I think you people have placed too much emphasis on truth and falsehoods of philosophy and science.

Truth is temporary in its nature, and therefore truths are referred to by scientists as "current indicators makes us believe that..." Falsehoods, however, stick. "Scrutiny has proved it false."

Sometimes a faslehood becomes truth. This can be looked at that people believe that their opinion held is true; whether the opinion judges something to be false or true, does't matter, the opinion is true. Therefore when a falsehood flips to be true, the actual process is that the OPINION get shown to be wrong, the opinion that says that it's true that something else is false.

To me, the difference between philosophy and science is this:
1. They are both based on prior knowledge.
2. They both add to prior knowledge new knowledge or new intuitive interpretation that makes sense.
3.1. Then science investigates the new intuitive interpretation and justifies or falsifies it with experiments or observations.
3.2. At the same point, philosophy does not try to justify its intuitive findings.

As you can see, philosophy satisfies itself with being logical and having logical / sensible / reasonable explanations.

Science does not stop at the explanation level; explanations can be justified or falsified. That's precisely what science does. It tries to falsify philosophical or scientific intuitive findings; if it succeeds, it debunks the finding. If in repeated tries (or at least in one trial) the facts NOT HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FORMATION OF THE THEORY AS FACTS, but were pointed at as necessary outcomes, do get observed, then the theory enters science and leaves the sphere of philosophy.

Not to say that the theory that has been accepted now as scientific can't become the basis of new ideas in philosophy.

If refuting God was so easy you'd wonder why so many people still take it as true. (Genesis and God) — Shawn

You hadn't noticed? We did not refute the existence of a god. Of any god. (Other than YHWH's. It's either your way, or the Yahweh. -- Paul Spenser.) Because it is not easy-- it is in fact hard, if not impossible. It has not been done to this day.

So I would paraphrase your lament to "since god's existence is so hard to refute, you wonder why so many people reject the notion of a make-belief authority figure creating the world and wielding absolute power over it, who nevertheless never ever ever has manifested itself to mankind."

Mind you, I didn't come into this thread as a religious person. — Shawn

yeah, I anticipated this one. My guess is that you wanted to hear from atheists that it is impossible to prove atheism.

In a way you went about it the long way to see what truly is. Atheists can't prove atheism to be true. But theists can't prove theism to be true, either.

There is also the POV, it is even harder to prove atheism right in terms of relgious doctrines and harder to prove theism right in materialist views.

I hear you, Michael. Your point is valid, and I am only trying to say that it is impossible to choose one specific individual as god. You nail Shawn by the specifics, and I nail him by the impossibility of the requirement of specifics. That's all.

I don't know what you mean by this. — Michael

Excluding other religions on the basis of a bias.

Does Christianity have something to do with Shawn's question? — Michael

No. I just made a side remark. Not fully pertinent to the topic. But so is not the opinion that we must choose YHWH to be the person we talk about. That is even less relevant.

Then the same is also true of your claim that "there could be two gods." Who, or what, are you referring to when you use the term "gods"? — Michael

right, and my theory supports my theory, but destroys yours.

I'm hesitant to say YHWH, because it seems to me that some will laugh at Genesis and pass it off. — Shawn

this is precisely what it is. Belief in the scriptures is optional. Fully. You can't attach an argument to the truth of the scriptures, as it is though widely accepted, at the same time it is widely rejected, as a source of truth.

I think, it can be supposed that the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition is sufficient. — Shawn

I respectfully oppose that idea.

Yahweh or Allah or Aten or Angra Mainyu or the Demiurge or someone or something else, hence why I asked him what God is. — Michael

Your proposition, Shawn, would be discriminatory and religionist. Michael has resptectfully proposed that there could be a great number of gods to choose from. I am not only on his side on this important issue, but I expand the possible number of gods to infinity in individual count.

There cannot be two of the same individual. — Michael

Aside from my argument, this what you said is very anti-Christian.

we're referring to a specific individual and asking if that individual exists. — Michael

You can't refer to a specific individual of whose personal characteristics you know nothing. For instance:
Human A: "We have an individual that we know nothing about. He never said a word, never showed himself in human company. We have scriptures that mention him, but the scriptures are pure fiction, fantasy, when it comes to describe this individual. You need faith (blind belief) to accept him how the scriptures describe him, and that is fully optional. He is in effect and to all factual knowledge, unknown to us, in all his personal aspects. The one we talk about is this very individual that we know nothing about."
Human B: "But... but... but there could be any number of individuals that we know nothing about... how do we know you and I are talking about the same individual of whom we know nothing?"

