mind is assumed to be Simple in the sense of unitary, yet with enormous Potential. — Gnomon

How could a mind intentionally create a universe that would lead to life, unless it could somehow figure out how the universe would evolve? This seems to require considerable knowledge. How could it even work things out in the absence of time?
Theist philosophers claim "God" has magical knowledge (i.e. omniscience; knowledge that wasn't developed but just exists). That is at least coherent. How do you account for your "world-causing mind" having the ability to design a complex universe that will produce life over the course of billions of years? Did it acquire knowledge by trial and error, and reasoning?

Moreover, it is obvious that the Cause of the Big Bang possessed "enormous power". Regarding the notion of "uncaused first cause", perhaps we should just say "eternal Cause". Which would apply to a God or a Multiverse. — Gnomon

Define "power". Certainly, the inflationary period was a low entropy/high energy state.

No, I don't agree the first cause is/was eternal. As I said, I believe the past finite. But even if you define "eternal" as existing at all points of time, it doesn't imply the first cause fits that, because the first cause was a specific statements of affairs that at its initial conditions. But if we set aside the temporal evolution of reality, we could perhaps say that reality (as a whole) is eternal (existing at all times).

If you prefer to think that random rolling of dice produced our lawful and orderly world, I can't prove otherwise. But you can't prove that the initial conditions (like computer settings) just happened without intention.

Neither position can be proved deductively, but it's reasonable to draw an inference to best explanation.

We know that complexity can arise from simpler conditions (again, see this).

We also have empirical evidence that minds are dependent on the physical: memories are lost due to disease and trauma. Knowledge is an organized set of memories, memories that are developed over time.

The alternative depends on ad hoc assumptions: an unembodied mind is metaphysically possible; that knowledge needn't be physically encoded nor caused/developed over time. Of course, all of these things are logically possible, so faith in such things isn't vulnerable to being disproven. But if you think this is somehow a better explanation, then please make the case.

I'm not competent to judge the statistical improbability of a universe popping into existence, — Gnomon

I hope you don't rely on this false dichotomy to make your case. As discussed before, finite past does not entail "popping into existence". If you agree the past is finite, then you should agree that the initial state exists as necessary brute fact (unless you make some addition hoc assumption that exempts a "god" from being a brute fact). The question is: which is the more plausible brute fact?

Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity. :cool: — Gnomon

Are you making an argument from non-aurhority? Penrose is a physicist, not a metaphysician. He seems to be treating life as as objectively special, which strikes me as chauvinism. Life, especially intelligent life, is important to us. That doesn't imply it is objectively important. Objectively, it is a type of object. This universe (the one that we know exists) happens to have produced types of objects that we label as "living". You and Penrose seem to be treating this type of object in a privileged way. I get it, that this is the nature of religion: that we are special to God.

I acknowledge it's possibly true - but arguments such as Penrose, or proponents of the Fine Tuning Argument, tend to overlook that their arguments depend on the (Theistic) premise that we are something more than a type of thing. If there is no God, who wished to create intelligent beings, then we are not objectively special. So to assume we're objectively special is what entails a God. Fine-tuning arguments add no support to the position.

the Ontological contingency of the whole world --- something from nothing --- would be a priori instead of a posteriori. — Gnomon

Are you suggesting the world came from nothing? This would entail a temporally prior state of nothingness, which is metaphysically impossible.

I suggested that there was a first cause - an initial state, that exists uncaused. It didn't come from anything, because that would imply it was caused. If you believe the world itself is contingent, then how do you account for the contingency, ontologically? I argued that the first cause/initial state must be necessary, specifically because it's existence is not contingent upon anything.

Your probability estimate*2 would be plausible if the universe was eternal and exists (just happens to be) without any reason or cause — Gnomon

My probability estimate is based on a finite past with a large number of contingent events having occurred during the course of its existence, due to quantum indeterminacy. Quantum collapse is statistical - there is a finite probability associated with the outcome of each collapse, and it is therefore calculable, in principle - actual numerical probability applies.

