This is actually not true. A lower-level movement can create a higher-level movement, and there need not be, there is no, actualization process.
— god must be atheist

Then no potential ever becomes actualized and there is no change, — Dfpolis

Your conclusion is a non-sequiteur, and it does logically not follow. You said something completely incongruent to my statement. You made an absolutely false claim because it does not pertain to my claim.

Mark Dennis, discrimination and racism has nothing to do with ethics or morals. It has to do with unjust cruelty.

Which moral precept is vaginized by discrimination? By racism?

I think discrimination a racism are both despicable and avoidable, attitudes, which must be forsaken, but they have nothing to do with ethics.

Since you came to be, you need to have been actualized by something already operational. — Dfpolis

This is actually not true. A lower-level movement can create a higher-level movement, and there need not be, there is no, actualization process.

Your counter-argument fails, Dfpolis.

In fact, your entire line of thought seems self-contradictory. On the one hand, you claim we can prove nothing about reality, and, on the other hand, you seem to claim to have proven that we can prove nothing about reality -- which is proving something about reality. — Dfpolis

Dfpolis, your wording lends itself to all kinds of fallacies, this time I believe it's a strawman.

Alcontali claimed (I wasn't there, but I believe you) that we can prove nothing about reality
Alcontali SEEMED to have claimed (so he did not claim... you put words in his mouth, which he did not say, and you defeat his argument based on something he did not say... hence the strawman) to have proven (which he did not) that we can prove nothing about reality.

Therefore no contradiction exists, therefore your counter-argument is invalid.

Dfpolis, you are a shifty arguer. You remind me of somebody on another website, but he was not as lucid as you are.

I have not said that God is unexplained, but self-explaining. — Dfpolis

Still. Where does god enter the picture? Just because something is not explained, (the finite to his self) AND assuming an explanation is possible, it does not necessarily follow that there is someone or something that can and will explain it.

THAT is the conjuring in your failed proof.

If, by this, you mean that higher levels of organization can be predicted from the laws of lower levels, Anderson and I disagree. — T Clark

Yes, Higher level organizations can be predicted, but not their laws from knowing how lower level organizations work. But it has been a given that all laws are known. That was one of the hypotheses or premises. Including lower, higher, and intermediate level of organizations. Therefore determinism (when knowing the state at any one time instance and all the laws) rules.

I don't know if they still use the term "higher" and "lower" level organizations... that's a sort of matterism. Or substantism. PC is big time in the forefront of current academic philosophical practice -- this is the first reason I only know about philosophy what I can intuit, because I was thrown out of the university the day before classes started.

Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence.
— Dfpolis

This is where you should have started and ended. Positing an unexplained God as an explanation of what cannot be explained is conjuring. — Fooloso4

...what cannot be explained by itself. It can be explained, by another... be it another finite being or be it an infinite being. But either way, the assumption that something necessarily can explain a finite being IS, like you said, not a necessary consequence. And the existence of that something is the second assumption that is wrong, as you say conjuring, because its existence is not necessary, either.

So Dfpolis piled one not necessarily following consequence on top of another not necessary consequence, and insisted that they are both necessary.

I do not deny, but affirm, that humans exist when they exist. I went even further, saying that once they begin to exist, it is necessary that they exist then. So, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. — Dfpolis

But, being human does not imply that I exist. — Dfpolis

:Being human: is present tense affirmative (nominative). Human is being, and therefore the human exists.

At one point you say that being human means the human exists, at another point you say being human means that the human does not exist.

Would it be not easier to say "a being that had been does not exist, even if it had been a human when it had existed"? I exaggerated the tenses to make this obvious (although grammatically not totally cool.)

A little bit like you can't point out how much money Joe Doe has in the bank by ONLY knowing all the programs of data manipulation that the bank has, or else ONLY knowing the data (which is a very long string of ones and zeros.) Only the complete knowledge ofthe two: data and programs, can give you precise (for the current time... not for the future) information on Joe Doe's deposit holdings.

The behavior of a complex, dynamic physical system will be consistent with so called laws of physics. That does not mean that the behavior of the system is predictable, even in theory, by those laws. It works top down, but it doesn't work bottom up. — T Clark

Actually it works bottom up, too, once one realizes that you need two things in your knowledge before you can construct: all the laws, and the initial state (including movement).

The initial state does not need to be some sort of moment of creation; any time point in history or in a future time is sufficient if one can fathom the state then, and the laws that govern movement.

↪Dfpolis Your main argument is:

1. A finite entity can't explain itself
So,
2. There exists an infinite entity (God) that explains all finite entities — TheMadFool

There is no reason why everything explainable ultimately must be explained by somebody. That is a weakness in the argument. In other words, because an entity can't explain itself, it is not NECESSARY that something else be able to explain it.

