Pattern-chaser
933

No, that's not for me. — Pattern-chaser


True, but it is not true for those foolish enough to believe in the supernatural. — Gnostic Christian Bishop


Hmm. And yet *I* am that foolish.... :wink: — Pattern-chaser

What does your response mean, PC?

Are you saying you "believe" in the "supernatural?"

If so...are you saying that you are inferring knowledge...or is it just a general feeling or guess...that something other than what is a part of nature...exists?

Just a personal observation (which may impact on what you wrote):

I think, therefore, in a way, I AM...

...but I truly have no inkling of what I am.

Am I a part of some greater whole...or is EVERYTHING just this thing I call "me?"

Solipsism gets bad-mouthed in damn near every philosophical discussion in which it is raised, but what else is there?

Lots?

Perhaps, but unlike "self' there is no verification of anything else except by this thing I call "me."

Existence is a very mysterious thing.

Aside from the fact that your thesis makes an assumption (of sorts) that we all agree on what "wrong" is...

...the thought that hit me instantly after reading it was the question...

..."So what?"

Your observations and insights are credible...

...but to what avail?

Can you flesh that part out a bit?

— Banno

Are you also saying he is charged with committing journalism?

If so, you are incorrect.

fishfry
536

This is America. The way we arrive at a decision on matters of this sort...is by a trial.

That is what I want to see. — Frank Apisa


A trial on the charge of committing journalism. — fishfry

That is not what he is charged with.

Daniel Cox
11
↪Frank Apisa
Hello Frank,

It's my position we can believe in what we have evidence for. We can believe in what we find worthy of that belief, and it be empirically true at the same time. I know God exists, I'm being held in existence by God, and at the same time I can choose to doubt God, and or, choose to know God exists.

The biggest problem I'm faced with as a minister is not convincing believers that God exists but that it is God's will to take away their pain, suffering and grief. For some reason people hold their own sin against themselves (?).

I'm new here and apologize if it's against the rules to provide a link: Dfpolis #37 Knowledge & Belief - YouTube. — Daniel Cox

Hi, Daniel.

I do not do "believing."

I am content that I do not know if any gods exist...and I am content that I do not know if there are no gods.

I am not willing to guess either way.

I pretty much deal with any pain, suffering, and grief on my own...but luckily, I have very little of any of those things to deal with.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy it here.

Mariner
366
↪Frank Apisa


For the record, I don't think you are a low life. It is strange that you think that an analysis of your stance is so momentous.

In reply to your questions:

I agree that Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States.

[Whether the court system of the US is synonymous with "the United States" is another can of worms, but let's leave this to the side for now].

I agree that IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, you want him to receive a fair trial.

I agree that IF he is found guilty, you want him to receive the punishment mandated by law.

I agree that IF not convicted, you want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing.

But you are still insisting on not looking to the substantial issues, focusing only on the procedural issues (which is why you have a double standard).

Suppose Brazil had a law against posts made by people called Francisco.

Suppose you were charged with crimes according to this law.

Would you accept extradition from the US to Brazil, in order to be tried (very fairly, as fairly as a court can do), to be released in the case that you proved that your name is actually Francis?

I am using ridiculous examples to underline the weakness of the legalistic argument ("if a law is being followed according to the procedures, there is nothing wrong going on"). Perhaps Assange ought not to be extradited because his indictment is unjust, even though procedurally legal. This should be discussed by anyone who wants to understand the Assange situation. And insisting that the procedures are being followed as if this were enough to settle the matter cannot but reveal a double standard, since I'm quite sure you would not accept analogous situations (already presented), even though procedures were being followed flawlessly. — Mariner

Okay...we are in agreement on those matters above.

I am no longer going to deal with your hypotheticals. If you want to think negatively of me or my arguments...do it without creating those things. I am okay with whatever you think of me and my arguments.

Mariner
364
↪Frank Apisa

It was addressed to you.

