Yes, logic has proven useful for too many things to list at human scale. That is certainly true. But that does NOT automatically equal logic being useful for EVERYTHING, no matter how large the question. — Hippyhead

I didnt say it does. I’m merely pointing out that we have no reason to think logic would fail at any particular thing. Until we do, the proven reliability of logic means its our best tool. Can you offer anything that shows the limits of logic at the “scale” of god? Or anything where abandoning logic in favour of another tool is the better way?
No one is reflexively using logic in this unthinking way you suggest. If you have something better, Id be happy to use that. I just want the best tool for the job, if you have a better one then please share its wonders.

Here's an example. Holy books have provided comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, an astounding accomplishment which science can't begin to touch. Holy books have proven themselves beyond any doubt to have this ability in very many cases. But that does not automatically equal holy books being qualified for any claim they might make. We can't blindly leap from one proven ability to any claim whatsoever, no matter how large, and label that logic. — Hippyhead

Holy books providing comfort and meaning is irrelevant to making claims about things. Providing meaning/comfort is not something that qualifies anything about claims about existence.
And again, no one is blindly applying logic. This is a strawman. You are asserting with no evidence that logic is being blindly, dogmatically applied.

I'd be happy to question science in general, but let's save that for another thread. Start one if you wish, and I'll try to join you there. — Hippyhead

You miss the point. You dont have a better tool to offer, so with science as with logic you have no substance to your argument. All you got is “hey, maybe logic or science isnt the best tool for so and so”. Ok, sure, maybe, but you have nothing to offer as an alternative so now you are just asking people to not rely on logic for no real reason (because you can imagine the possibility it might not be the best tool...no substance).

I'm attempting to replace your logic with real logic. Real logic, not ideological assertions made from an emotional attachment to some ideology which perhaps makes you feel superior to somebody else. — Hippyhead

Lol, who are you talking to? You’ve created this phantom strawman. How did you determine what logic I use, how did you determine Im operating on an emotional attachment over “real logic” and what have I said that makes you think I might be trying to exercise a feeling of superiority to anyone else?

I'm just joining them in leaving nothing above inspection and challenge. — Hippyhead

I dont think you are. Certainly you arent challenging anything, you havent provided any real argument Im sorry to say.
Its pretty clear you have an axe to grind here...did you have some bad experiences with philosophers?

But aren't you assuming, without questioning or any evidence, that logic is qualified to address topics the scale of gods? More to the point, isn't such an unexamined assumption extremely common, not just on philosophy forums, but among philosophy professionals as well? — Hippyhead

No its not an assumption. Logic has a proven reliability and usefulness. Its something you can study academically. I dont see how you can defend your statement “assuming, without questioning or any evidence“. Thats clearly not the case, there has been plenty of study on logic.
This is like questioning science (in general, not to include questioning IN science which is part of its method of course).
Ok, sure. What else you got to replace science? What about to replace logic? What do you think would be a better tool than logic in order to determine the existence of a god that's not detectable by science?
So whats this gripe you got with philosophers?

why? who said so? and why? — Augustusea

Humans.

would skinning a cat live be moral in this case? would torturing any none human be moral? — Augustusea

I wouldn't say moral no, though to me it always depends on why something is being done as a determinate of whats moral or immoral. I would call that ammoral.

and what makes us different from animals other then our moral judgement (which not all of us even have) — Augustusea

Well many things, but moral judgement and all that is required for moral judgements (cognition, reasoning etc) are all thats relevant here.

Sure, in underdeveloped humans you dont find the same kind of agency. It has yet to develop moral agency, but it will. Thats not the case with most animals, so I fail to see where that point lands.

and even then they are living creatures what would make us be moral to humans and not them? — Augustusea

...because morality is made by humans, for humans. Its not made by living creatures for living creatures, its not made by humans for living creatures. Its a human thing, for humans.

As far as sharing or applying human morality to non-humans...sure, there are certain criteria that qualify humans for moral agency. If enough of these traits were found in something not human then we could suggest to this potential moral agent our human morality and they could operate within the parameters perhaps. I see no problem with that.
Most animals are not like that however, so it still doesnt make the case for veganism on that basis. It might make the case for not eating certain animals (something already done culturally) though, maybe we could find common ground there.