There is also the possibility that another finite thing can explain a certain finite thing, which is not itself. The argument does not allude to this very real possibility.

The sexual revolution came to an end with the advent of Herpes, AIDS and Hep C.

But people are naturally promiscuous.

So they live their promiscuity out in fantasies.

Non-fantasies are restricted to one or zero number of partner. This creates a lack of intimacy, a lack of excitement, a lack of lack.

Pornography lives in the cultures of the western-types of democratic and socialist republics.

Because whatever can be explained by a being, viz. whatever a being can do, results from its essence, the specification of its acts. — Dfpolis

You are using the QED as your premise. It's called "begging the conclusion" or something like that fallacy.

If specifications exist, then there is a creator. So you assume there is a creator. You use this assumption to say there is a creator. But the assumption is random, it is not well-grounded; and more importantly, the assumption pre-requires the object of your proof to exist.

In other words: you use something that you accept as a premise, to prove that it exists. That is wrong.

Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence.
Why? Because whatever can be explained by a being, viz. whatever a being can do, results from its essence, the specification of its acts. For a finite being, existence, the unspecified power to act, is logically distinct from its specification. I am human and I exist. Being human explains my ability to think, because that is part of what it is to be human. But, being human does not imply that I exist. If it did, no human could cease existing. — Dfpolis

several problems with this paragraph.

All existing humans exist.
I am a human.
Therefore I exist.

I don't know how you can conclude, from the same premises

All existing humans exist.
I am human.
Therefore I don't exist.

Your reasoning is wrong in he sense that humans exist in a temporal fashion. But they do exist when they do. Therefore your premise fails on this turn:
"Being human explains my ability to think, because that is part of what it is to be human. But, being human does not imply that I exist. If it did, no human could cease existing."
Being human implies that you currently exist. It does not exclude the possibility that you came into being or that you will exit into nihil. But the current state of affairs is that you exist. Therefore your conclusion in this premise, or the reason you argue for us to accept the premise, is wrong.

Since finite beings have a history of coming into and going out of existence, — Dfpolis

Finite things have NOT been known for a history of coming into and going out of existence. At all.

I am a human; I have come into existence, will pass out of existence. But my component parts, matter, have not gone in-and-out of existence. I, the human, am a complex configuration of matter; the configuration may and does change, matter never perishes or or comes into existence (other than changing forms, and changing to-and-fro energy to matter, matter to energy).

I call you out on this assumption. In my opinion it is wrong.

UA: Unter Anderen? Ubuntu Archipelago? Ugandan Aggressor? Ursula Andress? Unusual Adjectivisation? Ugato Agglegeny? U a asshole? Uzbekistan Area? Upper Andes?

I don't watch porn, but I look at pictures of naked women on the Internet. There are sites for that sight. Free, unadulterated, x rated. Very unforgiving.

I have been on the hunt of recongnizing some of the pictured in real life. My quest is to come up to a stranger on the street, someone I've never met and vice versa, and be able to say to her with clear conscience, "I've seen your naked picture on the world wide web" to which she'd answer, "yes, and I am sure you masturbated to it a hundred times, too."

Who are these mysterious women who are so ready to bare all for all of us who find those pictures exciting? Where do they live? What do they eat? Who is their best friend? But most importantly, what's their phone number and would they be willing to mate with me for real?

Is it possible that every contributor missed the point in this debate?

I think it is.

Poverty is not an objectively established value of assets and income for a person. It is subjective. Someone or some government body or think-tank says "poverty line in the United States is X dollars income per annum per person and Y dollars assets per person." This is how it's done.

How do you eliminate poverty? By decreasing X and Y to sufficiently low amounts so no person qualifies.

Poverty declarations, theories, etc. are one of the biggest economic / mathematical poofs of our age.

In my town there is a placard hung in obvious wall-spaces in emergency departments and in other crisis centres:
"Thinking about committing suicide? We can help." And a contact phone number.

I am not making this up.

Have you ever tried to get a religionist involved in a moral discursion?

They run like beaten dogs.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

Actually, I’ve found them to argue as heatedly as you do. — Brett

Same here. They are fierce defenders of pro-life, of defunct sessational anti-demarcation of globalized neo-disciplinarian oblivion, of morality as such in the first place, of the original sin and free will, of god's moral infallibility, etc. Their moral crusades churn-crunch opposition. Or so they hope.

"At the Anarchists's Convention" by John Sayles, short story (fiction).

I went to high school in three countries on two continents. I noticed the North American continent was more lenient and good-willed among the teachers. In the old country continent, teachers were cruel and got away with favoriting one student or the other. In curriculum: in the old world, every student had to take every subject from grade 1 to grade 12, which meant 5 subjects in grade school and up to 13 subjects in high school. You could only get exempted in phys ed. In North America you need to take only approx. 6 or 8 subjects of the available 12 or 14 every high school year. In Europe math was easy; here it's hard. For the kids. There is something about math that does not agree with the heavy Christian influence in North America. I think it has to do with 3-1 = 0 being accepted as valid computation in Christianity. That throws every kid right off the bat here. It was easy for me on both continents, but then again, I'm weird. Plus I ain't Christian.