And if the analogy isn't clear, that is worrisome.

You said that you were fine with the treatment of Assange because you trust the law system of your country.

If an Iranian treated Rushdie according to the law system of his country, would you think it ok?

If you would not, then you have a double standard. You think that the law system of the US is worth more than the law system of Iran.

The legalistic argument in defense of Assange's treatment breaks down. One can support that treatment because one thinks he is a criminal (and laws be damned!), but not because "Law systems ought to be respected" (unless he is fine with the Rushdie execution as well). — Mariner

I have said that I would treat the hypothetical you originally offered THE SAME as I would treat the Assange issue. For some reason, you then accused me of having a double standard.

Now you are reaching further and further into absurdity in order to suggest that I am of a double standard.

My position is:

Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States. Do you disagree with that?

IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, I want him to receive a fair trial. Do you disagree with that?

IF found guilty, I want him to receive the punishment mandated by law. Do you disagree with that?

IF not convicted, I want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing. Do you disagree with that.

Let's return this discussion to the topic at hand...

...and you can consider me to be as much a low-life as you want.

The topic is Assange...not me...or YOUR opinion of me.

Mariner
362
Would you accept it in stride if some Iranian murdered Salman Rushdie in London, claiming that he had faith in the Iranian legal system, and that the Iranian legal system allowed Iranian citizens to murder people in other countries if there was a proclaimed fatwa? — Mariner

Mariner...if that was addressed to me...I would ask:

What the hell does that have to do with anything I have said on the subject of this thread?

What is the absurd comparison you are attempting to make to anything I have said?

What is the purpose of your question?

Mariner
360
↪Frank Apisa
I did not say (or think) that you are a hypocrite. — Mariner

I did not say you said I was a hypocrite. I said, "If you want to think I am a hypocrite espousing a "double standard"...not much I can do about it."

You certainly inferred a double standard on my part...and I consider the "if" hypothetical appropriate. In the interest of understanding each other, I withdraw that comment.

Another example: Salman Rushdie's fatwa was perfectly legal according to the Iranian laws.

Pinochet's prison was obviously illegal according to then-prevailing international law.

Etc. — Mariner

Things like this happen.

I still do not think I am applying a double standard.

I replied that I would want the SAME standard applied to an American in the same position.

Not sure how you interpret that to be applying a double standard, but there truly is NOTHING I can do about it if you do.

Laws (of any country, or even international) are merely a (small) piece of the jigsaw puzzle. And if some of them are considered as of more worth than others, then we have -- by definiion -- a double standard.

I am an American who has trust in our judicial system. I do NOT think it is perfect, but I think for the most part it is fair. Julian Assange has been accused of crimes against America...

...and I champion a fair trial for him IF he can legally be brought back to America for a such a trial.

My guess is he will have MORE THAN ADEQUATE legal representation.

I champion him being appropriately punished if found guilty...BUT I also champion him being release immediately if there is no guilty verdict.



I truly am at a loss about what you see as unfair or "double standard"ish about that.

fishfry
533

...and I would love to see him be extradited to the US; stand a fair trial; and either be released or punished depending on the verdict of a jury and the rule of law. — Frank Apisa


The idea of a fair trial and the rule of law do not apply here. Assange revealed horrible US war crimes. For that he must be punished. As we speak, he and Chelsea Manning are in prison for revealing to the world the true nature of US foreign policy. That cannot be forgiven. There is no fair trial here. If fairness applied, the people who committed the war crimes exposed by Manning and Assange would be brought to justice. — fishfry

This is America. The way we arrive at a decision on matters of this sort...is by a trial.

That is what I want to see.

Mariner
359
I haven't got a problem. You have (if you don't want to have a double standard).

A citizen of country M is accused by people in country N. He is currently in country P, an ally of N. He is in risk of being extradited to N. He gets asylum in country Q's embassy. Later, country Q decides to revoke his asylum. Country P gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to N or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of M, as well as its own laws, but the government of M is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Does that sound like a fair summary of Assange's position?

