This is a fantastic start! With regards to defining reality, it is fine to start with a loose but accurate definition. You make an interesting point about showing the difference between belief and omniscience. I've never seen it before, well done.

Philosophies emphasis should be about logic. Politics and ideology generally emphasize emotion. Its not that emotion isn't useful or helpful in persuading others. Its that emotion is often not a good tool for constructing logical arguments.

I will second Tim Wood. Yes.

I'm not sure what you're describing is a contradiction in morality, but inconsistency in the law. If a person feels they should sacrifice their time to help other people, and they are consistent in that, then they are consistent morally. If one is inconsistent in implementing one's morality, that doesn't mean there is a contradiction either. A person can fully realize they are being inconsistent, and view their inconsistency as immoral.

To sum, inconsistent implementation is not a contradiction of what one considers moral.

I had to read up on Rawls ahead of this, so take it with a grain of salt. My understanding of his original position is that morality is formed as a social contract between social individuals, not as pre-social individuals.

This means that the contract takes into consideration the other people involved in the moral rules. In the case of the 3, it would depend on each of the individuals feelings. Maybe one of the people doesn't want to share their "marriage" with more than one person. In that case, they would not advocate for polygamy. Polygamy would only be the most "rational" if they considered that each of them would not simply tolerate, but actually like having more than one person in the marriage.

This would be in contrast from a "pre-social" individual, who would have their own personal moral code apart from others. Such a person would dictate a moral code that the others had to follow, regardless of the other's feelings on the issue.

So I don't think that polygamy is the most rational justification according to the original position. Feel free to disagree.

I think you're over complicating the issue.

1. Doesn't have to be 8 years of Biden/Harris. You can just make it 4.
2. If you're concerned about the balance of power, vote Democrat for president, and Republican for house or senate.
3. You're either making a choice, or not making a choice. If you don't make a choice, you have no skin in the game. Others will decide for you. You sound like you don't like others telling you what to do. Well, if you don't vote, guess what? We voted in a guy to tell you what to do, and you had no say.

Vote for the lesser evil if you find no positives. You will at least feel like you made a decision. Otherwise you may end up with what you know in your heart is the greater evil, and and have to deal with that for the next four years.

There are some bumps in it and so, as you requested, I thought I'd bring them to your attention.
The first one was your definition of Reality as "What results independently of a belief" - I'm inclined to agree but the counter occurred: "This presumes that belief cannot dictate reality. Why not?" It seems that you can answer this within your framework but it may be worth pressing you to do so explicitly. — TVCL

First, thank you for the compliment! And absolutely, question even the slightest issue you find. It is the only way to the truth, and I never take offense or slight to it.

First, when I wrote this theory I thought to myself, "A knowledge theory must be able to know itself". The way I have written the work is as a newborn discovering things for the first time. I take what I can glean at the moment, and build upon it from there. However, that does not mean I cannot return to it after. Indeed, at this moment of claim it could be drawn that belief cannot dictate reality, but I also make no claim one way or the other.

The key comes after I demonstrate what "discrete experiences" are. Once you realize that a belief is a discrete experience, you also realize that belief is concurrent with reality, because a discrete experience cannot be contradicted. To streamline the theory for first time readers, I have removed a lot of going back to the beginning. But feel free to take any future conclusions I make, go back to the beginning, and see if a contradiction is found, or a question you had now answered.

And to clarify, the belief itself is reality. A belief's claim, such as, "I believe Tim is waiting just around the corner" is not necessarily confirmed by reality. A belief's claim is an application of our discrete experiences to reality, which is covered in part 2.

And then, there was a question about what you mean by a "Will" or "Sureness" when you define Belief. — TVCL

In essence belief is a desire. A claim that you are sure reality is X, even if it might be Y. I use belief as a precursor to action in its introduction, but it can also be a claim about reality without any action. "The sun is made of hydrogen" for example. Whether I believed this, or that it was made out of helium has no recourse in the actions I will take as a random belief simply appearing in my mind, then quickly disappearing. This is where the "Sureness" comes from.

But an excellent point on noting that it is not well explained. I had to cut quite a bit to get it down to a manageable read, and explaining belief in further detail seemed like something I could let slide a bit. It seems I may need to cover it again.

One note: if knowledge is belief in something which is co-existent with reality and requires that the belief is not contradicted, it would appear that knowledge is provisional. That is, we have knowledge up to the point that the knowledge we have is contradicted. — TVCL

This is correct. Part two covers how we can handle these contradictions. Sometimes, what might appear to be a contradiction, may not be at all depending on our definitions.