An initial state implies:

• a finite past, not an eternal one,
• that time commences from the initial state forward.
• there is no state of affairs that precedes the initial state

You said "first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality". That's true, the Big Bang could have been a cosmically destructive explosion, instead of the creative beginning of a world of living and thinking creatures. But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. — Gnomon

You're assuming the Big Bang was the beginning of material reality. I don't think many cosmologists would agree with you on that. We simply don't know what preceded it. I believe the past is finite for philosophical reasons: it would imply a completed process of infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps.

"Accidental" existence? I indicated that the initial state (whatever it may be, and that includes a creator) exists as brute fact. As I showed, it's not contingent because there is nothing prior to account for (F or ~F) - where F is the first cause/initial state. Does your definition of "accident" allow for "accidents" that are metaphysically necessary? Traditionally, the term has been considered to imply contingency.

But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. :smile: — Gnomon

So...you think it MORE probable that a intentional being (with enormous power and an enormously complex mind) that happens to exist uncaused is MORE probable than the gradual development of beings with small power and limited intellect over the course of billions of years in an enormous universe! (fully consistent with entropy, as described in statistical thermodynamics)?

You seem to treat intelligent life as a design objective, rather than simply a consequence of the way the world happens to be. This is the issue I was referencing when I suggested you were taking a restrospective view of the current state of the universe, and noting the enormous number of low probability events along the way to our existence. Reminds me of a quote of John Earman's":

“Imagine, if you will, the wonderment of a species of mud worms who discover that if the constant of thermometric conductivity of mud were different by a small percentage they would not be able to survive.”

Were mud different, mud worms would not exist. So what? Were the universe different, we wouldn't exist. So what?

Here's a relevant quote from Richard Feynman:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

The point is, the mere fact that something improbable has occurred is not at all remarkable. It would be worth investigating only if it were a statistical anomaly. But our world is no more, and no less, likely than any other. It happens to have intelligent beings in it, but alternative worlds that might otherwise have come into existence would have had other sorts of things in it that would be improbable.

That doesn't follow for the simple fact that there is almost no cheating in lotteries despite the existence of lottery designers. The designers want the games to be fair and so they are. — RogueAI

When you said:" the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9"
I presume you were referring to a designer whose design was intended to produce this particular universe. Analogously, I was referring to a designer of a scheme to produce a particular lottery winner (i.e. a cheater) . The equation is correct: it is more likely that this winner would be produced, if we assume there was a cheater.

Of course, we don't just assume there was a cheater. Similarly, we don't just assume there's a universe designer. No specific outcome can constitute positive evidence that the outcome was intended.

What is x and H in your equation? — RogueAI

H=an intelligent designer
x=anything and everything

Example:

where x= the winning set of 6 numbers that were drawn in a powerball lottery
Pr(x/H)>Pr(x)

This suggests that any winning set of numbers is more likely to be due to design (i.e. cheating) than it is due to pure chance - but only if there is a designer (i.e. cheater). It tells us nothing about the probability that cheating is going on.

My claim is that the contingency in the world is due to quantum indeterminacy. Everything else that occurs is fully deterministic, and thus necessitated by it's cause(s).

In general, contingency can be accounted for as follows:
anything (E) that exists contingently, had a cause (C) such that C can cause (E or ~E).

Quantum indeterminacy fits this, but it seems applicable to any conceivable form of contingency.

I'm inclined to believe there is a "first cause" (F) - something that exists uncaused (i.e. its existence is brute fact). F is not contingent, because there is no prior cause to account for (F or ~F). Therefore F exists necessarily. This (assumed) fact of a first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality. As I said in my above post to RougeAI: It seems less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned).

In Bayesian terms, the probability of a universe like ours (E) given the existence of an intelligent designer (H) is very high: Pr (E/H) > .9 — RogueAI

Consider:
Pr(x/H)>Pr(x), for all x.

That tautology is not grounds for thinking all x are designed.

I think it's less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned).

Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of anomalous.

