Since he apparently is directing his question to himself...

...I wonder why he does not have an answer?

Baden
9.9k
@Xtrix Frank Apisa

You're both just fine with this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper — Baden

No, I am not fine with it. I am not fine with any stories of men, particularly men of power, allowing themselves to behave toward women in ways half as far over the line as this.

But I do not know the whole story...and no matter what, Joe Biden is a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better choice than Trump...and the choice will be between Joe Biden and Trump.

As I said earlier (and I thank you for providing me with an opportunity to repeat):

Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.

You should work up the guts to say where you are from...then give lectures on how NOT to run an election or a campaign properly.

If you have never voted for someone based on the notion "the better of two not delightful choices"...chances are you are not allowed to vote.

In any case...all his life, Joe Biden has been fighting for the things I think would make the world a much better place. He is, in my opinion, an excellent choice for the job...AND YES, THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT TRUMP SHOULD BE MENTIONED EVERY DAY OF THE CAMPAIGN.

That fact should be of importance to every human with a functioning brain everywhere, not just to Americans, because Trump is a danger to the entire planet.

Are you certain you mean "Yahweh" in your title, DL?

I've seen Jesus spelled as Yeshua...but "Yahweh" is the name of Abraham's god.

This is an opinion...only an opinion:

Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.


Vote for him; withhold your vote; vote for a third party candidate...that is your right. But in my opinion, if you do...you are aiding and abetting something akin to having aided and abetted Hitler.

Because of such disinformation I will rule out all Chinese debt. Aren't a lot of so called enemy nations pursuing some religious cause against America? A lot of enemy nation citizens have shown their hate publically for America. There are a lot of hate groups. This has cause a massive social problem, thus no more debt. — ztaziz

Not sure what this incoherent mess is supposed to mean, but if you are saying that we should default on our debts...stiffing the chines...you are a nuts as Mitch McConnell telling the blue states to declare bankruptcy.

Where is the flaw? — bizso09

Only thing I see wrong...

...is the reasoning.

Sounds good to me, Christoffer.

"There is more to Occam's Razor than meets the eye" is a perfectly meaningful statement. :chin: — TheMadFool

I agree, TMF.

And that is the reason I suggest it should be outlawed in philosophical discussions.

Used incorrectly, which it is 98.7% of the time...it does more to cloud the issues and misinform...than any good.

I have NEVER seen it used to good advantage on the Internet...where most philosophical discssions seem to occur...and I have been participating in Internet discussions since the late 1990's.

Occam's Razor should be outlawed in philosophical discussion everywhere.

Baden
9.8k
Sad neither of you can support your position. It's all just, other side bad. Read more maybe. I bet there are others who can give cogent arguments for what you're proposing. — Baden

My "position" is that Biden is head and shoulders a better choice than Trump as a leader...and as an advancement toward a more progressive society than Trump. And since the choice will be between Trump and Biden...my total support should be extended to him.

I am not sure what your "position" is...but if it is not "Let's have more of Trump"...you are on the wrong road.

Baden
9.8k
↪Frank Apisa

What's absurd to me is to expect the left to vote for a right-winger who doesn't support universal healthcare and on foreign policy leans more imperialist than Trump. Not only that, but who's fully integrated into a corrupt system where both parties compete for special-interest money.

If you ask yourself who Biden's major donors are, what their price for supporting him is, and how much that price gels with the left's priorities, you should realize there's virtually no overlap there. So with Biden, not only does the left not get what it wants (like with Trump), it's actively responsible for not getting what it wants. It's the difference between being punched in the face vs punching yourself in the face. In only one of those cases can some honor be salvaged. — Baden

In 2016 that kind of thinking got us Trump. In 2020 that kind of thinking will get us four more years of Trump.

Do whatever you want. As for me...I would vote for Satan in order to be rid of Trump.

frank
4.7k
↪Baden Getting Obamacare back on track is a good start. We have to move forward together. A socialist-leaning president wouldn't be able to create a coalition. — frank

Correct!

Pragmatism is still the most important commodity at this moment.