Now, admittedly, by the end of your first piece I got off of the boat. Moreover, it begins to raise far more questions far too quickly to keep pace with. — TVCL

A very fair assessment. As I mentioned earlier, once a foundation type of, "I think therefore I am" has been established, the true complexity starts. Originally, this was a MUCH larger read. I covered so many branches and different considerations. The problem in doing so is that ultimately loses the reader. What I tried to do was cut it down to the necessary fundamentals that allow the building blocks to answer all of the branching questions within section 2. But I feel it may be good to table section 2 for now. I am more interested in how you will construct your fundamentals, and where you will build from independently of mine. Without your own strong conclusion on the "I think therefore I am" section of epistemology, going further would not be productive.

5a. The attempt to make epistemology "airtight" is potentially endless/unattainable.

5b. Likewise, the attempt to define epistemological terms and make them "airtight" is potentially endless/unattainable — TVCL

That is only half the story! The attempt to make epistemology "airtight" is potentially obtainable. The attempt to define epistemological terms and make them "airtight" is potentially obtainable.

Let us combine this with, "A common thread of all epistemological theories is their lack of "airtightness".
Therefore perhaps creating an airtight epistemology would lead to a success.

Also one other thing, we are assuming "knowledge" before knowledge has been figured out. What is "airtight"? What is "unobtainable/obtainable" in regards to knowledge? What is potential? If the questions themselves have questions, that tells me there is something underlying we still do not understand yet, and we should work on that first.

Take as long as you want to think, I'll be here when you're ready.

Thank you Mww, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

First; we seem to agree that knowledge is a tool. Perhaps we agree that theories of knowledge are tools too. Perhaps, is there a distinction between a "perfect" tool that is never prone to failure and a tool that is as good as it can be but that we must accept will eventually break down? — TVCL

I agree entirely with this. No person has ever built a tool that cannot be improved upon over time. Science is considered one of the best methodologies of understanding the world, and even it is still debated and tweaked with improvements to this day. One thing that usually repeats in historic use of tools, is that the next tool offers something the previous one's did not. If a new theory of epistemology is to offer something new to the world, it must differentiate itself from its competitors. To me, that is to make a foundation of epistemology so strong, that it is taken seriously as a branch of study, and less as philosophy.

This also bleeds into your second and third points. Innovator's take two options. Refinement, or advancement. Refinement is a polish or improvement on the old ways to produce something better. This works in many ways. Advancement is much more difficult, because it requires a new approach, and is riskier to pull off.

In either case, I think using the lessons of the tools before us as information to think about is invaluable. But this information must not be enshrined. Polishing keeps the fundamentals while advancement understands that the fundamentals have reached their limit, and it is time for something new. I believe a little of both is in order.

I am of the opinion that epistemology suffers from a few flawed fundamentals, one being its assumptions and allowance of uncertainty within its fundamentals. Yet they are also built upon a few fundamentals that are nearly timeless in epistemological history. To me, these shaky errors manifest after the spring board from the "I think therefore I am" type conclusion that I believe all epistemology reaches as an agreed upon start. I believe there is also some merit in the analytic/synthetic type of arguments as well. When i say "type", I mean the fundamental core of the argument. It is their specifics that I find may not quite nail the issue, and lead to failure down the road. But perhaps I am wrong there as well, which is why I think we both understand we have to present and listen to each other's viewpoints. If two people are looking for the truth, then as you have stated, I believe our viewpoints should point out contradictions or show alignment.

Please take all the time that you need. I have visited a number of philosophy boards over the years, and all of them have been dissapointments. I'm not sure what made this one work, but it seems to be full of people who genuinely like to think on philosophy. I do not mind continuing the discussion for as long as it takes, and I have also been having a blast!. Philosophy and epistemology have long been a passion of mine; it won't burn out any time soon.

Certainly, its is a very difficult endeavor. But consider this, the study of epistemology has been going on for thousands of years with no conclusive determination. In my study, a common thread is always that their foundation of knowledge has a hole. It cannot "know its own theory". And the reason is because induction and assumptions often enter into their theories that later bite them down the road.

If you do not wish to solidify your definitions, it is understandable. It is difficult and can practically twist your brain into knots. But I would be certain that if you do not do that work for your own definitions, anything you build upon it it too will meet the same fate as all the other epistemological theories out there.

My answer to truth is close to as you claimed, "The reality that is the case independently of belief, which a belief may or may not align with". Basically reality is what happens despite what we will. If you wish, go back to my first link on the knowledge theory. It is not to say I am correct, but this time read with a mind to examine how I construct my definitions. I attempt to start with the most basic premise, then slowly build on top of each. I'll admit I could do a better job in parts, especially part 2, but those definitions carry onward throughout the entire argument. Scour them for weaknesses, and then wonder whether your respect of the argument increases or decreases.

A => B is much more stable then A => (B v C). Even if you cannot get a A => B, it helps immensely if you can at least narrow it down.

↪Philosophim I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. — Hippyhead

Well, I did exactly that in points 1-12. You have not been able to show this is wrong.