... When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?. — Gnomon

Yes, I'm discussing ontology- specifically the ontology of contingency. What accounts for contingency in the world? Classical physics is deterministic- there's no real contingency. Quantum mechanics entails indeterminacy, and this accounts for contingency in the world. Is that Feynman's basis for his analysis?

"Extremely" contingent? Doesn't that just mean extremely improbable? How is that different from what I said? There are many different ways the universe could have evolved, and each of them is improbable. When all possibilities are equally improbable, it's a certainty that the outcome will be improbable, so it's not anomolous (and not "miraculous").

Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.

"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction. — Gnomon

Interesting point of view. Personally, I see no signs of intentionality or teleology. My impression is that those who believe they see it, are basing it on a retrospective analysis of the chain of events that resulted in our existence. Such an analysis shows that our existence is grossly improbable. Why should that matter? Improbable things are bound to occur in a vast, old universe.

What do you mean by "the contingency of ontology"? It seems to me that the fundamental ground of existence is metaphysically necessary (whatever it is), and the only contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy.

If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth. — Corvus

Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form.

The problem is your first premise: there's no basis for claiming omnipotence implies God can do this. William Lane Craig (for example) asserts that omnipotence entails the ability to do everything that is logically possible.

There's also a pragmatic problem with your first premise: in deductive logic, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Your premise implies conclusions are not necessarily true, because there's always a background contingency on God's will. This invalidates the use of deductive logic - so the argument is self-defeating.

If you accept God itself is a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then it is not a contradiction. In the world of God itself under this definition, even contradiction is truth. — Corvus

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation. — ssu

They don't understand economic policies and their effects. They blame Biden for the inflation of the past few years (not the global supply chain problems that COVID produced), simply because he was in office, so it follows that this can't happen with their hero in office.

Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. — NOS4A2

I'm not aware that I omitted any relevant facts that I haven't dealt with in prior discussions with you. On the other hand, you're repeating claims I've previously refuted, and have failed to address the crimes by Trump that I brought up: obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation (I specifically pointed to Manafort) obstruction of justice regarding the lawful search warrant for classified docs, and election fraud. I've asked you at least 4 times to Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what? Make the case for your choice. I also asked you to back up your claim, that in his call to Raffensberger, Trump was simply asking for fraud claims to be investigated. Find quotes of Trump that show this.

After (finally) responding to those crimes, go ahead and bring up some facts you are accusing me of lying about "by omission". My guess is that I've previously addressed everything you might bring up (I'm skeptical you actually read my responses).

You accused Jack Smith of being corrupt- politically motivated. I asked for evidence, and you deflect. I've pointed to evidence of Trump's crimes, and you ignore that. Your deflect by rehashing a distorted view of issues with the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation - which we've previously discussed, and I showed you your mistakes. You always drop out as soon as you run out of the Trumpian talking points - while never acknowledging the facts about your guy. So here we go again- I'll respond. Again. But I'll keep reminding you of what you're ignoring

However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. — NOS4A2

You evaded the point I made: volume 2 unequivocally shows that Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation. No refutation is possible. You claim "everyone lied", which is false. The Mueller investigation was impeccable. You change the subject because you aren't willing to deal with the fact of Trump's crimes.

There were errors made in Crossfire Hurricane (not in the Mueller investigation). The biggest errors were the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants. The net result: Page (and only Page) was treated unjustly. But it had no material effect on the investigation, and didn't reflect on the merits. The FBI never got any information through their surveilance of him that influenced the course of the investigation. Obviously, you use the FISA errors as an excuse to ignore the crimes by the Trump team.

It's established fact that Russia worked to get Trump elected, and that one or more people in the campaign knew Russia was helping (and failed to report this contact as required by law) that Manafort gave polling data to Russia, and Russia told him what they wanted Trump to do. This means the law was broken by one or more people in the campaign. You ignore this.

Durham alleged there was "confirmation bias", but never suggested an investigation was unwarranted.

