Ok, so you don’t seem to really be saying much at all then. You haven’t presented a “good reason” for believing, just acknowledging a possibility.
A - that is one possibility out of a virtual infinity of possibilities and demonstrates nothing.
B - it doesn’t refute anything you say Dennett claims.

I’m afraid your argument is still fallacious.

It doesn’t follow that because consciousness can be created by humans that human consciousness must be created too.
I can create ice by putting water in the freezer that doesn’t mean ice that I find outside in the winter is also created by someone.
The fact that something can be created doesn’t mean that it can only be created. Your argument is fallacious sir.

Ok, why would we want to call any of those things “god” instead of the names you just used for them? Why not call Logos, “logos”? Also, what you mentioned are a handful of possibilities not scientific definitions for god. That would require a scientific basis for making the connection between those things and god and I don’t see one.

What do you mean exactly? A scientific definition of god looks like what?

Well it depends on what you mean by “like” the universe.
If you mean god as just another name for universe then maybe not awful but still not good because it encourages magical, wishy washy thinking. Just call it the universe.

Well said sir.

Don’t you ever get tired of contributing useless negations? You are neither helpful nor entertaining so just save it.

I think it’s often both. Atheists think that there is no good reasons to think god exists but many also recognise how awful it would be if god actually did exist, especially if various horrifying content of the bible were true as well.
Google Christopher Hitchens on the celestial dictatorship. He explains the answer you are looking for quite well.

Ah, right. I phrased that poorly lol

Sadly not. — bongo fury

What do you mean? To me it’s sadder if it’s being done poorly , that means a bunch of people are out there making mistakes and creating confusion. Also, does that mean you think it’s being done well, in general?

I think that you’re describing a specific aspect to a problem most people already recognise: the problem of imprecise language. That is something that people try to address in everyday life and in philosophy to varying degrees of success and is combated mainly by being aware of the problem. It’s the same with the problem of bias or erroneous pattern recognition, perhaps inevitable or unavoidable in the end but none the less our best tool is awareness. Pitfalls of the human condition we best avoid by being aware and accounting for their existence.
So yes, philosophers should try to avoid what you describe and do indeed do them...maybe what you are noticing is how poorly it’s often done rather than a lack of inclination.

What if a vicious serial killer tripped on his way back from his most recent depravity and incurred a serious head injury. He is found and taken to the hospital where he lays in a coma for several months. When he awakes he has no memory of his past deeds. He recovers and spends the remainder of his life helping the poor and downtrodden. If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

I think it depends on the nature of the head injury. If it’s only memory loss then I would say they are still morally responsible but there is lots of data now where brain injury can drastically alter someones personality. If the head i jury has done this to such a degree that the person cannot reasonably considered the same person then it becomes less clear what moral responsibility the person has for the actions of what is essentially another person.

Ya. There is a spectrum of takes on it, but seems like racism to me. The colour of her skin was an issue for some who didn’t think it was appropriate for royalty. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m drawing that conclusion based on more information than you’re drawing yours on at least.
I get where your coming from, the charge of racism has lost most of it’s meaning. Also, i didn’t mean to claim it was the institution. The source of the comments were individuals.
Anyway, a complete waste of my time but I got sucked in.

How do you know I haven’t listened to the other side?
Also, you are making your own assumption about it not being racism based on equally weak foundations.

Get real, like being “worried” about skin colour is just an innocent pondering. Please.
You got the non-story right though. Who cares.

I don’t deny that the environment effects the body, and that words exist in the environment. My only contention is that it is the biology that causes us to recognize, interpret and supply meaning to symbols, give them “power” so to speak. — NOS4A2

That’s what I was trying to convey by calling it dynamic. Words are part of the environment that interacts with biology and they change/effect each other and then the changes play out against each other again and so on. Tracking those changes is tracking the causal chains and words are in there somewhere.
I think where we would agree is the degree speech effects action. I wouldn't put the responsibility on the speech in most cases, but on the listener for letting the speech get to them. For example if I call someone a name and they go crazy and stab me the onus for being a bad actor is on crazy stabby guy not the speech but that’s not the same as saying the speech effect isn’t taking place. It is, it’s just that it shouldn’t dictate action. The good actor doesn’t act on speech alone (most of the time). Does that sound like common ground?

"However, what if the puddle explores the boundaries of the hole and find's it's a perfect square. Then, the puddle is going to wonder if the hole happened by accident or not. Or, what if the hole has the shape "2 + 2 = 4" (picture some little canals connecting the symbols). Then, the puddle would know for sure the hole is artificial." — RogueAI

I did read it yes, maybe I’ve misunderstood your purpose. Did you intend to describe a fictional universe or the actual one? I thought you were claiming that the actual universe was like this fictional one you presented. Also, you haven’t actually addressed my arguments.