You have in essence done exactly what you accused me of. You have not demonstrated that your assumption about my work has any merit, because you will not evaluate the evidence I have presented in response to your query. Like the Bible believer, you ask me to accept your faith and not challenge it, so that you can proceed immediately to the thing you think you're good at, reason. But if you were good at reason, you'd let me challenge the foundation you are attempting to build on before you started construction. Since you refuse to look or discuss my challenge to your query, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge.

So that's it then Hippy, I gave you what you wanted, but you retreated. Perhaps another day, perhaps another post.

I just told you. Points 1-12 explain how this leads to the scale of Gods. I'm not going to retype everything that's already written down. There's my proof Hippyhead. Now you have to read it, and point out if it does, or does not apply to the scale of Gods.

So far, since you cannot, you have not invalidated my claim that logic can enter the scale of Gods. Are you afraid Hippyhead? Are you unable to refute it? Its the only things I can conclude at this point. I've made my claim, I have not avoided your question. Its on you now.

What if frameworks of logical understanding are not capable of commenting usefully on such large topics? — Hippyhead

If you continue to read the points, I'm sure you'll get your answer. If my points are unable to comment usefully on that, simply point out why my statements are wrong.

Yes. It's based upon an unproven assumption. — Hippyhead

Ok, what is this specific unproven assumption? Do you understand what causality is as defined? Do you not believe that causality is real? Do you not like the idea of a first cause? I have already told you I am not making an assumption that logic can lead to the understanding of a God at this point in the argument. I form the logic of this through points 12, but this does not begin at point 1. Be careful not to put your own assumption where there is none.

Status and authority are most often accumulated by those with a talent for accumulating status and authority. This talent may have little to nothing to do with the performance of their duties. Case in point, Donald Trump. — Hippyhead

True. When I wrote skill, I considered skill both in obtaining status, and skills that other people find useful for their status, and will promote you as well for.

No worry TVCL, I understand completely. When I start my own explorations into ideas, I quickly branch out into the end. You have a similar thought process as myself, where I think you can see the big picture, and how it all links together. I often see that first, then build my way there, so I understand fully.

Lets start with your definition of truth, as every solid structure needs a stable foundation.

Truth = "That which is the case" — TVCL

What is the case? This is not meant as a nitpick or an attempt to be clever. What is "that"? Let me explain.

Is that which is the case my view of reality? Is it another person's view of reality? Is it my beliefs? Is it an objective reality apart from my beliefs?

One problem I see if you don't have this down, is it undermines your first rule. If "that which is the case" is my beliefs, then my goals and "reason" are my beliefs. Which means my beliefs are just as good as anyone elses. This will be a problem come step 3. If truth is an objective reality, how did we come to this conclusion? Now of course you stated that reason is at minimum, "What is not a contradiction". But how do we know that is true? Is it because we believe it to be true? You have to find some foundation that is incontrovertible and build from there, otherwise it won't hold. Not that we can't start with some stabs in the dark by the way!

My advice is to take every single word of step 1, and define it:
Truth, reason, goal, comprehensible, knowledge, and measure of that knowledge. After you define them, see if you can combine them into a step one which leaves no questions within the statement itself. Also try to define them as separate identities that don't bleed or cross into one another. We've been talking at a high level so far, but now its time to go low level and really make sure all the parts of your heuristic are pristine!

This is a logical statement, right? Logic is an invention of human beings, right? Human beings are indescribably small in comparison to the reality which is being discussed, right? Can you present any proof that something as small and half insane as human beings can generate useful logical statements about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims), a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner? — Hippyhead

Yes. That is what the points continue to show. Each point follows, and eventually does define what a God is within the framework of logical understanding.

Lets start with point one. Is there anything in point one that you disagree with? Do you understand what I mean by causality and a first cause? It can help to read until point 6 to get an overview, but feel free to ask if there is something you do not understand, or find flawed if point one is a hard sticking point.

I understand the sentiment. Our social bonding is a double edged sword. Social bonding allows us to create societies...but also exclude others.

Your understanding of "intellectuals" can be applied to any group of people. "Jocks", "Hipsters", etc. This is because in the formulation of groups, "status", comes about. And status is a rare and limited resource. As such, there are barriers to it. Those who have obtained it have worked much harder and had greater skill than those around them. It is difficulty to tell such people, "Give us the respect you earned, without us having to earn it," when it is more work and cost to themselves to do so.

As much as we would like other people to behave better for ours and other's benefit, it cannot be done by appeal, but by example. We must be the one's to do the work to ensure "those beneath our stature" are treated as equals.

And that is all we can do. When we have shouldered that burden and made something out of it, then people can see and decide for themselves if they want to as well. But complaining about others when we are not doing the hard work ourselves will never change any social situation of life.

