You see, either you bite the bullet of a 'transcendent' person who give s a fuck, or you have a half assed personification of the generality of 'life' which obviously doesn't give a fuck. And why should we give a fuck for that which doesn't give one? — unenlightened

If I intended to bite a bullet, which I don't, it wouldn't be for either of the choices you've offered.

Convince me that it is worth even speculating about this. — unenlightened

Convince me it is worth convincing you.

Thank you. I appreciate the help.

Something living but impersonal? — unenlightened

Yeah, I struggled with the right way to say it. Conscious but impersonal? Not even that really. It's that reality can't be separated from human involvement, so the universe is half-human.

A good case could be made for extending national air space all the way into space, though. — Tzeentch

Do you mean 300,000 feet or indefinitely.

I think just about everyone would disagree with that.

an incident such as this one is quite extraordinary. — Tzeentch

I guess it's obvious from what I've said earlier, but I don't necessarily agree. That's why I was asking for an explanation.

I see all four points as perfectly compatible with my statement, — Tzeentch

I guess I misinterpreted you. I thought you were saying that the US's loss of hegemony would be a bad thing. That assumption on my part was what I was responding to.

U2 reconnaissance aircraft flew on the edge of space, far above what is normally considered "national air space". So technically the U.S. did not invade Soviet air space in 1960. — Tzeentch

According to Wikipedia, the U2 flies at a maximum altitude of about 70,000 feet and the edge of space is defined as about 300,000 feet.

Speaking of the U2, it amazes me that it is still be used now almost 70 years after it was first built. It still looks all cool and futuristic. B52s are still being used too.

The first reason would be, because it's illegal under international law, just like violating national waters is illegal. Both are essentially breaches of a nation's sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Sure. That's why it's an international incident. I still don't see why it is a major incident.

The second is that a nation's air space (especially that of superpowers) is heavily surveilled for purposes of national defense and security. All the missile defense systems in the world are not going to help if the enemy launches its attack when it's already ontop of one's cities. — Tzeentch

That doesn't seem like a plausible scenario.

However in a period like this, where large-scale conflict has already broken out in Europe and can break out tomorrow in the Pacific, an incident like this is not so innocent anymore. — Tzeentch

I didn't say it was innocent, I said I don't understand why it is such a big deal.

More interesting was how the act of shooting down the balloons was viewed, as the Pentagon apparently on several occasions made statements that would imply the shooting down of the balloon may have been unlawful. — Tzeentch

Yes, I found that interesting too, although the consensus of the people referenced in the article is that it was legal. I always assumed it was and I wasn't suggesting that it shouldn't have been.

So … I can’t think how you could solve it. — Jamal

Thanks for the response. It's not a big deal, but I thought if there was a simple fix I could do it. Apparently the picture shows up for at least some people on their mobile phones.

I wasn't aware my thumbs up was notorious. I thought it was charming and idiosyncratic. But no, it happens for other images as well. At the same time, many images do show up on my mobile.

Anyway, we can leave it at that. Thanks again.

It'll probably be easier for you to buy a second phone and see how your uploads work than to get a straight answer out of me. — Hanover

I heard the flip phone is making a come back. There's nothing cooler than slouching back in your chair, flipping the phone so that it opens up, putting it to your ear, and saying "sup." Nothing. Height of coolness. — Hanover

I do enjoy your amusing, ironic fantasies about your own past or present coolness, but, as moderator, do you have anything more substantive to offer? Perhaps some of your brethren do.

Impersonal gods are not worth talking to or (therefore) talking about. Stick to physics, no impersonal god will care. — unenlightened

I don't agree with this. The recognition that it is worthwhile to see the universe, reality, as something living is an important one. It changes how you see everything. It gives something to be grateful to for all we have been given. God as a metaphysical entity is a useful way of seeing things.

All words mean something and may be useful.
A word can refer to an objective reality (ex, water) or not (ex. unicorn).
The OP discusses if "substance" refers to an objective reality of not. — Art48

Well there you go. "Objective reality." It's just a word. Well.. two words. I don't want to distract your thread from where you're aiming it, so I won't take that argument any further.

We're on the verge of entering a period of major geopolitical strife, in which Russia and China will likely band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon. — Tzeentch

I think we're already in that period. I'm very worried about where the war in Ukraine will lead. On the other hand, I think the idea that Russia and China will somehow "band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon," is wrongheaded on three counts. 1) Most importantly, the US's position as "hegemon" is going to over soon whether we like it or not. That's not because of China and Russia in particular but more because other countries, some former third world, are taking a larger role in the world. 2) That's probably a good thing, both for the world and the US. 3) Russia and China are in no position to become hegemons. Russia is very weak except for nuclear weapons. China is still a limited thread, although it is growing. 4) Neither Ukraine nor Taiwan is worth risking a wider war with other nuclear powers. Hey, wait. That's more than three. I could probably come up with more.

