And I cannot know for certain that the Battleship USS New Jersey has not just materialized in my back yard. Isn't ignorance, especially compounded with stupidity, g-r-e-a-t! — tim wood

The discussion has reached a critical juncture. Only a few questions and details remain:

Is the Battleship USS New Jersey omnibenevolent? Is it God? Of course we cannot know that it is not, so let's just say it is. God materialized once before and legend has it he was God's son, and, in defiance of logic, God himself. But logic is logos and logos was there at the beginning, and so, we can now be certain that the Battleship is God and God's son, Christened from the beginning.

A Holy Trinity, God, the Son, and the Battleship USS New Jersey. But there is another Trinity. So, a double Trinity, a Sextuple.

Atheist towards what precisely? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions and nuances towards the same “god/gods” both in a religious context and in a more metaphorically life pursuit sense. — Benj96

The same word does not mean the same god/gods. From Salman Rushdie:

If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.

The Enchantress of Florence

once upon a time, depictors of the human body cared little of anatomical accuracy, but cared much about conveying in their works the spirit or soul encapsulated within the body they portrayed. After the Enlightenment, artists began studying anatomy in order to better represent the human body, its exact musculature, dissecting corpses...this change in itself is an indication of the alteration that philosophy (science) exacted upon aesthetics: more emphasis on physical exactitude, at the cost of psychic representation. Only compare Rembrandt with David. — Todd Martin

Your romantic notions of a golden age of scientific ignorance are at odds with historical facts.
Michelangelo lived 1475-1564, David was sculpted between 1501 and 1504. Rembrandt lived from 1606- 1669. It seems likely that what you are calling the Enlightenment was actually the Scientific Revolution which preceded it.

According to your theory the anatomically exact David would have been created after the work of Rembrandt, but it was created about 100 years before Rembrandt was born.

I think that it is probably about being aware of our own limitations. — Jack Cummins

What is often not appreciated is that Socrates' knowledge of his ignorance was not simply a matter of knowing that he was ignorant.

On the one hand, it seems unwise to measure wisdom without being in possession of what is being measured. On the other, it seems unwise to therefore abandon the idea of wisdom.

It is not simply that he used the opportunity for a photo op, he cleared the area to make way for that opportunity. The Secret Service and Park Police acted under the direction of Barr with a sense of urgency and immediacy. This was much more than just a plan to put up a fence.

An important statement from the report:

We also found weaknesses with the operation to clear the park, including the U.S. Secret Service’s deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings ...

The SS had no interest in erecting a fence. They acted to clear the way for Trump.

The square was cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

The timing is suspicious. The methods are suspicious. Barr's role is suspicious. The actions of SS are suspicious.

A report from the WP the day after the photo-op:

When Barr went to survey the scene, he was ‘surprised’ to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said,” according to our report. The official added that Barr “conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: ‘This needs to be done. Get it done.’ ”

So, there was a plan to erect the fence. The Trump administration saw this as a photo op. The Park Police may not have been aware of Trump's plan until meeting with Barr, but Barr expected the area would have already been cleared and demanded it get done. We don't know what would have happened if Trump had not used this as a photo op, but the immediacy with which Barr ordered them to act was irresponsible. Any investigation that does not look into the role his administration played is an incomplete report.

From the report:

... we did not seek to interview Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP.

The report clears the USPP. It says nothing about Trump's decision to appear, how this was coordinated, or what measures were taken to assure his safe passage. It simply states that the USPP played no role. But the USPP was not the only policing agency involved. The report does not exonerate Trump, as he claimed, at best it exonerates the USPP.

You can argue that science is good based on the prosperity of the masses, but if the higher accomplishments of the soul are compromised by its success ... — Todd Martin

You have not established a causal relation or shown that science and art are incompatible.

In other words, “the music is nothing if the audience is deaf”. — Todd Martin

d

And this is exactly what is wrong with your post. It says a lot about you but nothing about music after Beethoven or literature after Keats.

The report is limited to the US Park Police. Several other law enforcement agencies were involved. The report says nothing about them.

From the NYT:

But the report’s author was careful to warn it was not to be seen as a definitive account of the day, in part because so many other law enforcement agencies were involved. The inspector general, Mark L. Greenblatt, noted that it was not in his jurisdiction to investigate what the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies knew and who may have ordered them to use force to clear the park.

“It was a fulsome review of everything in our jurisdiction,” Mr. Greenblatt said in an interview. “The unfortunate thing is not everything is in our jurisdiction.”

The report said Mr. Greenblatt did not seek to interview Mr. Barr, White House personnel or the Secret Service, among others, regarding decisions that did not involve the Park Police.

Other agencies involved that day included the National Guard, Capitol Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Mr. Trump issued a statement on Wednesday thanking the inspector general for what he called “completely and totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park!”

In an interview, Mr. Greenblatt said he did not appreciate the comment.

“That’s uncomfortable for me,” he said. “We are independent from any political administration. This is not at all comfortable footing for anyone in my community.”