It appears that we have demonstrated that reason is a common factor in all knowledge that is sought, but I'm not sure if the application of reason is required for all knowledge. — TVCL

I think for this section, we'll need a good definition between knowledge, and belief. If I have a belief that happens to align with the truth, is it knowledge in your heuristic? And if we are talking about knowledge, we must be very careful to avoid, "maybe's". That way lies the death of all epistemological theories. Once you enter into the realm of not being sure about something, we should try to be find sureness in it, or table it for now.

I think you're close with the idea that "experience" is something we can know. But can you explain why? Can it be explained without reason?

There is a difference between one's belief about what is true/ their knowledge allowing a set of goals and demanding it. — TVCL

Whereas, relativism would posit that there is a truly unique map for each person - this does not appear to be so — TVCL

What if my goal is to find the best color in the world? I find it is red. Another person has that same goal, and finds that it is blue. This seems like a unique map. This also seems to confuse belief and knowledge. Can yo puzzle this out? Again, I think a clear definition of a belief versus knowledge would be helpful here.

These are fairly advanced topics btw. For lack of a better term, the analytic/synthetic distinction has tripped a lot of philosophers up. Further, untangling relativism with knowledge is also another mess. So there is no need to answer my questions just now if you want to come back later. They are just things to think about.

Also, I'm re-considering the idea of making the argument about a search for "Truth" as opposed to "Knowledge". I'm beginning to find "Knowledge" just as confusing as "Truth" because the latter appears to entail the former. — TVCL

I definitely understand that you are transitioning out of a previous mindset, and that makes it difficult. Science is the act of taking definitions of reality, combining them, and hoping to find something new. Philosophy is about taking what we innately suspect about reality, and finding words that are logical, and can then be applied to reality. And its not easy. =) I don't want to tell you "not" to use truth (thought I really do), because you need to understand why you will not be able to. I don't want to stymie your thinking, or lead you down a path I think is correct, but perhaps is not.

But what I feel comfortable in saying is to take some time and rethink your definitions. Think about what truth, knowledge, and belief entail. Then see if you can come up with some clearer definitions to start again with. Epistemology must have a strong foundation, and if we don't have those three terms strongly defined, it is difficult to build a stable theory on them.

Your argument is based upon the assumption that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful useful statements about gods. But you offer no proof. You're essentially making a "because it's in the Bible" type argument — Hippyhead

See Hippy, I never make a biblical argument even once. There is no faith in the argument. You haven't read the actual argument. This is what I keep harping on, and where its rude of you to criticize something you haven't even read.

My proof that we can reason about a God is in points 1 - 12. I will say this again. Its there. In the argument. Please go read them, quote the portion you disagree with and you think exposes a flaw, and I will happily debate you.

As such, my job is to present inconvenient reasoning where I am able — Hippyhead

I would love it if you would apply actual inconvenient reasoning to the actual argument. I enjoy challenging my ideas to make sure I have something that actually works. You seem like an intelligent person, and it seems wasteful that you are not addressing the actual points. Its not inconvenient, it makes you look confused.

And I'm talking specifically to the topic highlighted in the thread title "Probability of God". You're asserting that we are in a position to make that calculation. I'm counter asserting that we are not. It's called debate. Philosophers do that sometimes. — Hippyhead

If your argument is based on the thread title, and you haven't read the argument, that's not a debate about the argument. That's a debate which avoids the argument. Read points 1-12 Hippy, then we'll discuss your opinion on them.

This isn't a box. I think you have a bias or opinion about these types of arguments, and have leapt to a judgement that isn't there. I will reiterate once again: There is no faith. There is no bible. There is simply logic. You either agree with the stated logic, or you point out the stated logic's flaws. If you can point out its flaws, I will then have something I can discuss with you. Until then, you're just somewhere else Hippy.

No Hippy, you have to demonstrate how your argument applies to my argument. Not just say, "There's no way, we can even talk about anything". Have you heard of a straw man argument? It's where a person constructs an argument that no one is talking about, then attacks that repeatedly while claiming, "See, your argument is wrong!"

So yes, your conclusion is magical. Which was fine for a post or two. But you are not coming into the conversation as I have asked you to, or started your own thread on this separate topic as I have asked you to. You might be right on your separate topic. Post it, I will gladly debate you there. Your insistence on not doing either of those is ego and a lack of respect. Am I mistaken? Are you actually a nice person who got a little carried away, and appreciates the reminder and starts their own thread?

These are the geniuses who think they are clever enough to uncover some previously hidden fact about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims), a realm no one can define in even the most basic manner. — Hippyhead

Again Hippy, you didn't actually read the argument. Coming into my thread, refusing to read the argument, and lambasting everyone who dares to is kind of rude at this point don't you think? I've invited you to start your own separate thread. I've asked you to address the actual topic in your claims, and you haven't done either of those. I've been polite.