First off I'd like to point out that this is a major international incident. — Tzeentch

This is something I've wondered about. I'm not saying it's not important, but why such a big deal? We all already have spy satellites, we all know the other is trying to look at us.

It's worth noting that during most of the Cold War, invasions this deep into the other's airspace were quite rare, and generally avoided. — Tzeentch

This is not true. Look up "U2 incident 1960."

What is strange about these events is that, while invasions of another nation's air space are highly illegal and not very common, reconnaissance fly-overs with satellites, balloons and planes that fly on the edge of space (above national air space) are nothing new, albeit still somewhat controversial. — Tzeentch

I found this interesting article on the legality of the situation. I'm not qualified to judge it's contents, but it seems reasonable.

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2023/02/05/guest-post-the-chinese-balloon-shoot-down-incident-and-the-law-some-observations/

If China has the means to carry out its reconnaissance in a legal manner in space, why would it invade U.S. air space? — Tzeentch

Good question.

Common sense may say that “Substance is Just a Word” is a deepity. I want to argue it is not: that in a substantial sense (pun intended), substance is just a word. — Art48

I disagree with your position. Saying "Substance is just a word" is as much deepity as your examples except, perhaps, with a bit more subtlety. Maybe that makes it deepitier. It's about language and metaphysics. "Substance" means something to me and to most other people. It is definitely a property that an apple has but my memory of an apple does not. I can hold an apple in my hand and take a bite.

Now, there are plenty of philosophies out there that argue that substance doesn't exist. That's fine, and I don't plan on taking up that argument here, but it's beside the point. The word "substance" means something and is useful. That's how things come to exist - We name them and use those names. And that's metaphysics.

Yes , your pictures show up in my mobile version! — javi2541997

Thank you.

it has allowed me the opportunity to use the expression 'above the din' which I didn't realize until now would be so satisfying. — praxis

Sometimes an opportunity to use a favorite word, phrase, or quote is the best thing about a discussion.

Look. It's not that difficult a question.
Do Christians believe in the God of the Bible, or don't they? — Vera Mont

Of course, but it is my understanding, based on 15 minutes on the web, that most do not consider the Bible infallible or inerrant. If you want to go any deeper into Christian doctrine or history, I'm not the one to be talking to.

I sometimes upload picture files into my posts. Then, I often reuse those pictures by linking to their location in my Uploads section. That generally works fine on my computer, e.g:



I've noticed that when I look at the same post on my mobile phone, the picture isn't there, just the unlinked filename.

What's up with that? Any solutions?

Also, a question - does the picture show up on other people's mobile version of my posts?

They do. It isn't. — Vera Mont

Why don't you take issue with the strongest arguments against theisn made by principled atheists (like me or other disbelievers I can name if you can't find them), son, rather than just lazily picking the low-hanging fruit of 'contrarian rabble rousers' as representative strawmen to torch so smugly? — 180 Proof

I made a couple of simple statements back at the beginning of this thread in response to the OP and a post from @Wayfarer. Since then, I've just been responding to criticism of those statements. My posts were not any kind of comprehensive attack on atheist arguments. They were simple and focused. These "strongest arguments" you speak of have not been on the table.

...so they put on black cassocks and sail around the world to tell the heathen.... What, exactly? "My dear savages, I feel in my bones that Something ineffable exists, so I want you to renounce your own version of it and embrace mine. It's so much better, trust me!" — Vera Mont

I'm afraid only a theist can correct a mischaracterization of their ideas, particularly if it's unintentional. They can be rather odd. — praxis

I hate it when I'm the calm, understated poster in a thread. It means something is out of whack. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

Again, all I said was:

1) Atheists often put theist ideas in boxes, by which I meant they mischaracterize their beliefs based on their own biases. 2) Claiming that Christians believe the bible is infallible is a very common example of that process. 3) It is not true that Christians in general believe the bible is infallible. — T Clark

Note - I added "often" to soften the claim a bit.

Well, speaking only for myself, I take theism at face value and demonstrate that its sine qua non claims about g/G are not true (i.e. either incoherent or false). I suppose the relevant "bias" here is I reject untrue claims. — 180 Proof

[snarky]Yes, well 180P, you're such a good boy. [/snarky]

I agree that there are atheists who intentionally mischaracterize religious ideas out of prejudice. — praxis

I wasn't talking about intentional mischaracterization. I think many atheists don't think twice when they say things like that.