Ive noted you didnt speak to a point I actually made but instead moved on to make another point about human babies. You asked why it would be incoherent, I answered. Was there some wrong with my answer? If so, you should explain what it is, and if not you should concede the point. Anyway, I will answer your new point.
A baby isn't a moral agent because it hasnt developed yet, as it does it learns many things one of which will be some sense of morality. They can be taught to understand a social/moral contract. Animals generally do not and cannot.
Remember, I said morality is made by humans, for humans. Babies are humans.

I dont think it is coherent. You said it yourself, animals are not moral agents. Is it coherent to treat non-moral agents morally? A rock? A tree? No. In order for you to include animals for special treatment over trees and rocks, you have to make a special pleading fallacy for animals or you will have to make some kind special exemption for living creatures/suffering. Neither have a rational basis.
Morality is made by humans, for humans.

Yes, I would agree with that.

Sure, either or.

I think there is a difference between something “having the quality of being different” and a “state of nothingness”.
“No difference” isnt the same as “nothing”.

No. No variance just means unchanging, static. That isnt necessarily “nothingness”, and its certainly isnt equal to it.

Yes, its all very hard to take seriously.

Well I wouldnt say the end is near...we functioned as a species for a long time on just emotion and tribalism. Even with reason dead, humans will be able to stumble through technological and social advancement so this all keeps ticking along. Its just the dark times that the absence of uniform reasoning that I dont think is possible to avoid right now. The wrong kinds of people are driving the car right now.

Its not just science, its the death of reason. Feelings and agenda over facts.

Ok ignoring the fact you havent refuted my counter points, Why would that be absurd? When they talk about what they see they are talking about the colour spectrum, retinae, light particles...any number of things they have no knowledge about yet are still talking about. They just dont know that they are talking about those things cuz they lack the words/concepts. Same with mental and brain states. They do t even need to know they have brains to talk about mental or brain states.

Its still just words. Its not restrictive (which is what you need it to be for your argument to work) because anyone can use shared vocabulary to add those “Scientific” words to the shared vocabulary.
There is nothing about scientific vocabulary that isnt also true about basball vocabulary, or music vocabulary, or texting vocabulary (“lol”, “lmao” etc) as far as communication goes.
Does not sharing baseball vocabulary with someone restrict anyone communicating about it? No, the person just goes “whats a homerun?”, gets a description and moves on with the discussion/communication.

Its just normal vocabulary, nothing about the vocabulary used for brain states is special. Its just words, with meanings, that some people know and some people do not and you communicate by using the shared vocabulary in order to clarify the meaning of the vocabulary that is not shared.

...Ive officially used the word “vocabulary” more times in a single day than ive ever used it....

1. Brain states are mental states.
2. Brain state vocabulary is scientific.
3. If brain states are mental states, then meaningful communication about mental states is meaningful communication about brain states.4. Meaningful communication about brain states is impossible if two speakers do not have brain state vocabulary.
5. Bob and Sheila do not have brain state vocabulary.
6. Bob and Sheila can meaningfully communicate about mental states.
7. From (3), Bob and Sheila can meaningfully communicate about brain states.
8. (7) is false (because Bob and Sheila do not have brain state vocabulary).
9. Therefore, meaningful communication about mental states is not meaningful communication about brain states.
10. Therefore, (1) is false. — RogueAI

Nobody can communicate about anything without shared vocabulary, this is a red herring and your whole argument depends upon it. Further, it is false to claim that brainstate vocabulary must be scientific, we are talking about it and neither of us are using strictly scientific vocabulary. Lastly, even if scientific vocabulary was the only vocabulary for brainstates it doesnt prevent communication, one would simply have to relay the meaning of the vocabulary being used.
Im afraid your argument is only clever semantics and structure and falls short of its goal.

Except it doesn't happen. Forcing someone to stay alive is difficult even when they are incarcerated. I keep asking you what is your experience of this or what cases can you cite, and you don't come up with even a description of an instance.