The only one playing genius is you. You're telling all of us that we're all full of it, without even entering the debate. You are telling us we should be covering topics you want, because this seems to be all about you doesn't it Hippy? Because you're not seeking to understand or communicate, you're seeking to PREACH. If you want to complain about philosophers, go start a thread complaining about philosophers. But you're off topic and being rude at this point.

Hi Marco. For something to be scientific, it must be "falsifiable". Its a tricky subject, but essentially there needs to be the possibility that a God is false. If a God is false, how do we show that it is false? Then we try to show that.

Basically science tries to disprove everything, and when something just can't be disproved we accept it...for now. So a most rational hypothesis is something that can be very clearly disproved, and tested to see if it can be disproved.

I believe there is an honorable way to die.

If a grenade is thrown into a group of 100 people, including babies and innocent people, one person could throw themselves on that grenade and save everyone else.

One one dies for the preservation of something greater than merely one's selfish aims, one has died an honorable death.

It seems grammatical, and its constituent terms are all meaningful. Intuitively, if I say "That sentence is false", referring to some other sentence P, then I know precisely what that means. If I say "This sentence contains five words" this is perfectly meaningful (and true). So the problem is not self-reference. So if the issue isn't grammar, the meaning of constituent terms or self-reference, why think the sentence isn't meaningful? — Kornelius

If you refer to some other sentence P, then there is the assumption that P can be either true, or false. For it to have that possibility, it must make a claim against reality. If you say, "That sentence is false," and "that" sentence is, "This sentence is false", its still just nonsense.

This sentence is false, does not make any sense. False in what way? Its like me saying, "This true is false". That's a contradiction, and not meaningful in any way.

As a general rule of thumb, if you run into a contradiction, it means you're doing something illogical. I think its easy enough to see that such a sentence is illogical. But feel free to show me otherwise. How can you make such a sentence have actual meaning? How is it not simply saying, "This true is false"?

I don’t think the hope is for harm to the people of these countries, but for the downfall of the oppressive governments that rule them. — Pfhorrest

That is fair. I don't think you can. A country has to want to liberate itself first. That requires a deep seeded belief in people. The only thing keeping America from not becoming a fascist state or a corptocracy is the culture. Due to propoganda, that culture is slowly fading however. 20 years ago, if a president had tried to hinder the post office, both parties would have thrown him out. Not today. I would worry more about preserving our own liberties and culture, then worry about China or Russia.

I don't think we should wish ill on people, just because they're from another country. Honestly, China and Russia are threats through propoganda. The US is ignorant in regards to recognizing propoganda on social media. Of course, a lot of our politician's benefit from this too, so there's not a lot of will to do so.

If we don't educate our populace to handle the new world, we will be open to foreign meddling, no matter the country.

The liars sentence really doesn't work.

If I say, "This sentence is false." What do I mean? That's not even proper English. Its like saying, "This sentence is run" is true. The sentence doesn't convey any truth to begin with so we can't label it true or false. Do something like, "The existence of this sentence is false", and that makes more sense.

The problem isn't truth. Its applying "truth" to something that doesn't make any sense to begin with.

This is just a card game, it has no bearing on reality. Here are the card games rules, let's play the game. — Hippyhead

lol Hippy, you seem insistent to come back to this eh? No. I am not claiming this is simply a card game. While the end result has a flaw, I declare an axiom about first causes, and that there is no other possibility that the universe has at least one first cause.

Think about the logical proof by contradiction. Wait, you don't believe in logic. Are you going to start that thread? =P If you would like me to start a thread, I can. I'll post my theory of knowledge, which will show why logic is necessary if you would like. I don't want to steal your thunder though if you have your own idea you wanted to post.

Cantor justifies my initial infinite to 1 probability. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/

Basically its about ratios of infinite growth. You see, in the example we are taking one universe specifically, and comparing its ratio. There is an infinite ratio of Gods to a 1 universe without a God. Now if we consider it all together, yes, even though the ratio is larger per individual universe without a God, there are still infinite possibilities on both sides. So yes, they are the same size. But, once you draw one, then it is no longer an infinite size we are looking at, but the ratio of possibilities.

Does this entire thread depend upon time having a sequential linear nature, as every day common sense experience typically suggests? — Hippyhead

Yes. The core is about causality, and causality assumes sequential time. You can view causality as a "Prior necessary condition for the current state of a thing". Time would be the way we understand that prior causality.

If Russia were found to be stealing our mailboxes and destroying our mail sorting machines, there wouldn't be a Republican in office who wouldn't declare Russia an enemy. But of course, since its the president of the party, they remain quiet.

And I think that is the nature of enemies. It is about one's self interest without consideration of care about robbing another person's interest. When it is in the interest of Republican's to come out against the president, they will. When it is within their interest to remain quiet, they will.

So in this case, yes, Trump and the Republican's are the enemies of the American people. We still have elections however. We still have Democrats in the office. If you live in a Republican district, you can write your congressman and MAKE it their self-interest to fight the president on this.