It would have been great to have been able to fully commit to Plato there, to reject Aristotle's critiques. Because, of course, Aristotle is not as fun to read. Instead of a series of polished dialogues we mostly have cluttered, meandering lecture notes stapled together. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a view of Aristotle that has recently been challenged; that his writings are neither doctrine nor lecture notes, but dialogic. He is in dialogue both with earlier writers and with the reader who is provoked to think these things through rather than accept them as either the truth or Aristotle's opinion. Like Plato's dialogues they lead to aporia. Rather than answers Aristotle guides the reader through questions.

No evidence of what? There is plenty of recorded evidence of what happened and when it happened. The report did not dispute that. Given Trump's nonstop lies, nothing that comes out of his administration is credible.

Right.

This is the inspector general's report. Not a report by investigative journalists. It is well known that Trump had previously fired two confirmed and several acting inspectors general.

Here is what he says:

“If we had found that type of evidence,” Interior Inspector General Mark L. Greenblatt said, “we would not hesitate in presenting that, and saying that was influencing the Park Police’s decision-making to clear the park. Just so you know, if we had found that, if we had seen that type of evidence, we would absolutely have reported that, without a doubt.”

Who believes this lie?

Since this thread has already veered wildly off topic, the following is not out of place.

A very brief look at our inherited beliefs:

Many ancient poets/lawgivers claim gods rather than themselves as the authority for what they say; and appeal to revelation rather than reason.

In Judaism adherence to the Law is a matter of choice.

According to Paul, man is powerless against sin. Morality (a term he never used) necessitates not only divinity but belief, acceptance, and faith because man must be saved from sin.


One reason more highly educated people may reject this is that a liberal education is at its best a liberating education. An escape from Plato's cave. Plato replaces the stories of the gods with stories or the just, beautiful, and good. But Christianity then takes what is fundamentally a story that rejects revelation in favor of reason and turns it into a story of revealed truth.

Going further it attempts to reconcile reason and revelation, thereby making reason the handmaiden of revelation. The struggle between the claims of "Athens and Jerusalem", that is, reason and revelation, continue to this day.

Religion filled in the gaps of our ignorance...

That's why.

End of story. — creativesoul

This is not the end of the story. The question is: what does it fill it with?

In my opinion, religion is at its best when it leaves the gaps open. But most seek religion because they want answers. The answers they accept do not replace ignorance with knowledge but with ignorance of their ignorance. Faith is mistaken for knowledge.

Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader. — baker

You state this as if it is a fact. It is not. How effective it is at preventing the spread of the virus is still under review. One thing is clear, where vaccination rates are high covid rates have decreased significantly.

A person is not a statistic. — baker

The safety of the vaccine though is.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority. — baker

All drugs potentially have bad side effects. It is a matter of risk/benefit analysis.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone.
— baker

That is not the way medicine works.
Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way? — baker

You have misunderstood what it means for a drug to be safe and effective.

Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent". — baker

Informed consent is not all or nothing.

then why not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones? — baker

This is all regulated by agencies such as the FDA.

Political considerations include such things as freedom and compliance.

You should have something to say for those for whom the vaccine wasn't safe and effective. And there is a number of those for whom it wasn't. — baker

I cannot evaluate this without specifics. Were there underlying medical conditions? What was the cause of death? "a number" is statistically meaningless.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone. — baker

That is not the way medicine works.

The answer to that has more to do with politics than vaccine safety and efficacy.

In medicine, a person can give no informed consent if they don't have a medical degree. It all comes down to trusting one's doctors. — baker

It is not clear whether you are denying the practice of informed consent or questioning the concept. The former is well documented. The latter is more problematic. Even people with medical degrees may not have the specialized expertise needed to be fully informed about a particular procedure. An internist does not have the knowledge or experience of a neurosurgeon.

Trusting you doctor can mean different things, but where there are viable options most will not make decisions for you.

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences? — baker

Mandatory where? Mandated by whom?

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that? — baker

I have nothing to say to that without specific details and statistics.

I use these terms / distinctions a little more precisely:

(A) relativism denotes that all truths or paths are equally justified — 180 Proof

That is not a more precise use of the term, it is a stipulated use. Not all relativism accepts the claim that all truths are equally justified, but rather, take the position that all justification is relative. There is no fixed standard by which we judge an invariant world. These are the conditions in which we judge.

Joseph Margolis has written extensively on this.

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft2779n7t4;query=;brand=ucpress

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft209nb0kk&brand=ucpress

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft6t1nb4gf;query=;brand=ucpress

Unfounded assertion on top of unfounded assertion does not amount to more than a bunch of unfounded assertions.

Your notions of meaning and existence do not correspond to anything other than what you imagine they must be, as if, because you have convinced yourself of the truth of such matters therefore that is the way things must be.

And the only proper response to this is hysterical optimism and total faith in medicine? — baker

Based on the numbers it is certainly reasonable and well deserved optimism. Nothing I have said reflects a total faith in medicine. But I have much more faith in medicine than faith in placebos to fight the virus.