That depends on whether or not "God" is a proper or common noun. — Michael

Right.

However. My first name is Peter. (Not my real name.) Am I the only Peter in the entire history of the world? Are there other Peters aside from myself?

What is God? — Michael

That's for god to know, and for us / me / you to find out.

There can't be 2 Gods therefore you 2 (presumably atheists) mutually exclude each other but not God :sweat: — SpaceDweller

I exist. So 180 does not. If he exists too, then there could be two gods. Nobody says there has to be only one. That is an assumption that can't be substantiated.

↪god must be atheist "God" is too vague and undefined to be an object of "proof", etc. — 180 Proof

We are not talking about that god. We are talking about the other god. Get with the program. :-)

When reading sparingly Hawking, the idea of a creator is embodied with the first cause. In other words from nothing, something came to be. — Shawn

This can only be interpreted this way because you are not familiar with the theory, and you grossly dress it up with your own assumptions which are actually not true.

I imagine this is your assumption, roughly: At the moment of the big bang material formed from nothing.

The way the actual theory states it: At the moment of the big bang and before, all the matter of the known universe was concentrated in the volume of a few cubic centimetres.

If you read the stupid theory right, you can't help but notice that THERE IS NO CREATION OF MATTER, only a transformation of its form of existence occurs.

The theists grossly and invalidly misrepresent the theory's wording, and nod their heads meaningfully and quietly (or vocally) agree that creation has happened a the moment of the big bang, and that the atheists, anti-theists and materialists are all god-fearing individuals who just don't know it.

Science and logic have not found a proof to disprove the existence of god but they possibly and probably may do so in the future. Either way. SnL may prove or disprove god's existence.

Whether science and logic will do that, is not a question of debate. It is a question of empirical evidence. You must not make a judgment that it can't or that it can... only the actual creation of the proof will determine its own existence. Then again, you can't rule out that it will happen... you don't know what will happen.

No worries, Michael, it's all in a day's work. I've been insulted and insulted others on this forum, only to walk hand-in-hand later into the sunset on the white horse we rode in on.

Have fun, carry on, make the best of it.

I can relate to your experience of "feeling shitty", in childhood and later... so can many users here, although they may keep mum about it. It's just that most people who are philosophically inclined are autistic to some degree. Not all need to have had a depraved childhood with molestation, starvation and unlove, but we are all Inwardly turning, reflective, questioning, deep and intuitive in logical ways but not emotionally. Well not emotionally on the interpersonal level. Intrapersonally, we may be. We (I, for sure, I don't know how many others I can speak for) are social misfits at worst, and difficult to get along with at best. The difficulty may not spring from being cantankerous or abrasive, but just from a lack of an ability to make ourselves understood and vice versa for and by the general population.

I don't blame my parents for my being autistic, not beyond the genes they supplied me with. I hold them innocent in the sense that they lacked the intention to bear a sick son.

I am sorry for upsetting you. But you must understand that unsubstantiated claims can have equal, and opposite counter-claims. If you say "most CEOs have good EQ" then I can say "most CEOs don't have good EQ" and that will be that. That is neither banter, nor philosophy. It is two people battling their beliefs, and neither or both can be wrong.

This is a philosophy forum, and as such, we seek the truth here. If we quote non-existent statistics and we make up facts, that is not going to lead to truth.

Banter is one thing. Talking unsubstantiated opinions is another thing. The former can be philosophy. The latter is just idle talk. And to me idle talk is not philosophy.

I think, however, that if you looked at the Fortune 500, you might find a significant proportion of CEO's come from rather modest backgrounds, and that "emotional competence" is an important part of their toolkit. — Michael Zwingli

What do you mean "significant" when you say significant portion? Did you count the ones coming from modest backgrounds? How do you define "modest" background vs. "immodest" background? you talk in large general terms, unverified, unverifiable, and claim that they are true because you say that
they are true. Do the Fortune 500 descriptors of CEOs include "toolkit includes emotional competence"? I doubt that. Yo are claiming truths based on hearsay that you yourself make up.