There are also theists who intentionally mischaracterize atheist ideas out of prejudice. — praxis

But that's not what we're talking about here. I don't think atheists need to be defended here on the forum. Elsewhere they do.

If I'm wrong why you don't try to clarify what you mean? — praxis

All I ever said was 1) Atheists put theist ideas in boxes, by which I meant they mischaracterize their beliefs based on their own biases. 2) Claiming that Christians believe the bible is infallible is a very common example of that process. 3) It is not true that Christians in general believe the bible is infallible.

Everything else you say I said, I didn't say.

Particles of stuff (atoms), as the elementary element of Physics, has been gradually & grudgingly superseded by nonlocal continuum Fields of information patterns, consisting of an imaginary grid of mathematical points with no extension in space. — Gnomon

This is not true.

T Clark seems to be claiming, unless I'm misinterpreting him, that believers only believe in the ineffable, not anything particular, and not the words that are preached to them. Atheists come up with the particulars, all the words, the so-called 'boxes'. — praxis

Here is the argument:

Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity. — gevgala

Welcome to the forum.

When you say "the designer" I assume you mean the one who planned our reality, the world we see around us. I don't see any evidence that reality was planned by anyone. It looks like it just sort of happened.

I guess we should just step back one step - who created reality? Does that make a difference? Without any specific justification, I've always assumed the universe has just always been here. No beginning and no end. I admit I don't have any evidence for that position, but I don't have any evidence against it either. Let's apply Occam's razor. As you know, that's the principle that, when looking at different but equally effective explanations for the same phenomena, we should accept the one that allows us to forget about the whole thing.

That's my solution. No designer, no creator. It just is the way it is.

And yet that fallible scripture is the source of their belief in sin, Jesus, resurrection and eternal life. Cherry-picking is not a modern practice.
Are there alternate sources for a description of that Christian god, or not? Is there an alternate, more reliable account of the roots of Christianity? — Vera Mont

I'm not a good source to answer questions about the origin of Christian beliefs. I was only responding to your contention that Christians consider the bible "infallible truth." Most don't. That's all I said.

I never called the writers of scripture unlearned. I have no record of their educational backgrounds. Is he not referring to that selfsame Bible? Perhaps the theologians that have come to prominence since the move to Rome had other reference material. I Only said I get my image of their god from that book. I'm not sure what other scriptures Augustine consulted, but I don't remember being more impressed with his god than Matthew's. (Granted, I read him and Aquinas quite a long time ago and forgotten everything except that 1. Aquinas was more literary and 2. neither of them convinced me, even though I was more open to persuasion in my youth.) — Vera Mont

You're arguing with a man who's been dead for 1592 years.

No. I have said that the god most frequently referred-to in discussions is the one depicted in the Bible. Do non-fundamentalist Christians draw their understanding of their god from some other source that I can consult? Then they should cite those sources during the discussion. — Vera Mont

You called God "that jumped-up tribal deity we know only from a big book Christians revere as infallible truth." You can't not know that most Christians don't see the bible as infallible. St. Augustine didn't 1,600 years ago. The Pope doesn't.

Now that I think about it a bit more, I think Clark may be saying something different. Basically that God is ineffable so any dumb atheist that comes along with their boxy reason will be invariably off the mark. God cannot fit in a box. The believers know that. Atheists are too clueless to grasp this wonderous truth. — praxis

Ahem...

I've never, that I can recall, attempted to box or stack a god. I disbelieve in all the ones I've heard of, and the one that is most frequent subject of discussions - and my rejection - is that jumped-up tribal deity we know only from a big book Christians revere as infallible truth. — Vera Mont

Ironically, in denying my point, you've demonstrated it. Probably the most obvious and one of the most egregious examples of atheists putting theistic beliefs into boxes is equating theism with fundamentalist Christianity. Which is what you have done here.

@Wayfarer brought this quote to my attention and I use is whenever I can. It's from St. Augustine, one of fathers of the Catholic Church. It was written in 415 AD:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? — St. Augustine

That's a serious accusation — praxis

I don't consider people misunderstanding something I've said as particularly serious. It happens all the time. I'm sure it happens to you too.

I’m with you on this. My concern is that the whole thing opens itself to a withering criticism, for instance Bentham’s critique. The project of natural law was never the same since then and with devastating consequences. Perhaps there is a way to reestablish it on better footing. — NOS4A2

Another poem came to mind. This is an excerpt from "As If" by Carl Dennis.