It is not that you do not have options to handle enemies. And you can follow those without "recourse or hesitation". Go post on social media. Fight. But it does not have to resort to violence if the underlying systems support non-violent options. Violence is a recourse in America, but its underlying systems leave plenty of bite to non-violent means.

Thanks for another great post TVCL.

It directly tethers the use of reason (which is adherence to logic) to our attempts to seek knowledge. Of course, this alone does not demonstrate that reason is a necessary factor in all possible knowledge, — TVCL

I think a little clarification is needed here. If reason is not a necessary factor in knowledge, how do we separate knowledge from mere belief? We are crafting the definition of knowledge as we go, do you think there is a way to know without reason?

Using the heuristic, we can determine that of the three options (science, religion or both) the one that allows for the maximal set of goals is the most likely to provide us with knowledge of reality because the one that can allow for the maximal set of goals to be pursued is the most applicable to reality. — TVCL

Can you also clarify what you mean by "maximal set of goals"? What if I have a very simple goal in science, but a very complex set of goals in my religion? Further, what about the importance of goals to myself? "What could be a more important goal than serving God?" for example? Finally, what about a person who has many complex goals versus thousands of people who have simple goals, but gain complexity in how they work among themselves? For example, one man wants to discover the truth of the cosmos, but that will make an entire group of people incredibly uncomfortable. Is it a greater maximal set of goals from one man, or the goal among the hundreds of people that each person in the group remain comfortable?

The network of goals that relativism allows to be pursued appears to be extremely small which we can use as a contrast. The network of goals that genuine relativism allows one to pursue is relegated to the ability to define or re-frame things in any way. However, the practising relativist will find that these goals are constrained solipsistically to their own psyche and reasoning abilities alone, and that this "network" does not extend beyond this, instead being contained by external factors - known or unknown. (one may redefine "water" however they like, but this will not allow sand to satiate their thirst). — TVCL

What do you mean by relativism in this case? Do you mean the ability to relatively define one's context, or relatively apply this context to reality? Recall the previous example between "The Bizarre tree" and a "bush". I see the ability to redefine one's definitions as either increasing, or decreasing the complexity in its application to reality. Should we always strive to use definitions that have the most complicated way of applying them to reality? I can still define water in many different ways and still quench my thirst.

Therefore, not only does philosophy become practical, but the practical becomes philosophical. — TVCL

I understand where you are coming from. I have always believed philosophy's goal is to destroy itself. Epistemology is still philosophy because no one has accepted an epistemology that can be quantified, qualified, and used in a useful manner. Once that happens, it will no longer be a part of philosophy, but science.

And I agree with you. I entered philosophy to find the practical, and quickly threw away anything which was "Gandolfian" philosophy. (We can debate how Gandolf would react in a particular situation, but we forget or ignore the fact that Gandolf is fiction).

It also creates the possibility for us to demonstrate that, if two people are seeking the truth and therefore adhere to reason as their initial goal, it must follow that they will necessarily reach the same conclusions, provided that they are exposed to the same information. — TVCL

This is a nice thought, but people do not work this way. If both people have different definitions and goals in the beginning, not to mention different sensing capabilities (blind versus sight) they can both use reason within these definitions and goals, and obtain different conclusions. I think if you can establish a way of obtaining knowledge that is logically sound, then we can determine in the group who has knowledge, and who does not. Knowledge is a tool, and a tool is not something you can't force anyone to use. But, if a tool is useful, sound, and agreed upon by enough people, it can be used to build some wonderful things.

I think you have a fantastic start, and a good overview. When talking about knowledge from the self-subjective viewpoint, I think your ideas have merit. It is when you start bringing other people into the picture, that it starts to become a little muddled, and some inconsistencies and questions start to form. I do not mean this as a slight, this is an incredibly complex and difficult topic, yet I feel this is on a good path.

Please understand the following

1. Given a scientific theory T, a prediction is made, say P. In other words : If T then P = T -> P

2. Observing P is confirmation of theory T

3. If P is not observed i.e. if ~P then by modus tollens ~T.

(1) T -> P
(2) ~P
(3) ~T.....1, 2 Modus Tollens

Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T.

If this isn't clear, I suggest a book on logic. — TheMadFool

First, how about reading and addressing my explanation first? You are talking about things that I am not posting.

I never said those rules were wrong. I stated they can also be scientific, because we can make a hypothesis about them that is falsifiable.

(From my post)

"So, I try.

~Q
~Q -> P
P -> Q
But this is a contradiction

We have a clearly falsifiable statement, but we are not able to show it to be false. Therefore this hypothesis is both sound, and confirmed."
(Post finished)

And you agree right here: "Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T."

So why are you being this way? I'm coming to you as a person who believes in science, and I'm not laughing at your attempts to make reincarnation scientific. I come into your thread, treat you with respect, and you don't bother to return it.