And again, even if it were commonplace, what is the relevance to my description of the nature of suicide? I'm certainly not forcing anyone to stay alive, I'm posting on a philosophy site and I wouldn't have a clue how to go about it. — unenlightened

Alright, fair point I should have used a less strong word than “force”. What I had in mind is when someone wants to end their suffering by ending their life (which is rational) and someone tries to stop them, either by social pressure or physically by having that person committed etc.
If you are trying to prevent someone from killing themselves in the context ive laid out then you are in some sense forcing them to suffer (in cases where ending their suffering is their reason for killing themselves.)
I wasnt intending to talk about literal cases of actually physically restraining someone from the act of suicide.
Anyway, It hasnt gone unnoticed by me that you have failed to actually address my points against you here so Ive begun to wonder what the point in wasting my words is.

It's funny really, you expected me not to be responding to the substance of what you're saying, so you responded in kind. Whereas I believe I am responding to the substance of what you're saying, I just don't think you know how your speech functions in the context you're deriding. The mob mentality sub-discussion is a popular trope in the discourse you're deriding and really only makes sense in terms of it. As does the "both sides have good points" narrative. I think you're underestimating how complicit and embedded in the discourse you're criticizing you are; to the extent you're making standard moves in it but still believe you're outside of it. — fdrake

I did respond to the substance of what you are saying excepting where the substance was based off of a misunderstanding or error. You are the one trying to force labels and tropes into what im saying and thereby further reinforcing my point, again.
I do not think im imbedded in poor method of discourse. Im the one pointing the problem out. I think you are over estimating how much I remove myself from the “other” here. Im human too, I make mistakes and have emotions and monkey brain shit like everyone else. My awareness of that is helpful to overcome it and sharing that awareness is intended to help discourse in general, or at least point out the problem others seem to fail to recognise.

But what's the model of me in that? I'm quite happy to be seen as a stimulus->response machine of triggered by problematicness->woke signaling, you don't have to back down from the commitment because it's offensive. Maybe I really was functioning like that, maybe you are! — fdrake

Well you had offered an example of what I was talking about so I pointed it out. Im not backing down, like I said I think you were functioning that way in that instance. Sure, it could be me tomorrow. We must be vigilant against our monkey brains.

I think you underestimate people. Or mischaracterize them. — fdrake

Its grounded in evolutionary psychology, its part of being human. It becomes a problem when people fail to recognise it for what it is, just like when we let primitive emotions like anger control us or a failure to recognise the irrational jealousy our monkey brains fill us with at times.

I did read the rest of your post. I just didn't understand that you were meaning literally a return to a mythical tribal mindset that allegedly facilitated inter-tribal war. I still suspect that you don't actually really believe we're returning to a warring tribal society fighting over exactly why Kanye is problematic, and that your meaning is mostly hyperbole by means of allusion. — fdrake

Well Im not talking about that, its a biology thing not a sociological thing (although related of course, like the two fields I just mentioned).
Thats my mistake, I could have been more clear.

So you're quite happy to characterize me based off of an alleged trigger response, when you could've asked what I actually thought. Instead of doing so, you have lumped me in with the people who follow the simplistic "us vs them" dynamic, and are making an example of me as one of those fools you're so much better than. Great! — fdrake

It wasnt my intention to characterise you in general as a primitive “us vs them” person acting out biological tribalism, but rather to point out an instance of what I was talking about when I referenced the “minefield” of trigger words, ideas and opinions.
When it comes right down to it its not about fools so much as people bring foolish. Like I said, its a human thing, an inconvenient and sometimes dangerous part of our evolution.
A “mob mentality” is a good example of this. People get caught up in something and do things they wouldnt normally do. Thats the monkey brain, the part of us that responds to the energy of crowds and that same tribal instinct we all have.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a bit. Im not saying you are a fool but I do think you responded to the phrase “us vs them” rather than the substance of what I said. (Which I admit, I could have been more clear about).