Baden
9.8k
↪StreetlightX

The point about leverage is well made. The Dem establishment has given Anerican progressives a choice between self-castration and four more years of Trump. Essentially, cut your own balls off or we all eat shit. The best response to that is probably, "no, you eat shit and keep eating it until you realize you need us and give us what we want." Progressives/the left ought to organize and unite behind a third party. — Baden

I expect many Bernie fans will do that. Too bad, that. It approaches Trumpism (being absurd) more than I want to see any part of the left moving.

Re-think that idea, Baden.

This weekend I'll return to work. Before I do so, I'd like to hear your comments about Russell's criterion for evaluating ideas:

From a synopsis of an essay---- "Mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.” Or in the context of the essay—

Let's figure out how the universe began by using the real information— the physics— that we actually know about it, instead of an unverifiable hypothesis derived from the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders." — Greylorn Ell

Since we cannot even determine what "the real universe" is...that would be an impossible job. And for certain, at this time we cannot determine what "the real universe" is.

So there is no way to use Russell's SUGGESTION on this problem.

Exactly which 4 paragraphs should I be responding to?[/quote]

I just wanted your extended opinions on Occam's Razor and Pascal's Wager.

You provided them...and we seem to be simpatico about them. Amazing to me that they rear their ugly heads as often as they do on the Internet.

_________

This is a repeat:

As to your opening: In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:

An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.
— Greylorn — Greylorn

My initial response was: As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting.

The binary choice, as I see it is:

1) A GOD created everything we humans call "the universe" and everything in it. The GOD has no creator, but is an eternal being. (The fact that we human cannot discern a need for (or desire for) a universe is immaterial. We are merely the dominant life form on a rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy...in a sea of other galaxies.

...OR...

2) There is no GOD...and everything that we humans call "the universe" came into existence via an event which may or may not be The Big Bang.

We have to recognize that what we humans call "the universe" may be just a part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...and, in fact, may be just a tiny part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (We can handle the infinite regression later.)

If we can start from there...I'd like to hear the next step of your thesis.

If you deem that we cannot start from there...I'd like to hear why you suppose that.

This is interesting.

Wow!

I do not agree with Tim on lots of things, but your response to him was unnecessarily insulting...and not the kind of reply that will encourage people to discuss your ideas with you. You ought really to tone that shit down.

In any case, on your specific comment: "I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as 'Occam's Razor.'"...
...I have argued in other threads here that it is a toss-up for me whether Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager is the most useless item ever put forward by any philosopher.

So we are generally in agreement on that.

As to your opening: In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:

An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical. — Greylorn

As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting.

More about that later, but let's take this thing one item at a time. First I'd like to hear your response to what I said in my first four paragraphs,

Sandbagging new (or supposedly new) ideas happens a lot.

I've had it happen to me on dozens of occasions.

Not actually a lot "new" in this world.

Try not to put the entire meal on the table at one time, Greylorn.

Pick out the single most important stand-on-its-own element**..and let a few of us hash that around.

**Even if that one element is just an overview, tiny in scope, so that we know where you want to end up.

↪Frank Apisa Imagine that there are only two types of fruit; apples and oranges. Someone holds up one of them and declares that it is an apple. I can deny that statement without making any affirmation in any way. I don’t have to then declare that it is actually an orange. This is Atheism. Agnosticism would deny that the object is neither an apple nor an orange. Theism affirms that it is an apple. Now, that being said, if I investigate the matter and then come to the conclusion that it is an orange, so be it, but doing so isn’t a necessary condition for denying that it is an apple. Following this analogy, my question is does Antitheism simply deny that the apple is not a specific type of apple? So that the Antitheist could still believe that the person is holding an apple, just a specific type (red delicious let’s say). — Pinprick

I agree with the thrust of what you are saying there, P...but here is the operative point I am trying to make...and it has ONLY to do with why people use the descriptor "atheist":

I have never known of ANY person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" that there are no gods...or who does not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suggest that either of those "beliefs" (please substitute the word "guesses" or "supposes" or "thinks" if the word "believes" bothers you)...

...one of those "beliefs" IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for anyone who wants to use "atheist" as a descriptor.

Are you of the opinion that there are a significant number of people who call themselves "atheists" who...

1) Do not "believe" that there are no gods

2) And who "believe " it is just as likely (or more likely) that there is at least one god than that there are none?

That would mean...