No strollers out on the street today are required
To believe all men created equal, all endowed
By their creator with certain rights,
As long as they behave as if they do,
As if they believe the country would be better off
If more people do likewise, that acting this way
May help their fellow Americans better pursue
The happiness your housemate believes she's pursuing
Sharing her house with you, that the fisherman
Wants to believe he's found in fishing. — Carl Dennis - As If

Atheists don't make up religions. Religious leaders do. They box up God, Gods, or whatever. Atheists question these stories or 'boxes'. — praxis

You have misunderstood and misused my metaphor. You should come up with your own.

I’m with you on this. My concern is that the whole thing opens itself to a withering criticism, for instance Bentham’s critique. The project of natural law was never the same since then and with devastating consequences. Perhaps there is a way to reestablish it on better footing. — NOS4A2

When I read your OP, I wanted to push back strongly against the idea that human rights are somehow dispensable, avoidable. That's what my posts in this thread have been about up to this point. I acknowledge I am making a moral judgement. As I noted previously, human rights are not physical properties of the universe. They represent human action and I would say human nature. Rights are commitments, not laws. We act as if they are laws of nature because they are central to our humanity.

I'm not sure why, but Robert Frost's poem "The Black Cottage" came to mind. Here's an excerpt:

For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour.
As I sit here, and oftentimes, I wish
I could be monarch of a desert land
I could devote and dedicate forever
To the truths we keep coming back and back to.
So desert it would have to be, so walled
By mountain ranges half in summer snow,
No one would covet it or think it worth
The pains of conquering to force change on.
Scattered oases where men dwelt, but mostly
Sand dunes held loosely in tamarisk
Blown over and over themselves in idleness.
Sand grains should sugar in the natal dew
The babe born to the desert, the sand storm
Retard mid-waste my cowering caravans- — Robert Frost - The Black Cottage

Rather, atheists complain about the untidiness of the boxes that religious leaders put God into. — praxis

You've been talking to different atheists than I have.

Do you mean to say that most of our decisions are too trivial and petty to be measured by the lofty standards of rationality? — SophistiCat

No. I just mean that people don't normally take a rational approach to decision making. I'll go further and say that in many cases, we shouldn't expect them to. For example - this ultimatum game. It would be neither rational nor irrational for me to reject an offer. Any rational decision would have to include underlying assumptions. Those assumptions, e.g. the relative value of money and dignity, are questions of value not rationality.

That's Thomas Nagel. The bridge-laws guy is Ernest Nagel. — frank

I'll take a look.

The Nagel approach says we will eventually reduce a baseball game to quantum theory by way of bridge laws which connect the dots. This is expected to be a matter of vocabulary. — frank

I'm not familiar with Nagel, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. It seems like his position on reductionism relates mostly to it's presentation of consciousness as a physical process. His objection, if I understand it correctly, is that the reductionist approach ignores the experience of qualia.

Anderson's approach is completely different and much broader. It takes in all of science. I don't know but I'd imagine Nagel would not agree with Anderson's interpretation.

Thoughts? — frank

I forgot to mention - the article I linked is a reprint with a new introduction. The introduction is actually longer than Anderson's paper and has a lot more detail on the subject. You should take a look at it too.

The second meaning of reductionism is the assertion that all sciences should reduce to physics (just as Apollo did). The argument for this hinges mainly on the success of physics up to this point. At least methodologically, scientists should continue to stick to what's been working for thousands of years. We should approach all topics available for scientific inquiry as if the goal is further reduction to physics. — frank

This is something I am wrasseling with right now. The source I generally turn to is a paper by P.W. Anderson called "More is Different." He talks about the hierarchy of science and the relationships between different levels. Here's what he says:

…the reductionist hypothesis does not by any means imply a constructionist" one: The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. In fact, the more the ele- mentary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less to those of society.

The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. The behavior of large and complex aggregates of elementary particles, it turns out, is not to be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles. Instead, at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other. That is, it seems to me that one may array the sciences roughly linearly in a hierarchy, according to the idea: The elementary entities of science X obey the laws of science Y… — P.W. Anderson - More is different

The footer of the quote has a link to the paper.

On the other hand, I'm currently reading a book by Addy Pross called "What is Life" about how life develops from non-living chemistry. In it, Pross claims that the rejection of reductionism is a mistake. That's why I'm wrasseling. I think he's wrong, but I'm reevaluating my position.