But, this is saying nothing about "high finance" (by which I mean equity investing, asset management, and the like) per se, wherein background offers no guarantee of success, unless within a private concern, like Fidelity, for instance. — Michael Zwingli

Your definition of high finance is ridiculous. You say "background offers no guarantee of success", while you ignore the fact that success is not guaranteed by any one thing.

It is tiresome to read your posts for those who are used to reading those reports that discern facts that are verifiable. You did not demonstrate you have data that supports your factual claims. Consequently, I put to you dear M. Zwingli, that you make up your own data. Is that true, or not? If not true, please name the source of your data, and the claim associated with them; the claims you made.

Old money. Neither EQ nor IQ. If you are not totally dumb, but own assets over ten million dollars, you are guaranteed to be a CEO and such-like.
— god must be atheist
I won't bother to go into lengthy explanations, but at least in the "high finance" sector: investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, etc., this is quite untrue. That is, it seems to be the usual "outsider's perspective" containing no more than a grain of truth, being either a common "outsider's" misconception, or the remonstration of "sour grapes". In this industry, because of the rigors and expectations foisted upon junior employees, most of the "connection" and nepotism hires have all "washed out" by year five, and those who endure are those who are (1) hyper-competitive and "driven" by nature, and (2) good at building relationships (which is where "emotional intelligence" plays a role).Things may be more as you describe in less competitive corporate environments, though I suspect not by too much. Certainly, however, this does not apply to privately owned companies. — Michael Zwingli

At the risk of contradicting you, I must say that in high finance it is also true. I worked in one of the largest Canadian banks, in the Inspection department. I was a lowly computer programmer, and I got to know most people in the department. All of them were millionaires. Or married to millionaires. This was back in the nineteen-nineties, when having a million dollar was still outstanding asset level. These people were filthy rich, and I could tell you anecdotes about them, if I were able to fend off law suits financially.

To be honest, your paragraph as quoted above was too full of "quotes", and unidentifiable references by antecedents. It made no sense to the reader. I think the whiff of it was, that in publicly held companies, the CEOs did not have to have had old money. Well, in your milieu that was true, and my personal (PERSONAL) experiences that was not true. You be the judge.

"Successful" in what? — Alkis Piskas

The OP clarified that later: In business.

A friend of mine compiled this series of nQ-s. Enjoy. It is not philosophy; it is fiction.

Mind Your Ps and Qs

"IQ, EQ, IDQ,... I really do like the idea of CQ. My neighbour's cat and my former cat had CQ,..." This fragment in a forum post on the Internet inspired me. We had been talking about the merits and pitfalls of high-low EQ vs. high-low IQ. I started to write feverishly on the Internet forum board:
People with high AQ (any quotient) are the most human people. People with high BQ (boss-quotient) have earned it through a Masters of Business Administration degree, or with an accounting designation, or by inheriting a family business. The strength of the relative measure of BQ correlates highly with CEOQ. If your boss scores high on both and you screw up on the Morrison Account, then he'll CQ out and fire you. BBQd people are legal nowhere in the world, immoral in most parts of the world, and fattening all over the world. If your BBQ pork tastes like chicken, your restaurant has broken some legal, moral, spiritual, and culinary rules.
DQ is a measure of your manliness, and if coupled with a high FAQ then it usually gets you lead roles in Schwarzenegger movies. Keep trying several ways of reading FAQ and you'll get my gist. GQ is not, but ought to be, a measure of geekiness. The editors of GQ magazine won't like this, but hey, you can't always please everyone.
At the HQ of any company there will be some JQ (cleanliness experts with a high janitor-quotient). KQ, alternatively spelled KK, is the measure of the Jew in you (Kosher Kvoshent). KKKK is your bigotry-quotient. LQ is the bottom third of any quality in humans normally distributed (Low Quotient). MQ is the middle third, and NQ is no cue, or no clue about the cue, a bit misspelled for the sake of argument.
Your OQ gets the job done (occupational quotient), PQ is one of many of the same pairs that you must be watching when you perform a new or difficult task. RQ is our queue; a line-up of compatriots, and also the special interest group of line-up aficionados in a community. SQ - I've heard a lot of definitions for this, including a female sous-knight in medieval England (Esquire), Serpentine Quotient (how winding a road is in a mountainous area), Solitary Quotient (how many people there are in your company when you're alone).
TQ: Total Quotient (total number of people divided by the total number of people), UQ (how much of yourself you are being at any given time over how much of yourself is an act), U2Q (the measure of one's relative knowledge of trivia on the life of British musician Bono). VQ is the ratio of how much speed is in your street drug (Velocity quotient), WQ (a person's total knowledge of the entire contents of WiQuipaedia), YQ (yeah, really. Why question anything?), and ZQ (sportiness quotient of an expensive sports car of the 80s.)
We would not be fair if we did not make a mention of QQ, the Quotient Quotient. It's a measure how much of a person's vernacular is peppered with the expressions "IQ," "EQ," and "SQ."
I think I just maxed out on that.