I get it. I made a point that struck a nerve because you realized you might be wrong on what falsification entails. I've been around long enough to know that. But I also invited you to "not be bothered by it, and that I will respect you in your engagement, no matter the end result". I gave you the chance to let go of the immaturity and reengage seriously, but you haven't.

Perhaps you'll be open to mature and serious engagement in other threads, but I'm done in this one. I will be replying to others in this thread, but I think it would be best for both of us if we ignored each others from now on.

For me, whether there is one 'first cause'/'being' (God or other) or many of such wherefrom the universe(s) - (if such a limit actually exists) - has its origin, is of little consequence. The aspects of unity and equilibrium which we observe, are just that. Sure, we can tag all of that with names (God, Life, Energy, Vibration, Universe, Spirit, Consciousness, Nature, Laws of Nature, etc) but they don't become anything more than what they already are (even to us). — BrianW

An understandable way of looking at things. But if I decided to, and classified it as in the argument, does it work?

Can anything compare with the idea of infinite probability? It's like the ultimate cheat code. — BrianW

Heh, yes. And that is the nature of my flaw. I only considered one aspect of infinity, and not any other. The flaw has been posted in post section 3 in detail, and Echarmion nailed it up above in this post section if you want to read it.

Fantastic Escharmon, you nailed it!

But apart from that if we take the big bang as the starting point of our specific universe, and assume that every alteration of the makeup of the big bang results in a different specific universe, that does not constrain the metaphysical antecedents of the big bang in any way. Just like a God does not need a specific makeup to create a specific universe, there is no reason to assume that other possible first causes do. We don't have any convenient words for this, as with God, but let's for example assume that some sort of Aether gives rise to a specific universe in some unkown, metaphysical way. There is no reason to assume that only one specific Aether can give rise to one specific universe. Rather, there might be infinite Aethers that all give rise to the same specific universe. — Echarmion

This is EXACTLY it. Nice job!

Yes, Hume can argue that we cannot determine if causality exists. But if does nothing against the argument because then everything is essentially a first cause.

If causality does not exist, then nothing has a necessary precondition for its being. If this is the case, then everything is essentially a "first cause". Which means that anything could happen at any time, and there are no laws which constrain anything. Meaning it is the same conclusion. It is possible a God could exist.

Hm, I'm still not in agreement over your "physics versus metaphysics" point.

What you do in 5. is to then treat causality as a whole as an X, and ask whether that X has a Y. That, however, is not logical, since you're now stepping outside of causality and into metaphysics. — Echarmion

First, if my intention came off that I was trying to assume the three conclusions were facts, my apologies. This was not the original paper, only a rewrite from memory for the forums. Back when I wrote this, this was the topic at the time in a class. There were three propositions of causality, so I decided to include them. If you can come up with more, feel free, that might invalidate the argument.

Second, I am not stepping out of causality. What I'm doing is saying, "Ok, lets assume that causality is an infinite regress. Is there an inherent contradition, flaw, or something we then must realize if we are to assume this is the answer?

X+2 =3. If I say it could be 1, 2, or 3 for x, I can plug it in, then see if it fits right? That's all I'm doing here. Basically I'm pointing out that the idea that everything that exists has a necessary precondition for its existence is impossible to conclude. The entire set of that existence, is still an existence. And there must be a necessary precondition for that sets existence. But, there isn't.

Of course, I might be wrong. Can you think of a situation in which there is a necessary precondition that everything has a prior necessary precondition for its existence? In the end, I can only think of one. "It simply is." Basically you can't claim that everything has a necessary precondition for its existence as there is no other necessary precondition for that entire set of existence (that is physics, not metaphysics) besides the fact that it is an infinitely looped condition of existence. But again, I'm always eager to see a nut like that cracked, maybe I'm missing something.

For topics such as this, I find it useful to define what definition of free will would be acceptable to you.

Do you define free will as being from causality, or independent of causality?

If it is dependent on causality, then we could in theory, backtrack through that causality and arrive at a moment in which it all starts.

If it is independent of causality, then it means there is no explanation for its being, and its existence is random.

Or is it a combination of causality and randomness?

Whatever you pick, now you must include you. "You" are a combination of many cells, which in turn serve many functions in your brain. You have a certain management capability over portions of your brain. You may find it extremely difficult to choose to stop digesting however. You also must eat, drink, and sleep to live.

So for you, what is the free part? What is "your will"? Define it so that it best fits what you would like out of it, and in a way that is not outright contradictory and your definition will be about as good as anyone else's.

For me personally, I don't think about it much. I suppose it is the freedom to live my life in such a way that is fulfilling to the being that I am. It isn't so much my choices, but the freedom from inhibitions or restraints to make those choices. I don't call this an illusion, but maybe my definition isn't satisfying, or what you are looking for.