Also, im a human, so Im not claiming some exalted status as you claim. There is no superiority to what Im saying, no high horse. Its about being aware of something that taunts discourse, thats all.

No, I prefaced my use of “us vs them” with other words that exclude such a simplistic point. Its not just “us vs them” i was speaking about, I tied that “us vs them” to moving backwards and primitive tribalism. Thats when its a problem, when the “us vs them” is born of the primitive tribalism evolution has equipped us with rather than for a good, rational reason. (Such as the case of “us vs nazis” to use an easy example).
So no, your point falls short of what im actually saying.
My point is actually shown well with your response. All I had to do was use a trigger phrase “us vs them” and you ignored whatever context I used in favour of this preconceived context of simplistic judgement to make a point about glass houses. No glass house here.

Mercy and justice are only mutually exclusive in the same instance. One can still possess both attributes and use one or the other at different times (as dictated by whatever ethics the person might have) with no contradictions.

So the first premise in this discussion is that animals are innocent. They are not capable of doing true evil, they did not ask to exist, and they are good because they naturally follow their natures. — Gregory

I find it very difficult to associate innocence with creatures who eat their own children alive, specifically target the young and vulnerable to kill and eat or any of the other myriad of horrors that animals inflict and endure on a daily basis. Assigning innocence or lack thereof just doesnt make sense for animals. They are not moral agents, and those are human concepts we apply to other humans. It makes no sense to have animals in the moral landscape.

Well said, its nearly impossible for discussion because of the minefield of words, ideas and specific opinions that trigger attack mode in one side or the other. Its a disaster, because no ones really trying to move forward anymore. Its all either becoming entrenched and immovable or moving backwards (giving into the primitive, tribal “us vs them” trap.

No, i wasnt making a general statement about some unrelated example of being self centred. Also, you didnt say “sometimes”. The words you used were “totally self centred”.
I wasnt pointing out that other things are self centred too, I pointed out how the specific instance of forcing someone to suffer because you are not comfortable with their death or suicide is just as selfish. This is relevant and sequitur because that accusation of being self centred is being made (in the context I provided) in an act of being self centred. (Putting your own desires ahead of the suffering of the person).
This does not exclude cases where the person is actually putting the welfare of the person ahead of their own such as in the cases of mental illness leading to suicide. (Rather than some intolerable suffering leading to suicide).

Who said anything about assisted suicide? The quote of yours I responded too was about suicide being “totally self centred”.
This is non-sequitur to both the posts you’ve responded to.

What does that matter? A lack of frequency alone doesn't justify ignoring the instances if it happening.

This is bothersome to me, not only as a clinician, but because enabling suicidal behavior as "speech" according to you ought to be a thing. — Anaxagoras

You ate equating speech with behaviour here. The point made was about being able to talk about suicide or how shitty life is, not about the act of suicide itself.
Its about not being judged as mentally ill or immoral just because a persons projecting their own fears or discomfort about death and suicide onto you.

Suicide is totally self-centred just as the phrase I quote above indicates. And necessarily, a self-centred view cannot reach a use, a purpose, a meaning, or a reason to live. — unenlightened

I think its just as self centred to force a person to suffer through life just because other people aren’t comfortable with losing them. Thats just as selfish. Also, self centred views can have a use (to yourself), a purpose (service to self), meaning (very obviously, meaning doesnt disappear just because the meaning is self centred) and “reason to live” can be self centred, in fact reasons to live are often self centered (“i enjoy life!”).
So I think you are wrong from start to finish here, on every level.

What are "bad reasons" for suicide, versus "rational reasons"? — Noble Dust

Well a rational reason would be to end intolerable suffering or as a means to avoid future intolerable suffering. Whats intolerable is going to vary from person to person.
A bad reason should be obvious as well, for reasons inspired by mental illness for example, or as a means to hurt people (“ill show them!”).
The people with bad reasons deserve our help but the ones with rational reasons deserve our respect and understanding.