Now check your reaction to this scenario, in which the countries are named:

A citizen of the US is accused by people in China. He is currently in Pakistan, an ally of China. He is in risk of being extradited to China. He gets asylum in Portugal's embassy. Later, Portugal decides to revoke his asylum. Pakistan gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to China or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of the US, as well as its own laws, but the government of the US is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Sounds ok now?

The problem in discussing international relations with US citizens is that they often forget that they are just another country, and that their courts, government, agents, do not enjoy any special presumption of innocence. International relations is a tough game. There are no special countries. — Mariner

If the laws of the countries involved are being followed...I am okay with it.

If you want to think I am a hypocrite espousing a "double standard"...not much I can do about it.

Assange has been charged with crimes against the US. Whether he is guilty of those crimes or not...I DO NOT KNOW. But I would like to see him extradited to the US to stand trial for those crimes.

If he is not found guilty...I want to see him go free...and, in fact, given transport to whatever country he chooses. If he is found guilty...whatever punishment is appropriate should be assessed.

If you think that is unfair...

...be my guest.

Mariner
358

You asked a question. I answered it. — Frank Apisa


Thereby revealing a double standard. Which is your prerogative. — Mariner

There was NO double standard.

If the laws of all the countries involved are followed...it is okay with me.

What is your problem?

Mariner
357

if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go. — Frank Apisa


So, wouldn't you require an Ecuadorian (or, an Australian) court to authorize the deportation to the US, in the actual scenario? That is conspicuously absent.

Note, the Ecuadorian government requested, in writing, an assurance from the UK that Assange would not be deported to places where the death penalty is a possibility (we all know who they were thinking about; it was not Iran or China). — Mariner

You asked a question. I answered it.

Assange has been charged with crimes against the US. If he is sent here by the UK (not a certainty) I want to see him get a fair trial.

I have confidence that the charges brought are reasonable...and that he can get a fair trial in the US>

If you don't...that is your prerogative.

Mariner
354
↪Frank Apisa
Would this be your take if he were an American citizen who had (allegedly) engaged in crimes against Ecuador, and had received asylum in the Australian embassy in London? Would it be ok for the UK police to enter the Australian embassy, extract an American citizen from there, take him to court, and (at the end of the process) extradite him to Ecuador? — Mariner

Yes.

If he had instead come back to the US...the situation could be different. But if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go.

By the way...the UK police entered the Ecuadorian embassy by invitation of Ecuador.

Michael
7.6k
↪Frank Apisa
He also needs to be tried in the UK for failing to surrender to the court and in Sweden for rape (should they reopen charges). — Michael

Sounds right to me.

Devans99
1.4k

It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods. — Frank Apisa


I think you can disprove the existence of THE GOD by showing the universe was not created. Or by showing it was not fine-tuned for life. That might still leave room for 'minor gods' of some sort I suppose. I am not sure you could ever disprove the existence of those. — Devans99

I stand by my comment that it is absolutely impossible to ever be certain that there are no gods.

Sorry...

"No way I would spend 20 minutes watching a video..."

No way I would spend 20 on a video...

...but MY take on the Assange issue is that he has been charged with crimes against the US...

...and I would love to see him be extradited to the US; stand a fair trial; and either be released or punished depending on the verdict of a jury and the rule of law.

Devans99
1.3k

I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them. — Frank Apisa


Thank you Frank and I like you too! Appreciate you listening and engaging with my 'ideas'.

I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others." — Frank Apisa


It's important we keep the discussions going. We will not reach the truth if we do not. It can get a bit heated at times but that seems to me to be healthy. — Devans99

No problemo!

I do believe the truth is possible to reach even for questions like 'is there a God'. — Devans

It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods.

And since we do not know for certain there are gods yet...my blind guess would be that we will never know that either.