But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place

You're making a desperate attempt to rationalize ignoring Trump's crimes. You're wrong: Durham agreed that an investigation was warranted. He merely opined that it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation.It's a minor difference. FBI would still have uncovered the same set of facts, and a full investigation would have been opened eventually - because crimes had definitely been committed.

...or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.

Errors were made, but only one process crime was identified in Crossfire Hurricane. The "Clinton plan" was an invention of the Russians (I detailed this the last time you and I discussed it. As usual, you stop replying to an issue when backed into a corner).

It's actually pretty hilarious that a guy who so frequently complains of the influence of propoganda is so strongly influenced by the Trump propoganda. Truth doesn't really seem to matter to you.

Mueller was appointed specifically because he fired Comey- absolutely giving the appearance that Trump was obstructing the investigation. Durham had only praise for Mueller.

It is curious why an innocent man would impede a lawful investigation. We'll never know why, but it's unequivocally established that Trump engaged in multiple instances of obstruction. You choose to hide from this truth; you refuse to face the harsh facts that Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation, and did so again in the classified documents case - another of his crimes you choose to ignore.

You alleged Smith's investigations were corrupt. You provided no evidence to support that claim. Trump was indicted for fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, to overturn the 2020 election. The evidence is strong, so of course you ignore it.

I've asked you repeatedly to how you account for Trump pushing the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen. As I've said, it seems the only possible explanations are that 1) he knew he lost, but lied; 2) he's irrational; 3) he's stupid.
Pick one, or come up with another explanation.

You voted to put a morally bankrupt criminal into the White House and to let him escape accountability. Own it.

I'm also inclined to ban people born male from participating in female sports, as a general rule, because they had the benefit of testosterone after they reached puberty. I was curious about the testosterone of pre-pubescent boys and girls and was surprised to discover that girls have more testosterone than boys (see this).

It also leaves open the problem of intersex people like Caster Semenya - she was classified as female at birth, but has internal testes that produce testosterone. IMO, she should not be allowed to participate in female sports.

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy did not transition for "non-criminal" to "criminal" when he was convicted. He became a criminal when he committed his first murder. Similarly with Trump - it's his crimes that make him a criminal, not convictions. Constraints on prosecution (or immunity from prosecution) don't erase that.

You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016. — NOS4A2

It was unquestionably illegal, and even John Eastman (who was pushing for it) acknowledged that the Supreme Court would rule it illegal if it came to them. The changes to the electoral count act simply added language to make it explicit, thus preventing a future lawyer like Eastman from pushing it. (Eastman was disbarred for his role, and is under indictment. Trump is likely to pardon him from the federal crimes, but that won't erase the fact that he committed crimes).

He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime. — NOS4A2

Barr chose to protect Trump from prosecution. That doesn't imply Trump didn't commit the acts. As I said, read Mueller volume 2 - the evidence is strong. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors agreed the evidence was more than enough for an indictment. Would he be convicted if there were a trial? We can only judge based on the available evidence, and there is zero exculpatory evidence - so there is no basis to assume otherwise. But criminal prosecution is off the table, so it's moot. That doesn't make his acts moot. They reflect on his low character, and flouting the law ; it demonstrates he's unfit to serve as President..

Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing. — NOS4A2

The Supreme Court, in US v Nixon accepted the appointment of special counsels, and such appointments have been made for decades. Canon's novel ruling treating SCOTUS language on this as dicta (non-binding). It's likely her ruling would be overturned by SCOTUS if it were to get to them. It's not disputed that an AG can hire staff and delegate investigative and prosecutorial authority. Had Garland hired Smith at 10:00AM, and then at 10:01AM appointed him to his investigative/prosecutorial role, there would have been no basis to claim it unconstitutional. It's absurd to think such a sequence is necessary. But this is all beside the point, because it has zero bearing on the merits of the case (from a legal standpoint) and certainly no bearing on the criminality of the acts Trump committed - again, it shows his character and tendency to flout the law.

Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/ — NOS4A2

The article says,

"Special counsel Jack Smith's office may not have fully reviewed thousands of pages of records turned over by former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik before seeking an indictment of former President Donald Trump Tuesday, says Kerik's attorney, Tim Parlatore....A source close to Kerik's legal team said at the time that they believed the records, which include sworn affidavits from people raising concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential contest, show there was a genuine effort to investigate claims of voter fraud in the last election."

This is an allegation, not exculpatory evidence. The "evidence" (such as it is) was received, not refused, and it is merely alleged (by someone who has no way to know) that it was not reviewed. Given that it contains affidavits, why should we think it relevant? Numerous affidavits were submitted in swing states by people making allegations that were rooted in bias an prejudice, not facts (per court rulings). It's undisputed that there was an to investigate claims of voter fraud, but Trump clearly was looking only for an affirmative answer. DOJ didn't give him the answer he wanted, nor did the various state election officials. So he hired two independent companies to look for fraud (see this) but neither of them gave him the answer he wanted. If he was simply after the truth, he would have made this public. We didn't learn about this until the Jan 6 committee discovered and revealed it.

As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes. — NOS4A2

I did. I have never claimed the one statement ("I want you to find 1170 votes...") necessarily implied a crime. Rather, I'm refuting the claim you made that Trump was merely calling to encourage them to investigate. Nowhere in the transcript does Trump say this. He was pressuring them to change the result, and ignoring the fact that Georgia officials had already conducted investigations, and DOJ staff had also reviewed it. So your claim suggests you are the one who didn't read it, and you also seem ignorant of the broader context.

All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, — NOS4A2

You read my posts as carelessly as you read the Raffensberger transcript. I've repeatedly challenged you to read Mueller volume 2 and make a case for Trump being innocent of obstruction with regard to Manafort. You refuse.

You've provided no positive spin on Trump's hiding documents from his lawyer who was charged with returning documents demanded in the subpoena. You provided no positive spin on Trump lying about the specific allegations against Dominion and the Fulton County.

You've avoided commenting on the fact that Trump repeatedly, and aggressively spread the falsehood that the election was stolen. You've evaded my question about whether you account for this effort as lies, irrationality, or stupidity.

So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work when all you will do is repeat the accusations and the arguments of prosecution, while remaining wholly ignorant or at least reticent of the defense. — NOS4A2

You jump to the conclusion that I am simply parroting the prosecution. Understandable, since you simply regurgitate the unsupportable "witchhunt" claims of Trump and his propoganda machine.

I've actually considered the evidence, and I referenced some of it. Trump unequivocally lost the 2020 election, but he spread the falsehood that it was stolen.

He lied about what people said to him. Examples: Rusty Bowers and Brad Raffensberger.

He attempted to get the acting AG and deputy AG to lie: “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen". He refused, and Trump nearly replaced him with a sycophants that would do what he wanted.

He tried to pressure Pence into illegally rejecting electoral votes.

He pressured Raffensberger (among others) to overturn the election. When you previously claimed Trump was just asking for an investigation, I asked you to provide quotes of Trump's that supported your claim. You gave me nothing.

Trump was told by 2 AGs, White House Counsel, and 2 independent research organizations there wasn't sufficient fraud to overturn the election. He retold the lie about the State Farm allegation soon after Barr told him it was "bullshit", and repeated this lie on 1/6.

There can be no positive interpretation of Trump's spreading the falsehoods. Given his history of fraud (including, but not limited to,
Trump U, Trump foundation, tax fraud), and other obvious lies (e.g. denying knowledge of Cohen's payments to Stormy), the best explanation is that he knowingly lied. The alternative is that he's either irrational or exceedingly stupid. I've brought this up to you before, and you've never replied to it. So which is it? What positive explanation can you put forth?

I haven't even touched on his multiple instances of. obstruction of justice. Mueller vol ume 2 describes the evidence for his obstruction of his investigation. Barr's dropping the case doesn't mean the crimes didn't occur. Go ahead and defend the legality of what Trump did regarding Manafort - after you read the report. (Restain yourself from excusing Trump's criminality based on him being pissed off about the Russia investigation; obstruction of justice does not become acceptable on the basis of righteous indignation).