In the puddle analogy, that's not what's going on. The conclusion is based on the hole having a mathematically significant shape that implies a designer. — RogueAI

No, the opposite. Maybe we are talking about different puddle analogies? There must be some miscommunication here because we literally have opposite ideas of what the puddle analogy is saying.

his universe also has a mathematically significant shape in that it is flat (or as flat as we can tell) and the odds of it being flat by chance are so vanishingly small, it's called the "flatness problem". So, is being flat a significant fact about the universe, like a hole shaped like Pi? I will grant you that in the case of the universe, it's not so clear. I think you can make a good argument that since flatness is necessary for complexity, and complexity is what you would expect from a designer, the existence of a highly improbable attribute (flatness) that is exactly what we would expect to see had the universe been designed is strong evidence for either a designer or a sufficiently larg — RogueAI

Well I would say flatness is necessary for a specific complexity but it’s more accurate to recognise that complexity can arise from more than just flatness (in the context of the universe of course).
That something is improbable doesnt make the negative conclusion correct.
Also, complexity requires no designer. Things can be complex and not designed at all. I think your argument still falls short I’m afraid.

I’m not sure what you mean by neurological processes being at the mercy of biology...they are part of your biology. This biology is triggered and effected by abstract symbols as well as other biological processes. Symbols we recognise have an effect on our thoughts and actions. You call it sorcery, but it’s only sorcery in the way an ipad is sorcery to a caveman.
I understand your point about knowledge, understanding and language...these are the sorts of biological processes that you referenced right? There are internal things effecting action as well as external. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) the internal things can override the external but saying the external has no effect in the way you are is incorrect. It’s both. It’s dynamic.
Glyphs may not cause you to understand them but they do cause certain neurological outcomes if you do recognise them. The degree to which they do effect action is certainly debatable, but that they do is well established.
I think you can recognise that and still maintain your free speech absolutism but your argument that it’s fanciful, magical thinking to claim words effect action doesn’t hold up.

The symbol of the number on the key corresponds to an actual electronic process specific to those particular numbers. You aren’t recognising the connective tissue between what you are referencing as “powerless” and what you are recognising as “empowered”. That’s his point, that there are in fact connections between one recognising symbols and ones actions. This isn’t controversial, there are plenty of studies and research to support that idea. If it seems fanciful and absurd to you it’s because you are ignorant of how these neurological processes interact with words and information.

You can question it sure, but you cannot draw a conclusion based on how well suited you are to the environment. It doesnt imply design just because one is well suited to it, in fact one should expect to be well suited to an environment one has adapted for.
You referencing the complexity of a universe that’s the first 10 digits of Pi is essentially an argument from ignorance fallacy. You do not understand the complexities so you insert “design” to fill in the gap and draw a false conclusion. Thats logically fallacious.

You missed his point completely. The water fits perfectly into the hole not because the hole was designed for it but because the water naturally shapes to conform to its little puddleverse.
Our universe wasn’t designed for us to live in, we are the natural result of it’s traits just like the puddle is a natural result of the holes traits (specifically, it’s shape). If our universe was much different and there was life in it then that life would be much different as well, as dictated by the “shape” of the different universe.

Sound and words are not the same thing. You used “sounds” in your argument and then changed it to “words” in your conclusion. Verbal sleight of hand which I’ll assume was an error and not intentional. Just fyi, enjoying following the discussion.

Would you say that words can influence actions? Or would you consider that to be the same thing as words causing things?

Well said.

One thing on this topic that I don’t see discussed is people’s right to listen. Why do some people get to decide what Im allowed to listen to?
If a bunch of people show up to listen to a speaker, especially one invited, why does some mob of haters get to decide for me that Im not going listen to them today?

Also, it’s very disappointing to see such a sad lack of self awareness on the part of those arguing against Counter Punch. Their use of free speech as a defence against shutting down someones ability to speak to people is shameful. The spirit of free speech is being mutilated there, whatever technicality, semantic style arguments you try and make it’s clear to anyone not using free speech as an argument tool to promote (force?) their views on others that free speech and shutting down a speaker are contradictory.