But I appreciate you sharing your guess.

I think you on the other hand have less faith in human ingenuity?

I think I am more realistic than people who suppose what you suppose.

BrianW
676

The point is there concepts of God are not identical. Similar perhaps, but not identical. Elijah and Isaiah each wrote and thought about Jehovah differently. — YuZhonglu


Could it mean there are different Gods in the Bible? — BrianW

The notion that there is but one god in the Bible...is absurd.

The notion that the Abrahamic "religion" was monotheistic...is absurd.

Neither of those things is so. At least, that is not what the Bible says.

there is truth to that but this is a forum where we argue and have the potential for atleast honing our own ideas or even learning new ideas. You clearly don't like his ideas on this forum topic. I don't see an end to this debate anytime soon. — christian2017

There shouldn't be an end. "An end" is not what anyone should be aiming for...or they will be disappointed considering the topics.

I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them.

I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others."

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
Thank you. So in summary:

- we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause — Devans99

I would use slightly different wording. I would say:

Understanding the true nature of the REALITY of existence could be as unattainable for humans...as understanding the relationship between The Milky Way Galaxy and M31.

That is not to say there are not ants somewhere in my backyard thinking..."I know the answers"...and trying to get its fellow ants to accept the truth of that.

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa

All you have said is what about God? Doesn't he need a cause? To which I have pointed out that God is timeless so no he does not need a cause. So I am still waiting for an answer to the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause? — Devans99

I do not know...

...AND NEITHER DO YOU.

None of us knows.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT NOTHING CAN EXIST IN TIME WITHOUT A FIRST CAUSE.

Can you finally grok that?

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
So you admit you cannot answer the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause? — Devans99

I have answered the question, Devans.

Don't get smartassed with me. You are way outmatched there.

tim wood
2.2k

We could explore that a bit more...but it would be far outside the intentions of the OP.
Perhaps somewhere else. — Frank Apisa

Let the seed grow where planted. Agnosticism speaks the unvarnished truth. Agnostic means "I don't know," yes? Is that the truth you're referring to? That, "

We do not know if any gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa


In what sense do you not know? What does it mean in this context, "do not know"? Are you referring to existence as a thing of some kind? Does a god survive as a god the revelation of his existence?

Agnosticism on a foundation of knowledge makes some sense. This fact or that fact pertains, but which I do not know - I'm ignorant, but also agnostic in that I commit myself to neither. Agnosticism founded on ignorance is a different species. Some fact does not pertain. But I claim it could - without giving any account for how it could.

Maybe the best place to start is a clear statement from you as to what you mean by "god" - a definition of the term. Mine is that "god" is simply a useful code word for a body of ideas and kind of thinking further developed in (a) religion. And on my understanding, I side with St. Anselm. — tim wood

I am willing to use almost any definition of a god...so long as it contains a variation on the "creator" god. In other words, a god from which everything that is not that god (those gods) was derived. Devans "first cause" for instance. Abrahamic gods...that sort of thing.

Now, please, do not suppose I am talking about human interpretation of gods...or "revelations" from those gods. I am talking about the concept "gods"...meaning something that was the cause of everything that is other than that concept.

I've already set out my personal concept of the god question.

Mostly when discussing my "agnositicims" when I still used that descriptor regularly...I used something akin to: I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I have no special insights into REALITY...other than that it seems much more complex than what we humans deem it to be.

I may be wrong.

But that is the nature of "I do not know."

Devans99
1.3k

My guess is that YOUR guess on your question...will be the one you determine will best lead to, "Therefore the universe is finite." — Frank Apisa


You are correct, this is another potential example of infinity (in the small). I am a finitist, so I suspect the answer is (c) finite. I think Infinity does not exist so neither does 1/∞.

I have a model of the universe that I think may turn out to be right: it is all finite in time and space, everything is discrete. So my investigations are directed towards finding out if that model is valid. Maybe I'm wrong... time will tell I hope. — Devans99

Stop thinking of it as in investigation. Better to consider it an obsession, if you must name it.