My brother immigrated to Canada, with his wife and his 8 year old kid almost 40 years ago from Europe. Eastern Europe. My bro told me the following differences in school life and education:

- kids here in North America are encouraged to keep their dignity and integrity.
- in the old wrold the teachers are far more authoritarian, and berating the kids is not far from them.
- kids here are accepted if they have low academic achievement. In the old country everyone is pushed to the limit academically. Socioeconomic status is immaterial in this aspect.
- kids here are popular in class with their mates if they are good in athletics or can beat others up. At home, the kids are popular if they are smart, get good grades, and are funny. Good sense of humour carries you the farthest.
- in both countries good-looking kids, both girls and boys, enjoy the farthest in social privileges.

Which ones?
— god must be atheist

Nagel, Quine, Pinker, Chomsky just off the top of my head. — Wallows

Well done.

It's my understanding that most philosophers nowadays are some cognitivists or neo-empiricists. — Wallows

Which ones?

I wonder what CI and Kant have to do with ethics. Kant and his CI has to do with making everyone happy, and making nobody unhappy.That's not ethics. That is mere Utopianism.
— god must be atheist

And what, exactly, do you base this statement on?
6 hours ago — Echarmion

On the CI and Kant's teaching.

Nothing at all. — I like sushi

You are actually wrong, but I don't deem you worthy of explaining why you are wrong.

"why you exist" and "what's the purpose of your existence" can be viewed as two different questions.

"Why I exist" can be answered both from a deterministic approach, or from a metaphysical approach. I know the deterministic one (because my father impregnated my mom and I haven't died) and I have no clue, no claim, over the metaphysical approach; in fact, I deny there is a metaphysical reason for my existence.

"What's the purpose of my existence" is a funny one. It presumes that there is a great, big, final purpose for which it is worth living the life, and perhaps serving some goal while living this life. I also don't believe there is a grand purpose to my life, but I do experience and set goals as purposes to short-range efforts.

Without so-called ‘imperfection’ what is there left to behold? — I like sushi

Well, what? You tell us.

↪Wallows Doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t understand what you’re saying. — I like sushi

↪Wallows From the first word to the last. I cannot make head nor tail of what your point is, if there is a point, or why I should care? — I like sushi

You appear to be saying obvious, and some dubious, things. What I am/(was?) missing is the question embedded in the OP. — I like sushi

I am sorry, "I love sushi" but you trapped me. You said two different things in the three posts you made. In the first two instances you denied understanding anything the OP said. In the third instance, you specifically denied these two posts by your own self.

I can't abide with traps like that. I won't. One more such utterance or the like of it, and I'm putting you on Iggi.

You trapped me into explaining where I thought you needed help. Then you outright decried my help.

This is not nice. This, in fact, is intolerable.

The cumulative combination of imperfect images of a Form will not eliminate the imperfections of those images. — Fooloso4

If Plato or Socrates really said this, I blame their inability to see the strength in combination of things and computing the differences into a combined difference.

Their inability to see the stength in combination was evident in the beginning pages of the Republic, where Socrates put forth the proposition: why does the Doctor charge money to cure a disease by giving the patient a tea from a certain weed, and why does the weed not get any money? Some in the crowd replied (sorry, the book is not in front of me, I can't quote his name) that the doctor is a combination of human, know-how and knowledge, and it is the combination that enables him to charge a fee. Socrates replied, no, there must be a SINGLE SOMETHING in doctors that enable them to charge money.

This demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to admit, that combinations are effective. Socrates denied the effectiveness of combinations.

The cumulative combination of imperfect images of a Form will not eliminate the imperfections of those images. — Fooloso4

You are right that in each individual case the imperfections will not be eliminated; but you could be (notice the conditional) wrong, and my proposition is that you are wrong, when you say that cumulative images won't eliminate imperfections.

For instance, you have one image of a chair, and it's in one projection. From top of the chair. You get another image, from a projection from the side. You have a quantum difference in your knowledge of what a chair is; having the two projections combined you have an idea what a chair looks like,much more than having just one single projection. You a have a third projection, still at a different angle, you get much more information again.

Obviously having three projections is worth more in knowing what a chair is, than just one single projection.

The idea here is that CUMULATIVE COMBINATION OF IMPERFECT IMAGES OF A CHAIR WILL ELIMINATE IMPERFECTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL IMAGES.

Therefore it is NOT true what you claimed, your claim being that cumulative combinations of images will not eliminate imperfections in our knowledge of what the object looks like in reality.