He clearly obstructed justice when he defied a lawful subpoena for classified documents. He hid documents from his lawyer. Rather than put forward a real defense, he lied to the public about the search, labelling it a "raid" and falsely claimed agents were authorized to kill him. Those two lies aren't crimes, but they are examples of his approach: commit crimes while inflating his cult members with propoganda.

You've alleged Smith's prosecution was "political" - but there's no evidence of it. Crimes were committed, crimes were investigated, and 4 grand juries agreed. Unprecedented? Sure. We've never before had a criminal as President.

What exculpatory evidence has Trump put forth? Nothing. He just says everyone else lied, and he repeays the lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Of course, he has some level of immunity - but immunity doesn't equate to innocence.

Now make your case. Point to evidence that supports your allegations. If you don't, it will be glaringly obvious which one of us is depending solely on "propoganda".

Thanks; I knew he was planning to dismiss the fraud case, but overlooked this one. Apparently, Canon's ruling will not establish a binding precedent - since the prior SCOTUS ruling is still there.

Wray has said he would not let FBI agents target individuals (since that's unconstitutional), as Trump has promised to do (see this). Plus, Wray let his agents execute a search warrant of Mar-a-lago, after Trump hid "his" classified docs and lied about it. Trump needs someone loyal, who won't let the law get in the way of doing Trump's bidding.

I wonder who Trump will install as FBI director, after he fires Christopher Wray. Maybe Sidney Powell, who showed her investigative prowess by unconvering Dominion Voting Systems' efforts to rig the 2020 election. Another possibility is Marjorie Taylor Greene. :wink:

Great set of suggestions. I'll add a concern, one that I don't know how to fix.

Everyone likes it when some government policy helps them. Many (including most low income people) resent it when something is done to help OTHER people, but not them. E.g.: the student loan forgiveness program. I personally never liked it, and I understand why working class people would resent it. This dovetails with some of the issues you raised: the perception is that focusing on LGBTQ issues implies not focusing on what is important to them.

Similarly with aid to Ukraine: many resent it. There's no apparent, immediate benefit to Americans. It's supportive of American ideals, and we liberal idealists support it, but this doesn't sell to many.

The rats are fleeing the ship, starting with illegally-appointed Jack Smith. The corrupt, political persecution has failed. Now he has only a few months to destroy all his evidence and communications, and milk his taxpayer-funded government payday until the last second. — NOS4A2

Members of the Trump cult live in an alternate reality. The only statement that has one toe in reality is the claim that Smith (and all previous special counsels) can't legally be appointed.

The "toe in reality": a single circuit court judge (Aileen Canon) ruled that AG's do not have the authority to appoint special counsels. The context this ignores: SCOTUS has previously ruled that AG's do have the authority, and appellate courts in other circuits have upheld this. Canon has previously made erroneous judgements in the case that were overturned on appeal. This is is also likely to be overturned. We could discuss the legal issues, but I doubt you'd consider them, since you invariably look no further than the rationalization for some pro-Trump ruling.

The evidence is overwhelming that Trump obstructed justice in the documents case, and that he conspired to illegally overturn the 2020 election. There is no exculpatory evidence. This is all true irrespective of the legality of the special counsel regulations, and irrespective of whether or not the morally bankrupt criminal will ever be held legally accountable.

Needless to say, the glaringly obvious facts that crimes were committed is proof positive that Smith's investigations and indictments were appropriate.

It appears the only way forward is for the common people to completely reject traditional sources of information, and rebuild the truth from the bottom up. — Tzeentch

The issues with major news organizations are not fatal. They are selective in what they report, but that's dealt with by using multiple sources. They usually report facts; the problem is the interpretations of those facts. It's usually possible to distinguish fact from interpretation. Opinion shows (which dominate cable "news" stations) are entertainment, not news.

Deniers of climate change, vaccines, Jan 6, 9/11, etc. invariably get their information from "non-traditional" sources. These usually aren't actually sources - they don't typically have actual reporters gathering news. They select stories from MSM, and internet rumors. Their selection of stories and their interpretation, can be more distorted than mainstream news sources. This is AFAIK, anyway. If you know of some alternative sources that don't have these pitfalls, please share them.