The best I can come up with is something like the value of a life is the value you assign to it. But this feels like it leaves out plenty. — Manuel

I think thats exactly what value human life has. Everyone picks and chooses what life is valuable, most people don’t care about vast swaths of life, from bacteria to insects. Others care about animals of all kinds, many just the cute ones. Some only really care about human lives and of course others only care about certain human lives. Some only care about their own lives but everyone picks and chooses, everyone assigns their own value to it.
Personally I think life's value should be judged according to that lifes merits and if certain criteria arent met (like if someone just goes around killing and spreading misery) then I can’t say I put any value on that at all.

Indeed

There are plenty of topics with low quality OPs that are not locked or deleted.

There are other topics like Is Murder Really That Bad? that are not locked or deleted.

Many feel that murder is more morally repugnant than homophobia or sexism in academia (or far-right rhetoric?), but not our high principled mods? — praxis

Ive wondered this myself. Could the Mods weigh in on this comment?

You made a claim but I don't see an argument to back up that claim and if you had one, it would like like this:

1.Blah blah blah (premises)
So,
2. There are no necessary truths (conclusion)

2 has to follow necessarily from 1 to make your case i.e. given the premises, the conclusion must be a necessary truth. In other words, either you're making a baseless claim (begging the question) or you're contradicting yourself. — TheMadFool

Well said. Much better than the way I put it. (In one of the other threads about the same thing.

no, that's not made anything clearer. But I am not confused and in need of enlightenment. I don't need to keep being told about necessity. I know it is invoked left right and centre and I know that the laws of logic are said to be necessary. I am saying that it adds nothing, isn't real and can be dispensed with. — Bartricks

So you do not understand, its not clear to you...yet you are still very certain that you aren't confused or need of enlightenment? Am I wasting my time, youre the preacher type not the learning/listening type? You arent even open to the possibility you are wrong here...its best to understand the opposing argument BEFORE concluding its wrong. You admitted yourself its not clear to you.
The laws of logic are necessary to be logical. If you do not want to be logical then ok, but as i said as soon as you do then nobody knows what your talking about, including you. Discarding logic is a commitment to being non-sensical.

As for not knowing what necessity is, I cannot comprehend what the word 'necessarily' corresponds to when it is added to true. So, a 'true' proposition is one that corresponds to the facts. What does a necessarily true one do? — Bartricks

Necessarily true refers to logical inference. It can be true that I am walking, and it would be necessarily true that I have legs to walk on. Its about logical sequence when you talk about something being necessarily true. If you are just talking about a specific instance of fact, the it would indeed be incorrect to use “necessarily” true.
So if you adjust your understanding of those terms, you will see how the law of non-contradictions is violated in the concept of omniscience. Hopefully anyway, if Ive explained it clearly.

MadFool is right, the question contradicts itself.
Its the same thing as in the omniscience thread, you aren’t grasping the law of non-contradiction. It precludes both of your arguments in the two threads.
You said you do not understand what “necessity actually is”, can you elaborate on that?

Fair enough. To me magical thinking is when a person just skips over inconvenient data and reasoning that doesnt support the conclusion they want to reach, like a kind of confirmation bias.
As far as being skeptical, I would say Im quite skeptical in general. I temper that with an open mind and willingness to explore things even if im skeptical of it.

That sounds about right. Use of “faith” in religious context is special pleading because that same standard is not applied to most other things in their life.

Can you elaborate on why my belief in reality is not skeptical enough? How did you reach that conclusion, and how do you know how skeptical of reality I am?
I dont agree with how you’ve defined magical thinking here, thats certainly not I how was using the term.

Its just a cute little game theists like to play, where they reverse things back onto the atheist. Projecting is the psych term I believe. So problems with theism like faith and special pleading are claimed to be atheist things. It makes them feel good but has no substance.

Ive never heard that particular argument before. Not sure any of its necessary, breaking the law of non-contradiction is enough to show the incoherence of omniscience.

Im not sure how you define atheism but I wouldn't say its a matter of anything about god per say. Its about what the person believes not about the actions or non-actions of the thing people believe in.
Religion and the belief in god are mired in cognitive dissonance (holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time), thats how you can people like Bartricks that can’t understand their error. Its not that Bartricks doesnt understand logic, its that he doesnt apply it where it interferes in his desire to believe in god. Many religious folks are like this, its a hallmark of magical thinking. (Maybe thats the layman term for cognitive dissonance :chin: ?)

Certainly not PC, no. I think that if expressing unpopular or non-PC views was enough alone to get you banned then you would have been banned. Even though they despise you, you remain. That speaks to whether or not the bannings are bias/PC driven. They dont seem to be, but then again you could be a sleeper agent for the mods, so that they can execute their PC agenda while having you to point to as evidence they dont have one. Diabolically clever!
(Im kidding of course.)