Thank you Gnomon, a nice read and contribution. What you are doing is looking at the world today, and building back to its origin. Which honestly, is the only way to reasonably discover what that origin was.

My argument is looking at the possibilities of origin itself, with an attempt to see if there was anything we could logically conclude from it. Yes, the being you describe is one possibllity that could be. I do note that the only way the argument can work on probability is if "We do not know the first cause". But naturally if we worked our way up the chain of causality, we would start to eliminate possibilities as actuals enter into play.

I do admit though, that the conclusions of the argument minus the flaw do lead to a few consequences. One such consequence is that it may very well be impossible to prove a first cause. Since a first cause is not bound by anything but its own existence, we would not know if it was a first cause, or we were simply lacking the information of its prior causality.

But to your assessment, that may be unimportant. The second point the argument does conclude is we have to be very careful in claiming what "necessarily" must have been a first cause. I think the argument actually proves it is impossible to prove any first cause as necessary. But again, I think that is unimportant for your general point.

Yourself and Amen are more interested in they relationship and personal aspect of a God. This enriches your life and adds strength and purpose. A mathmatical God is not necessarily inspiring, or going to improve your life. A wise poster on here once linked me information on Budhism. Budha shunned such questions as, "Why are we here, what formed us, etc.", and noted that such questions are born from another need within human beings such as purpose, freedom from suffering, and peace. He felt that those were the things that should be solved first. If someone had solved those, then still desired to ask the cosmological and ontological questions, then he would oblige. But often time once the true need was solved, people's interests in those questions disappeared.

I thought this very wise.

Very nice follow up BrianW. I wondered if someone would consider multiple first causes! Fantastic!

The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist.
— Philosophim

This statement is the query and its own answer. — BrianW

This is an axiom. All good arguments must start with an axiomatic foundation if we are to take them seriously. It is from this axiom, that I introduce limits and what must occur from those limitations.

We have our universe, and within the chain of causation, the entire set of this universe must have a first cause.

To your point on multiple first causes, isn't it cool?! Think on it for a few minutes and a whole slew of possibilities show up. If it is the case that a first cause has no reason for its existence, then what is to prevent a first cause from showing up at any time? It doesn't have to be grandiose like a God, it could be something as small as a quark, or some basic particle. But you are correct. Without some type of limitation on the argument, it devolves into infinite possibilities. So let me limit it.

It is not that there could not be further first causes in a universe after its "inception". We are looking at our specific universe as it is. And we are looking at the beginning of it all. The "why" to the set of everything that it is in this universe. That first cause to it all, is the study of the argument.

There is one chance that the first cause was something like the big bang. Any deviation after that would be a different universe. But then we can imagine a being that had the power to create our universe. If there is a minimum ability to create our universe, from the big bang identically down beyond, then it is also possible a being could form that had a slightly greater ability to create the universe, and created our exact universe.

Since there is an infinite to one ratio on Gods to no Gods being the first cause of our universe, I conclude the probability of the first cause of the universe being infinite to one.

You say it becomes an endless loop, but how? I've placed limitations, and come up with a restriction that stops any endless loop. And yet I admit it is still flawed. I have a feeling you might get it.

I honestly find them to be useless and outdated words. I have never used them, nor ever had need to use them in constructing a philosophical paper, or argument. I am not saying they did not have a use centuries ago, but when speaking in modern day English with people, I find them unnecessary. Often times people new to philosophy will attempt to use these words to sound like they are making a meaningful statement. I don't hold anything against them, you have to start somewhere after all, and a good place to start is usually using terms that seem to keep popping up.

As you learn and master philosophy, you start to realize the only thing that matters is that you construct your arguments in terms of clear concepts that are unambiguous, easy to understand, and assess. While someone might use the term "metaphysics", you often have to figure out what their intention and interpretation of metaphysics is in the argument. A generic understanding of metaphysics and ontology is fine for orienting yourself as a possible start to the arguments intentions, but that's about all their good for.

I embrace the terror. That might seem strange, but hear me out. I believe the realization of one's mortality is one of the most important steps to personal growth a person can make. I think you realize this.

My afterlife theory is, "What will life be like after I'm gone?" What impact will I have made on the world. Will I die proudly, or with regrets, shame, and "What ifs?"

It is more motivating to me than heaven or hell. And I don't say this as an armchair believer. I say this as a practitioner. Because of my choices, if I died today I could safely say that I had done everything I wanted, and left this world in the life I wanted. Its pretty cool! To me every other afterlife story is about, "Getting something later like we deserve it without effort." "You're so special and awesome, the universe has decided that YOU get to live forever!"

My afterlife theory? You are not any more special than what you make of your life today, and what you leave for others tomorrow. You are not deserving of anything that you do not pursue and obtain in life.

And the best part is, you can start reaping the benefits today!