...the person lacks a "belief" that there is a GOD (at least one god)

...the person lacks a "belief" that there are NO gods

...and the person HAS a "belief" or supposition that it IS JUST AS LIKELY (or even more likely) that a GOD exists as that no gods exist...

...yet still wants to identify as an atheist?

That just does not make any sense for that to be the case.

But tell us: it seems to me when I've seen interviews with her - not very many nor for long - that she seems a little odd and strange. To you also, or not? — tim wood

There was a time I was very, very positive on Tulsi...and that includes the many times I saw her interviewed. But then came along the campaign...and it was like a Jekell and Hyde transformation. The more she said during the campaign, the less I liked her. By the end...I was hoping she would leave the Democratic Party and become a Republican.

I would bet big bucks she will not be the choice.

I still like Kamela Harris. That is one tough woman. She's got a lot of strikes against her (so does Joe), but I sure as hell would not want to be debating her. If Pence is the VP choice for Trump (I am thinking he will not be)...Harris would destroy him.

I do have an explanation for the origin of creators. It is natural. I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it. — Greylorn Ell

Perhaps it did...but you don't realize it did. They may have been charitable and considered it satire.

If you think YOU have an explanation of "the origin of creators" that has not found its way into "the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it"...maybe the problem is "the explanation" rather than those intelligent minds.

ALL atheists lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but not all people who lack a "belief" that any gods exist are atheists.

Precisely. This is why Atheism is not a belief that no no Gods exist. It isn’t a belief at all. — Pinprick

Sorry, P...but I disagree. STRONGLY.

Nobody uses the descriptor "atheist" unless the person has a "belief" that no gods exist...or the person has a "belief" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

"belief" is at the core of atheism.

You realize I am correct...right?

Frank,
Please accept my apologies. I did not include any reasoning-- figured it would be obvious that if "gods" created apples, we know the origin of apples, and that they are not natural. — Greylorn Ell

So you think things "created" by the gods...would not be natural?

Seems to me that if a thing exists in nature...it is natural.

Too broad?

Humans created automobiles, so we can figure out that cars are not natural-- they would not have come into existence without intelligent engineering. Same as for apples. — Greylorn

I repeat...if a thing exists in nature...it is natural.

The Internet is natural...so are apples and the notion of unicorns.

That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?

Oh, that one I can handle. The correct answer to that hypothetical is: I do not know...and I doubt you or anyone else does either. Please see my response on page 1...the second response to Wittgenstein'sd OP question. It is germane to this response.

Greylorn Ell
8
If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples.
— Frank Apisa

Would you consider the interesting possibility that if "gods" exist, some of them created apples? And that they are therefore more natural than apples? — Greylorn Ell

They are both natural.

Not sure of your reasoning for why one would be more natural, but...go with it if you want.

ARE

Probability estimates are like statistics. 92% of each is made up right on the spot.

Would you consider me an atheist? — darthbarracuda

I certainly would not...and would, in fact, argue that YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST.

Ultimately, an atheist is someone who designates himself an "atheist."

Internet atheists argue that they designate themselves "atheists" simply because they lack a belief in any gods.

But it is obvious more is at play. EVERY person I know or have known of who uses atheist as a descriptor**...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

That is the real reason they use the descriptor.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. (I also lack a "belief" that no gods exist.)

**One guy here in the forum is trying to sell the idea that he designates himself to be an atheist...BUT he does not "believe" there are no gods...and he does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suspect that is bullshit. But...he may actually be an exception to the rule. Not sure why he would want to be known as an atheist if he truly feels that way...but...

Among controversial philosophical problems the one I'm relatively familiar with is the theism-atheism debate; one side claims god exists and the other side negates that belief. A key issue in this debate seems to be the meaning of "exists". Existence, its familiar meaning, is about physical objects - things we can perceive with our senses. Ergo, to use the word "exists" for a non-physical entity such as god is to somehow misuse it - importing, without a valid permit it seems, a concept from the language game of the physical into another language game, that of the expressly non-physical and so, quite predictably, we must end up disagreeing rather than not. :chin: — TheMadFool

If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples.

My guess is that there are MANY things that humans cannot sense...that exist. There may be dimensions of being right here in the space we occupy that humans cannot "perceive."