But so did the establishment media, no? — Tzeentch

Hell yes!

The establishment has dominated the media for decades. They have operated on 'post-truth' principles for just as long.

The difference is that now there are multiple actors operating on 'post-truth' principles and the resulting bullshit cacophony makes it impossible not to notice something is wrong.

The media is giving their customers what they want. How did we get here? The pivotal point in history was when the FCC, under Reagan, revoked the Fairness Doctrine.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Any return to "fairness" ideals would be treated as an assault on free speech. The dark corollary of free speech is the right to lie. So the only thing we can hope to do is to help people learn to seek truth.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Absolutely. A belief is rational if it is arrived at through sound reasoning; it needn't be true.

2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity?

Maybe. Being "unsure" has varying degrees of doubt. Having a bit of doubt wouldn't preclude believing in traditional Christianity.

One could also embrace an untraditional view of Christianity, denying Paul's opinion, while embracing the supposed teachings of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels. A "Resurrection" could be viewed as figurative- didactic fiction.

'Post-truth' is a system the US establishment has created, which might indeed be described as such. Trump moves within that system, but he isn't the cause or even a principal part of the problem. — Tzeentch

Trump didn't cause the problem; he exploited it and exacerbated it.


IMO, the solution is education. This includes formal education- teaching critical thinking, and also revising Civics classes to help kids learn to make more rational voting choices ( looking beyond the slick ads).

The post-high school masses are a more challenging group to reach. One possibility is entertainment, like movies, TV shows. They've been effective at pushing more people to embrace conspiracy theories, so it's not unreasonable to think they could do the opposite.

Why would you create duality between subjective & objective means ? If God does exist, then his being qua being would both be nondelimited prior to manifestation and delimited via manifestation in the mental & physical world (assume both categories are relative to one another). — Sirius

The subjective/objective difference is simply that an objective means is demonstrable - it can be shown to be true to others. If someone believes they've personally experienced a God, that can help justify his belief to himself, but it has no power to persuade anyone else.

The trick is to stop looking for God and understand he has not only always been with you but he is identical to your reality. — Sirius

I hope you understand that this statement can't possibly persuade anyone that a God exists- and that's because it depends on the premise that a God exists.

People seem to think God is like a pseudo object which exists apart from the universe, which is just superstitious & baseless.

IOW, you don't consider the God of your belief to exist apart from the universe. OTOH, I see no reason to think that anything like a "God" exists in any objective sense. I'm fine with you embracing your belief. I'm certain I couldn't possibly convince you you're wrong, even if I wanted to (which I don't). I hope you are sufficiently open-minded enough to understand why I don't share your belief.

If you want to know God, you just need to think differently of him, or to put it more succinctly, you need to stop thinking of him, as he is beyond concepts and experience as well.

I admire your passion. I hope your belief helps you to do good.

I disagree with you, but I acknowledge that no logical argument can prove you wrong. It also seems to me that our difference on this point is vanishing small- as small as the possibility that "2+2=4" is false.

All human being go through that stage, just as many of them go through the stage of childhood. Zygotes, neonates, children, adults—these are stages, not different organisms. — NOS4A2

No, it's not the same organism, because it isn't identical. You aren't strictly identical to the NOS4A2 of yesterday: some cells have died, some replaced. On the other hand, the only thing you have in common with the zygote from which you emerged is a similar (but not identical) sequence of DNA. So what does it mean to share an identity with something that is not identical?

A 2-inch diameter ball of pure snow rolls down a snow-covered mountain. During the descent, more snow is compacted into it, and it picks up dirt and pine needles on the way, growing into a 20-ft diameter ball of snow and other debris. Does the 20-ft diameter ball share an identity with the 2-incher? If it hit a tree on the way down and split in half, which half gets the identity of the 2-inch original? Does it matter how much of that original is contained in each half?

If an identity endures over time, what is it that is actually enduring?