Usually, discussions involving so-called "emotional intelligence" are centered around what helps people "succeed" within the business environment. — Michael Zwingli

Old money. Neither EQ nor IQ. If you are not totally dumb, but own assets over ten million dollars, you are guaranteed to be a CEO and such-like.

They are cruel (someone said here that that's apparently a prerequisite for CEO success) but that's neither from EQ or from IQ but from stress-pressure from the running of the business, and from impatience with employees.

My beef with EQ is that it is 1. a misnomer, and 2. due to not being quantifiable. IQ has been developed as a raw score on tests given to children, and it indicated their attained intelligence over the expected (average of the group) attained intelligence. If a kid was smarter than his age, he'd score 9 years of age over his real age, six years of age, and the resultant was his IQ: Intelligence quotient.

With EQ no such test exists, and it is not possible to quantify EQ. This gives rise to the skepticism that it is meaningless. While the term is false and misleading, there is a notion that is true that some people can psych out other's emotional state better than some others can. This is true, but it can't be measured but only ranked. (Saying Person A is better at it than Person B, but there is no numerical difference that can be given, like in IQ.)

Come on then - show me how my claim that there are no necessary truths generates a contradiction. I'll abandon the view if you can. I promise. — Bartricks

Nobody can show you anything about a statement you made which statement is syntactically not English.

Nah. I see displays of wealth and health as a matter of setting boundaries and putting up signs -- "Don't even think of trying to fuck with me, because I will destroy you! You can see that I have the power to destroy you!" — baker

Wow. Three people, three different ways of opining what creates motivation to generate wealth. Baker: power. Tom: restlessness out of fear of inaction which brings one to introspection. GMBA: promiscuity.

I have seen examples and counter-examples to the explanation of this motivation to all three of our opinions. Wittgentstein was right: it is impossible to guess the motivation of another human being. (Although courts and psychiatrists boast of that skill.)

We used to call it compensation. — Tom Storm

Good pun. (Compensation: for psychological (perceived or real) weaknesses of the self, and also monetarily for work performed.)

I've tended to think that restless men (particularly) who have fragile self-esteem chase after two things - money and gym membership. — Tom Storm

Kudos to you for recognizing fragile self-esteem in men, and more bravos for observing the positive correlation.

I can't tell what man has fragile self-esteem, and which man does not, by observation. I'd say a person with fragile self-esteem displays behaviour that reflects feelings of inferiority. Such behaviour to me would comprise weeping a lot, timidity, fear of acquiring new skills (for fear of failure), etc. Working out at a gym and making lots of dough somehow does not strike me as displays of low self-esteem.

Then again I realize that there is a spectral nature to low-self esteem, and that I recognize it in only those who have a large dose of it. Your radar may be better tuned.

Then again, by "restless" you may mean "prone to promiscuity".

In this sense, yes, you are supporting my point. (Thank you very much for that, I hardly ever have got moral support by others on this forum. Quite refreshing... exhilarating, truly.) Those with good looks and with money get more attention of the opposite sex. And why should they not? Good looks mean good genes and high level of testosterone in men, and good money means an ability to provide and protect.

You're right on.

The only part I don't get is why they need a fragile self-esteem for all this. I hardly believe Pres. Kennedy or Mick Jagger had low self-esteem. I can't vouch for their going to the gym, but the consensus is that they were both handsome and with money.