Medical knowledge is never complete. Based on the information we have the vaccine is both safe and effective. That does not mean that no one will have a negative reaction, but the same is true of most things we put in our bodies, even things that have not harmed us in the past. There is a change that eating a cheeseburger or salad will kill you. You may be taking or have taken medications that are considered safe that in the future will turn out not to be so safe even though they went through clinical trials without these negative effects being noticed

You don't define something into existence. — Philosopher19

No, you don't. But that is exactly what you are trying to do.

You cannot have more than one existence. — Philosopher19

But you can have more than one thing that exists.

You simply acknowledge the existence of that which perfectly exists. — Philosopher19

You do not know that perfect thing exist anywhere but the imagination.

You simply acknowledge the triangularity of that which is perfectly triangular. — Philosopher19

Perfect triangularity is either a hypothesis or part of a formal system.

You cannot have more than one perfect being because you cannot have more than one omnipresent or omnipotent being — Philosopher19

That is an assertion. You require your perfect, omnipotent God conforms to logic and the limits of your understanding. You seem to be using spatial terms for something that does not have a spatial dimension.

EDITED.

Defining something into existence is frivolous, but I will play along. Since nothing constrains God's existence there is nothing to prevents the existence of an infinite numbers of Gods.

[reply="Philosopher19;547011

It is only meaningless if you begin by defining God as perfect.

A couple of hints as to how to read Descartes Meditations:

Man's perfectibility - if we limit what we will to what we know we will never err. An immortal thinking thing with Descartes method for solving for any unknown will in time will unerringly.

Knowledge of perfection - Descartes argues that the idea of perfection cannot come from something imperfect. But note in the Fifth Meditation he argues that God's non-existence would be to lack a of perfection. The idea of perfection then can, and in fact does, arise from imperfection. We see that a thing is not perfect because it lacks something. We do not need the idea of perfection in order to see that something is not perfect.

I think the idea of adherence to the rules of language paints a false picture. It is not as if we follow a rule book. When Wittgenstein used the analogy of a game in PI one thing he pointed to was that not all games are played according to pre-established rules. Some games you make up as you go along.

No one creates the rules for how language is used, but if you wish to say something and be understood you use grammatical language. This applies even to the asocial and anti-social.

If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Then of course, there is no God. — CountVictorClimacusIII

And the universe continues to function as it does.

Where are you coming from? Just wondering. — Book273

I taught, among other things, biomedical ethics before retiring.

My wife has a PhD in biochemistry and worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over thirty years and now does consulting for the industry. She retired last year as vice president and head of regulatory affairs for a pharmaceutical company. My daughter has a PharmD. My son a Masters in Pharmacology. The vaccine and safety protocols have been a frequent topic of conversation.

I use the same measure across the board, the measure I was taught to use to assess risk and benefit for all my patients. — Book273

What measure do you use when, as you say, you do not believe the science? What measure do you use when the available data indicates that the vaccines are safe and highly effective?

... best practice within the healthcare industry. — Book273

Best practice is to get the vaccine.

So outside of public policy — Book273

So, you follow best practice, except you don't.

I move forward with what my patient wants, not tell them what they want, and offer them the best advice I can, — Book273

There is a difference between informed consent and uninformed consent. If the best advice you can give them is not to believe the science then they are properly informing them. What an uninformed patient wants should not be the deciding factor.

Thus our imperfections mirror His, if he in fact, is not omnipotent, but instead, just a powerful enough being to create life, with that life being as flawed as Himself. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Or perhaps what is annihilated is the concept of God. This can be taken in two ways: 1) God is not limited by our concept, or 2) God is only a concept. If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Risk benefit analysis can only be done on available data, not on fear of theoretical possibilities of adverse reactions. Based on available data the benefits far outweigh the risks. We have seem a dramatic decrease in the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. The evidence indicates that not only the person getting the vaccine benefits but others do as well. We also know that the vaccines have been effective against variations and stopping the development of variations.

I do not believe the science that I have been told. — Book273

The claim that not being vaccinated spreads the virus does not hold up to science. — Book273

This type of argument is all too common. You reject the science when it does not conform to your beliefs and appeal to science when you think it supports them.

But, if God had that one nagging question, “what happens if I cease to exist?” - He might then be motivated to find the answer through his own self-destruction. — CountVictorClimacusIII

The joke is, of course, he could never find the answer to this question. What does not exist does not know anything.

This is not God's thought experiment. If it were there would have been no need to do anything but think about it. But thinking about it could not yield the desired result.

The bits that were God exist because God does not. If through their self-assembling combination God will again exist then what happens when he ceases to exist is that he will again exist.

But that cannot be known unless the bits actually assemble themselves to become God. How can it be known that they will? The experiment is self-destructive and from the perspective of us bits, very possibly a failure.

If God's bits are capable of becoming God then this is something he would already know if he knew himself.