Anyway, I admire your tenacity...even though I see it as especially misplaced here.

Devans99
1.3k

So now I must accept the dogmatic proclamation that "time" did not exist before that "first cause" that you are imagining? — Frank Apisa


The logic is that everything in time forms an infinite regress with no start. The only way escape that infinite regress is a timeless first cause. Else there can be nothing. Unless you have another way?

I think you are avoiding answering this question:

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please. — Devans99

Stop pontificating.

Just stop.

Devans99
1.3k

YOUR FIRST CAUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT A PRIOR CAUSE...WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT TO SAY. — Frank Apisa


Yes, let me rephrase the question:

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please. — Devans99

So now I must accept the dogmatic proclamation that "time" did not exist before that "first cause" that you are imagining?

C'mon!

AND...if I am not able to demonstrate that...and if Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Feynman were not able to demonstrate that (they may have been able to do so)...
...that would not mean it cannot happen.

It might just mean that HUMANS are not yet able to explain it.

Stop dogmatically proclaiming what must be and what cannot be in the REALITY of existence.

YOU do not know what MUST BE...or WHAT CANNOT BE...in the REALITY.

Devans99
1.3k

That IS NOT the only way, Devans — Frank Apisa


Demonstrate how anything can exist without a first cause please.

Any system can be thought of as a hierarchy of cause and effect. A pool table is an example. The player breaks off and the balls bump into each other - there is a hierarchy of cause and effect with the player breaking off at the top of the hierarchy and the balls finally at rest at the bottom of the hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is a system with no first cause: this would be equivalent to balls wizzing around the pool table by themselves without the player breaking off. — Devans99

YOUR FIRST CAUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT A PRIOR CAUSE...WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT TO SAY.

If YOUR "first cause" can exist...then SOMETHING without a prior cause...can exist.

That thing...you want to be GOD. All the bullshit aside, Devans...you want the "first cause" to be a GOD...one that you have in mind already.

But if that can exist without a prior cause...

...just eliminate the argument of infinite regression.

It doesn't work.

tim wood
2.2k

At the moment, though, I see more value in the agnostic take. — Frank Apisa


Perhaps more value for you, which in the nature of you could easily be a complicated subject. Is that what you meant? Because as awful as nearly all religions have at times been, at the times when they weren't being awful, I hold, they were the repository of most of the good of the world, including being thoughtful about what the good is, and how to accomplish it.

That is, if you mean that there is some significant value in agnosticism, then what is, are the value(s) you "see"? — tim wood

Let me answer that last part first: The MAJOR value of agnosticism...

...is truth....the unvarnished truth.

We do not know if any gods exist or not.

Yeah, there are some who claim one is more likely than the other...but I've never seen an argument that made sense from either side for that.

In any case...the acknowledged agnostic is presenting the TRUTH.
\
As for "repository of most of the good of the world"...that is not the function of religion...at least for most of the religions that have existed. Most "religions" speak of what some god demands of humans...speak of what pleases or offends some god or another.

The "Christian" god (derived from the ancient Hebrew god)...FOCUSES on what the god finds pleasing...and what the god finds offensive. For the most part, this means what the "interpreters" of the god finds pleasing (useful) and offensive (contrary to useful).

We could explore that a bit more...but it would be far outside the intentions of the OP.

Perhaps somewhere else.

tim wood
2.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree.

But I want to add that some beliefs are held not as guesses, but for their employment in certain kinds of thinking. For these beliefs, which I think include all religion, it's not the business of the belief to be proved, notwithstanding the confusion of many, many people who keep asking if "God is real." Indeed, proof in any of the religions would destroy the religion. The business of these beliefs, then, is not to be proved, but to be believed. The Christian creed, for example, starts with, "I believe...".