We humans do tend to be sure that we are the end-all of intelligence. But we are merely what appears to be the dominant life form on a mote of a planet circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy.

Wittgenstein
329
↪Colin Cooper
↪Frank Apisa

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our philosophies,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings." — Wittgenstein

:up:

...if only philosophical discourse were not the province of humans.
— Frank Apisa
:up:

But it is. Unfortunately, one cannot always say "I do not know"; one is obliged to choose. To stay home or to go out? Meat or veg? Sanders or Trump? "I don't know" will not suffice here. — Banno

For certain, at times, one must choose. "Yes" "No" or "I abstain" are all reasonable choices at times. At other times, they are not reasonable. For "Trump or Anyone else on the planet"..."I abstain" is not reasonable in my opinion.

Banno
7.4k
I also there is nothing wrong with "believing" (or blindly guessing) in either direction.
— Frank Apisa

Apart from a certain intellectual dishonesty... — Banno

Agreed.

My personal feeling is that the "intellectual dishonesty" comes mostly from making a guess...and then calling that guess a "belief." Seems to me it would be much more honest to make a guess of "There is 'at least one god'" or "There are no gods"...and call the guesses...guesses.

But I acknowledge that is just a bugaboo with me.

I agree with Colin Cooper.

What he said AND...

...the fact that so few people (philosophers and people in general) are willing to simply say, "I do not know"...even if modified with, "...but my guess would be."

It is my opinion that "I do not know and cannot make a reasonable guess" would allow for a great deal of philosophical agreement...

...if only philosophical discourse were not the province of humans.

DingoJones
1.6k
↪180 Proof

See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink: — DingoJones

Yup...you are both obsessed with me.

I get a kick out of it.

:lol:

Echarmion
1.2k
I agree with their ideals, to a certain extend. I don't share their take on authority, nor really on the notion of freedom.

To wit, a free society is necessarily an ordered society. And while order can arise spontaneously, authority is necessary to make that order dependable. You need to be able to depend on order to be practically free.

It is, however, always a good idea to critically assess any specific hierarchy or authority. — Echarmion

I'd say, AMEN...and leave it at that, but like the scorpion, it is not in my nature.

Society...civilization DEMANDS that we have government...and probably lots of it.

Unfortunately, in a democratic (small "d") society, the citizens start wanting more and more personal freedom...often at the expense of "FREEDOM."

"I don't want to be told how fast I can drive."

"I don't want to be told I have to isolate myself to mitigate a contagion disaster."

"I don't want to pay taxes...and especially taxes aimed at...."

And all the rest.

Anarchy is what civilization is like when it is not civilized...anarchy is what society is like when it is not society.

Sadly, as we are discovering, democracy breeds anarchy.

Still no answers to the questions. Just insults...as diversions...because you people know I am correct.

Sure...you use "ATHEIST" as a descriptor...but...

...you do not have a "belief" that there are no gods...

...and you do not have a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

You just use "ATHEIST' as a descriptor because they know it is a departure from the "I before e except after c." Or because the dictionary requires you to do so.

You actually have convinced yourselves that I am wrong...and you are telling the truth???

C'mon!

:wink:

TheDarkElf
43
↪NOS4A2
Are there any feasible ways to examine it more properly and be able to ascertain its chances of success? — TheDarkElf

Sure.

Visit Somalia...and see how things are working out.

180 Proof
992
Wow!

Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.

:wink:
— Frank Apisa
Lucky for you, Frankie, a pandemic's quarantined "two" philosophically literate, thinking persons who happen to be bored enough to shed a little lumen naturale into your long unenlightened life. :razz: — 180 Proof

Okay, Mr. Atheist...who does NOT "believe" there are no gods...and who thinks that the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist.

Thank you for shedding "a little lumen naturale" upon someone as unenlightened as I. You are very generous. And in return, please accept $100,000,000 in gratitude.

Banno
7.4k
It's not surprising that a nation that idolises "self-reliance" should find it necessary to enforce laws against negligence. Caring for other people is not part of the 'mercan way.

Seeing 'mercans protesting to be allowed to make each other sick... leaves the rest of humanity non-plussed. — Banno

They do seem like nice people...and, as you mentioned, that "only makes it weirder."

What on Earth could they be thinking...assuming they are "thinking?"