I admit, this is not precisely what you claimed. But I see no reason why learning has to stop at three projections; I see no reason why enough projections still will NEVER yield enough knowledge, since knowledge accumulates, to arrive at the Form. This is, I feel, an arbitrary declaration by you, or by Plato and Socrates, if the two really said what you claimed.

Furthermore, your quote which I presume is from the Republic, (you did not indicate that) has nothing to do with your claim. It is not a backing up of your claim. The quote you used is irrelevant to your claim.

To I love sushi:

Think of it this way. We love love. We love food. We hate despotism. We love much money in the bank.

We desire, we hate, we repulse from, etc etc These are all needs that our emotions dictate to us, and there is no way we can avoid these emotion-driven needs.

But needs can't be fulfilled just by wishing and by wanting. You need action to fulfil those needs. If you are hungry, you must secure food. So you need your reason to help you figure out how to do that. If you want love, you must secure it; just wanting it will get you nowehre, you need your reason to create a path, a plan of action, that will get people to love you. etc.

Does this make more sense to you now?

Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

No, it's not. There would need to be some evidence, which at this point is only faith-based.

The interesting part is that some people consider elements of the supernatural as natural, necessary, and existing truly. These are called "religious people". To them god-worship is worshipping a real figure head, it is a natural (i.e. existing fullly in the rational reality) being. It exists (god exists) according to the religious, in other spheres of existence, for lack of a better term; that is also given.

Funny folks, the faithful.

Wallows
8.3k
Are you including reason in your emotionalism? Or, where does reason come in?
— tim wood

Well, yes. Reason under Hume's dictum is secondary to the emotions. It only serves as an instrumental faculty of our desires or wishes or passions. — Wallows

Some thinkers now believe that reason is yet another driving force, in and by itself. Reason is a need in humans, much like the feelings of love, hate, -- crap, I can' t name any other emotions. Some emotions manifest as needs, some others, as responses. (Examples: Needs: be loved. Responses: anger.) Reason and rationality also can present as both need and response.

Wallows — Wallows

I fully support your thoughts. Emotions are the neglected children of rationality. As an evolutionary, I believe that all that we are -- reason, emotion, desires, hates and dislikes, and / or the lack thereof, -- are all borne out of survival advantages.

As such, we must pay attention to all that we are, in order to find the human in ourselves.

Most historically very famous philosophers -- with the exception of a very few -- were suffering from autism. They were highly functional, but still, the basic driving force of a philosopher is the inability to see the world as a normal person, and therefore possessing a wish to make sense of it. Normal people don't care about philosophy because they lack the need to know, and that is so because they have a well-rounded world view with their own role in the general scheme of the cosmos well defined and smoothly, seamlessly integrated.

And as autists, most philosophers discount the value of emotions. To them (to us) that's where problems begin. If it can't be reasoned, then what's the use of something? Emotions-driven thought and actions are like smudged-out areas on a painting of reality for an autism sufferer: an area which he can't gain insight into even if he kills himself, and which he tries for the rest of his life to explain with reason, while at the same time rejecting its importance as it is not "reason".

Hume was the first and last of the great thinkers who saw this happening, and he responded in kind, and very aptly and smartly.

Everyone knows that logically a god is not necessary, and everyone knows that illogically all true believers think a god is necessary in the grand scheme of things.

As far as I am concerned, there is no point in debating this. Nobody will convince anyone else of their point. The debate only leads to strife and bitterness. Frustration. Or worse. (Such as animosity and name-calling.)

I wish instead of trying to come out triumphant in this debate, we'd learn from the bottom of our hearts to accept that others' views on the subject are completely different from ours, and to respect this differentness.

This is my opinion, and of course I offer it as a peace branch to bury the topic and the hatchet with it.

WORK out a model for 'life' and ignore the terms 'good' and 'bad' and demonstrate that for debate — RW Standing

I've done precisely that. I can't just now post my formulation, because I'm awaiting a decision on publication of my manuscript, but as soon as my MS gets turned down-- which it inevitably will -- I'll let you gentle folks now my fabrication of what constitutes a moral act.

I wonder what CI and Kant have to do with ethics. Kant and his CI has to do with making everyone happy, and making nobody unhappy.That's not ethics. That is mere Utopianism.

I have a totally different and yet binding description of ethics. It is not popular, or it has not been popularized. I based my description / definition of an ethical act on what has been called ethical. The very type of behaviour.

The entire human race talks about ethics without a definition of what it is. The closest description I encountered that comes close to a definition, is "you know, ethics, morals, you know, you have a feeling when something is right and when something else is wrong." This is the mean opinion on ethics, and yet it is definable, precisely and with a good fit.

Is "Jesus is God" necessarily true, necessarily false, or a contingent proposition?

I think "Jesus is God" is necessarily necessary for the believers of Christianity.