Thus about 99.99% of discussions about religion, are 100% nonsense. Maybe fun, although not really. Maybe good exercise. But whatever, all nonsense.

The exceptions are discussions of what religion(s) do and how, and what they're for. Religions in principle and for the most part are a good thing. If only there were a way to keep bad people out of them.... — tim wood

Agreed.

Aside:

I was "religious" for a time in my life. Raised Catholic. I went to public school...so I was not an altar boy as so many of my friends, who attended "Catholic" school" were.

As an adult, while in service, I learned to serve Mass...and actually have served Mass (Latin rite) in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican...and served a High Mass as an acolyte to the Catholic primate of England back in the day.

There is value in religion. My arguments with religious people (or atheists) on the Internet are not frames from the mistaken impression that religion or atheism has no value.

At the moment, though, I see more value in the agnostic take.

Devans99
1.3k

Devans, the moment you say there is a "first cause"...you are saying "Not everything has a cause."

That is inescapable...and is at the heart of the flaw in your thinking on this issue. — Frank Apisa


No: everything IN TIME has a cause. The first cause is outside time so is not subject to causality.

That is the only way that anything can logically exist. — Devans99

That IS NOT the only way, Devans.

That is the way YOU want to be "the only way"...so that you can reach the logical extension on it. But in order for that to be a valid P1 for the "extension"...you would have to validate it...WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Your problem here is that you are working inexorably toward something that you are pretending you are not working toward.

Devans99
1.3k

If I made a peripheral guess...it would be: "Perhaps human abilities to solve problems are being over-rated." — Frank Apisa


We would not make much progress in science or philosophy if everyone took that attitude.

Riding in a beam of light seems imponderable too but that thought experiment was very productive for Einstein. Sometimes considering things seemingly left-field can lead to ideas. — Devans99

I think that we DO take that attitude...except for those of us who come up with an hypothesis and pretty much demand that it be correct.

For instance...saying "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god" are hypotheses that many (not all) people demand to be accepted. (We really cannot determine which is correct...although there are tons of people on both side who claim to establish that one is more likely than the other.)

So that "attitude" can be reasonable for some issues.

On the question (I suppose this now is the question)

Do you think the length of now is:

a. zero
b. infinitesimal
c. finite
d. not applicable — Devans99

...what I said (do not know, won't guess) is as significant as any guess that anyone else might make.

Here is a guess on something tangential, though.

My guess is that YOUR guess on your question...will be the one you determine will best lead to, "Therefore the universe is finite."

What do you think, Devans? Is my guess on that close?

Not willing to make a guess on it, Devans.

Too many imponderables.

If I made a peripheral guess...it would be: "Perhaps human abilities to solve problems are being over-rated."

Or at least a variation on that.

Devans, the moment you say there is a "first cause"...you are saying "Not everything has a cause."

That is inescapable...and is at the heart of the flaw in your thinking on this issue.

Just about the only one who does not see that (or, who does not acknowledge that)...

...is you.

That seems to be occasioned by your investment in your thesis.

A "belief" is just a guess about an unknown.

A "belief" cannot be "proven true"...because the moment it is proven...it stops being a "belief" (or guess) and becomes a fact.

Every belief CAN be "trusted"...as long as you trust it to be a guess.

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
The question is 'what (if applicable) is the length of now?'.

Its one of those questions that might lead somewhere or might not even make sense, depending on the nature of time (which no-one really understands). — Devans99

Okay...and that can be, Devans.

BUT...I do not see the question at all...just the question mark. Sometimes that works...as in, "Right?"

Here it does not seem to work. Perhaps I am missing something.

What is the question?

One...if you suggest there IS a "first cause"...that means that there does not have to be a first cause. Either something CAN exist without a first cause or one cannot.

Two...any question that can be asked in a variation of, "Is it possible that..."...

...is always answered, "YES!"...unless it has been established that what is being asked about is impossible.

I see the question mark.

Having trouble seeing the question, though.