Argumentative

Given to expressing divergent or opposite views.
Using or characterized by systematic reasoning. — praxis

Again, you cherry-picked the definition out of the complete definitions of the two. You claim there is hardly any if any difference between "argument" and "argumentative", and now again you claim victory on false grounds.

You resort to arguing against reality to prove your point. A consensus has been established, for the meanings of "argumentative" and "argument" and you fight that consensus because you are grasping for straws in you futile attmepts to demonstrate why you are right.

Perhaps all the experience of losing arguments has imprinted a negative impression. — praxis

The experiences of losing arguments, yes, due to the oppositions' inability to understand reasoned arguments, due to their frequent applications of false logic, and due to their horribly tenacious insistence on wrong conclusions. In other words, I dislike argumentative people who make no sense, and whose very limited cognitive ability prevents them from understanding a line of proper logical reasoning.

Because they are impervious to logic and reason, in service of their false beliefs, I get frustrated with their inability to see reason, which they could not recognize when presented to them.

In other words precisely the type of people like you, Praxis.

Praxis, you have a special ability to get under the skin of people whom you don't like, and you are very adept at making false accusations, and insinuations that have no grounds, yet you make them sound convincing. You are much better at these two than I could ever dream to be. Congratulations, you are an excellent, albeit dumb and ignorant, furthermore stupid and inconsequential, agent provocateur, whose only strength on a philosophy forum such as this is his ability to float falsely appearing as a peer because of his ability to insult people.

What do you mean by overlays? You give an example of one of your own, strict adherence to logic and reason. While I see them as important, I think they are limited. Perhaps that is an adherence of Socratic ignorance. — Fooloso4

Overlays: two or more surfaces or layers of reasoning, imagination or description of observed systems, which are independent from each other, and both can be false or true without affecting the other's false or true nature.

I believe in atheist materialism, and in the usefulness of logic and reason. Logic and reason can be present while atheist materialism is not true, and atheist materialism can be present while logic is faulty, or invalid; but in the world of my own mind, the two are always true and useful together at the same time and in the same respect.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Fooloso4.

I learned more than what I bargained for in your answer. What I learned is that a philosopher may have different overlays of philosophy concurrently. Some overlays in Socrates, as shown in your answer, was for instance the Forms, and the fact that his intention was to find the best outcome of a logical stream. Not just any good outcome, but the possible best outcome.

My philosophy (not that anyone would be interested) is atheistic materialism, and the overlay is strict adherence to logic and reason. I have instances of philosophy, and one that is different from that of others; But I have not have had the chance to test that one out because nobody cares to find fault with my two articles on the development and state of morality.

If I may ask (no intention to argue, just curious) Fooloso4, what are your overlays of philosophy? If too numerous to mention, just name some of your overlays that concurrently effect themselves.

Both negative and positive human traits (in the Stoic sense) developed equally for they aided survival. I can not argue against that.

I did not say, btw, "argument"; I said "argumentative". Big difference. You committed a Strawman fallacy by altering what I said and defeating the argument I never said. This also shows a lack of sufficient understanding of the language on your part. If you did not make a mistake, then it's intentional on your part, and I resent your insult to my intelligence by your thinking that I would never catch you on your trap.

Please stay to the course of the English language in further replies and please avoid committing fallacious reasoning.

Plato's Metaphysics? I thought the idea was first thought of and the expression coined by Aristotle. How can someone refer to something that was invented several decades after his death?

You can argue over that.

Because the reason I am joining this conversation is different. I just wanted to find Fooloso4.

This is my question and its explanation:

Socrates in Plato's books always argues with everyone else, and always wins the arguments. (Not so, but that's the the general consensus around here so I'll ride along.) This made me thought: if people argued against his ideas differently; that is, if the arguments were different in their very essence, then would Socrates have developed a different philosophy that would be different from his actual - historical? I mean, if one argues that the grass is blue, then Socrates would need to respond and convince the poor sap who argued, that the grass is yellow; whereas if the sap argued that the grass is red, then Socrates would pounce on his words and make the sap agree that the grass is green. (I honestly believe that the grass is green due to this very effect by Socrates. Even nature knows better than to argue with Socrates.)

So would Socrates' philosophy be different in essence and detail, if people disagreed with him on different grounds than the specific examples described in the books?