Well to be sure, both feeling that one's life is useless and attempting suicide are pretty shitty. You should reach out a helping hand to those who might need it, but also give someone the dignity to determine their fate as they see fit. — darthbarracuda

I agree completely. There is a balance to be struck between helping those in need and respecting someones personal sovereignty.
I think the resistance you are getting is part of the stigma of suicide but also of death itself. You gotta get people more comfortable and less afraid of death before you can expect them to wrap their heads around a more open attitude about suicide.

That is a good point, you pull people up not push people down for them to stand on.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to break “privilege” down here. There are different kinds of privilege, and I think there are a few different uses of the term being discussed. For example, what you said above might not seem so sensible if you consider privilege gained by immoral means. Then we would want the person of privilege to lose it...like a politician or other leader. For that matter, what about people who earned privilege? Im not sure it makes sense to always grant an under privileged equal privilege if they arent Earning that privilege...but then that's two senses of the word privilege being used isnt it?
So I think that might be leading to some disagreement.

You should check out Weinsteins podcast, The Portal. Its excellent.

The most glaring logical fallacy is, to me, strong atheism. How can anyone profess to be sure the universe was not created? No-one was there at the Big Bang to witness it, so we must all be agnostic. — FreddyS

How do you define “strong atheism”?
Also, we do not have to be agnostic about the big bang because no one was there. Thats a fallacy actually.

Just Google “logical fallacies”. All the arguments for gods existence are listed under logical fallacy.

Also true.

You joke, but the US military has admitted there are UFO’s, Times did a story on it, video, radar and thermographic evidence has been released and nobody cares. Most people havent even noticed. Covid-19 has hedged it out of everyone attention, or maybe used up everyones “wtf is going on?!” reserves.

So they're going to do interstellar travel, but they're not going to colonize or build space habitats and solar collectors? That, right there, is silly. But here are reasons: — RogueAI

You have no idea if they would be inclined to build those things nor can you have any idea whether they would need to build those things. Those things you mentioned are the kinds of things humans might need to build, but an alien world could have elements and propulsion systems that we do not, they could be evolved to travel through space For all you know and need none if that. This sense you have of what an alien species would build or leave for us to see is based off of anthropomorphised fiction. No offence, but you seem to lack the imagination for the endless possibilities that explain why those things (megastructures and such) might not be present.

1. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Existential threats exist.
2. You don't leave energy lying around if you can cheaply collect and store it (this goes back to the implication that if interstellar travel is possible, efficient antimatter production and storage is possible). Spare energy is never a bad thing to have.
3. You maximize available computing power.
4. Population pressures (possibly mitigated by population controls)
5. Convenience (there are benefits to space habitats) — RogueAI

1. So? That doesnt mean we would see these megastuctures, you dont even know If they keep the eggs in baskets. They could easily have other ways of dealing with existential threats, and have existential threats humans are totally unfamiliar with. They can just as easily have existential threats we do not, and us with ones they do not.
2. This is nonsense, there could be any number of reasons to leave energy lying around. Humans do it all the time. Again, you lack imagination here. We leave sources of energy lying around because we have better sources of energy, and better technology to utilise the better energy sources. It could easily Be the case we are unable to detect their sources of energy, or any of thier mega structures. (Maybe they dont want to be found)
3. Nonsense again, you MIGHT maximise available computing power but you might not. Again, humans all over the earth show us that this just isnt true. Even if we did, why would we expect aliens, especially more advanced aliens, to maximise it? Do they even have computers? You have no idea, you just assume they do because we do.
4. You are assuming they have population pressures. They easily could not due to a different evolution process, different culture/laws or technology so complex we dint even recognise it. Youre just guessing.
5. How do you know it would be convenient for them? How do you know what benefits this alien species or doesnt?

You said you would present reasons, but you didnt provide any reasons at all. You listed possibilities, and you listed blind guesses.

I counter your proverbial Pandoras Box with the proverbial double edged sword.
All things have negative consequences once discovered or “unleashed”. It is therefore more accurate to use the double edged sword analogy, as thats what most things are like. Double edged. Pandoras Box makes a presumption about the ills but ignores the benefit. Even unleashing evils with not good falls short, because good can come from evil. Good needs evil to have meaning in fact.