No leopard, lion or giraffe can be jealous, greedy, vengeful, and argumentative. We, humans, have those traits. I put to you that our "negative" (in the Stoic sense) human traits have developed for a reason; a good reason; and they are here to stay with us, you can't edit it out of humans with reason and social cohesion.

Even if some of the negative (as well as the positive) human traits have no longer value in surviving, they will only disappear by natural selection if they become counter-survival behaviour.

Of course to accept the above, one needs to accept evolution as the shaper of species. If one is a theist, a creationist, then what I said can be totally and easily disregarded.

I included in my reasoning that a lot more people are wishing to immigrate to the United States than wishing to emigrate from there.

There are other indicators as well.

The upshot is that we, as a species, acquired some traits that were evolutionarily advantageous, that are now instinctual, and are easier to make people develop and acclimatize to them than against them.

Some of these are: greed, hunger for power, sexual promiscuity. Some "nice" characteristics: caring for the sick, the very young, and the very old; caring and supporting one's own nuclear family; healing; upholding social structure due to personal insight, not merely due to fear of the law or of God; morals and not killing unless it's absolutely necessary.

Stoicism does not jive with the "ugly" features of the human personal psychological make-up. Its basic aims are against the grain of most basic survival instincts / tactics. This makes Stoicism nice, noble and admirable, and at the same time a lifetime struggle to grow in it, never achieving the ideal Stoic lifestyle fully.

That said, my previous post: I am not trying to convince anyone that they should stop trying to live Stoically. Go ahead, this is not a crime, sin, or socially unacceptable behaviour. Much like some people go deep-sea diving, or mountain climbing, or competing in the Olympics in the event of uneven parallel bars. None of those are natural, either, but are fun and worthwhile, much like Stoicism.

It definitely rubs our capitalistic values forged in rugged individualism the wrong way. We're not trained for well-being, so we need to train ourselves. — praxis

This is true. But I venture to say that to train someone in capitalistic, consumer-oriented, individualist, greedy, egotist, narcissistic behaviour takes five minutes, and it is totally successful. Training in the Stoic way takes a lifetime and you never get quite there.

My conclusion is that we are not only trained, but inclined behaving in non-Stoic ways. Very strongly, from birth. This is the real human nature. And leopards can't lose their spots. Zebras can't lose their stripes. Man can't lose his nature. To force him to do so, whether it's due to outer coercion or inner urge, will encounter insurmountable difficulties, and will never succeed. You can't make a lion vegetarian and you can't train a giraffe to solve partial differential equations. You therefore are occupied to make humans Stoic, and it's a good and noble occupation, and fun in a way, and makes you perhaps feel superior to your peers, but it is never successful.

An interesting fact is, if theism is false, all the wonders of the universe, including life, especially life that's capable of developing a self-sustaining harmony, an equilibrium, between the various forces that act on it, arose in the complete absence of intelligence. Humans, despite having the highest IQ of any known life, are a far cry from achieving anything like blind chance has on Earth. Doesn't this mean that, in some sense, random throws of a die or a coin exhibits greater [genius-level] intelligence than an actual intelligent being? This is the paradox of intelligence - given the current status quo regarding intelligent life, it can't compete with pure randomness in performance. So much for IQ. — TheMadFool

You discount the fact that randomness has had a much longer time (four billion years on this planet) to effect change than man has had with his intelligence, which is roughly 100000 years to a million years maximum. This is a ratio of roughly 400,000 to 1.

Now conceptualize that theism is NOT false. In that case it must be true that God had an infinity to think about, plan, and conceptualize actions to come up with creation before he started the project. In this case God with his infinite wisdom compares to randomness rather poorly as an achiever.

Shawn, you expressed my biggest concern about Stoicism: It can't be mastered. It can't be done. It can't be practiced.

That does not diminish its attractiveness to its followers, I understand that. Futility is a great utility in ultimate beliefs.

The difference manifests itself in dispreferred and preferred indifferents. — Shawn

This constitutes the difference between inner peace and inner calm.

However, you did not say which is which. It would be helpful if you were a clearer writer. Does inner calm disprefer indifferents, and inner peace prefers indifferents, or the other way around? If you can, please clear this up. If you can't then I'll be a notch happier.

The difference is stated in such a conceptually abstract way, that any meaning it may have has surpassed the concept-gate as delimited by my IQ for understanding, accepting and internalizing it.