zurew

Everyone can project whatever meaning they want on the Bible depending on what beliefs and biases they have. In this case, one can project nonduality on it and pretend that the authors of the Bible were writing about nonduality and God realization. I don't know why the exact same thing couldn't be said about any other random text and why the Bible should be treated special. If I try hard enough, I can redefine enough things so that I can say that the founding fathers were actually talking about nonduality and they were trying to teach about God realization. To me, this move seems like a desperate attempt to try to maintain a Christian identity while also trying to be "spiritual" at the same time.

Gandalf is good enough for me

I don't see how any of those are good arguments for God and I don't see how those are pointing to God. Because the chance that an all powerful God would create physics this particular way , with these entailments from the infinite set of other possibilites is also extremely slim. Why would he prefer life over no life? And after answering that, even assuming that he preferes life, does he have the capacity to create life that can bear any state of affairs? If yes, then this is simply not a good argument for God ,because he could have made us in a way where we could be chilling in the middle of the Sun and have no issue existing and surviving. I don't see how thats the case. Miracles could be explained by a large set of other things as well. For example other beings using advanced tech or under the assmuption that it is not advanced tech , there could be an infinite number of beings that could hypothetically perform miracles without being all knowing, all powerful etc. God is simply not necessary to explain miracles.

These guys are really confused and beyond dishonest. Creating a hypothesis is not the same as affirming the consequent. A hypothesis is not meant to be deductive reasoning or a production of a definite proof. A hypothesis (usually) makes a specific prediction and if that prediction turns out to be true, then the validity of that hypothesis is elevated. They label inductive and abductive reasoning as "fallacious" which is stupid (especially given that they brought up court and given their epistemology , the implication is that unless you can show with deductive reasoning that a person is innocent or guilty you should just drop all cases and you shouldn't even bother coming up with an explanation) but the funny thing is that their positive claims are also based on non-deductive reasoning. "Ohh, im not sure whether we could ever really establish cause and effect and im not sure whether we could ever isolate the relevant variables or not, but look (insert advertisement around 1 hour 5 minutes) - the government and the big pharma are definitely bad and here is my buddy who created this supplement which is definitely good and it helps you to recover from all the bad effects that were definitely caused by the big bad government."

That sounds like that you are using a completely different definition of observation compared to how not just most people, but how a good chunk of philosophers use those terms. Which is all fine, but substantially your claims and arguments in that case are not impressive at all, because they can be boiled down to a set of trivially true statements that all philosophers can agree with.

In order for some being to have knowledge that being has to exist, but thats different from saying in order to know x , you have to observe x. Do you claim the latter one as well? Because, then my question would be, what about simply reasoning and applying rules of inference (and discovering logical entailments of a given claim) and deriving conclusions that way? In other words - do you deny apriori knowledge altogether?

I don't see why that is. You're assuming that necessity has to be defined negatively by disproving it not being the case. I dont assume that it is has to be defined that way, I dont take definitions to be objective, its just that necessity typically used the way I said. All these terms are related to modal language and necessity can be related to different modalities and the most common modalities are logical, physical, metaphysical. You can say that by necessity you mean "it is unavoidable" , but the meaning of that term is going to be unclear. And yes, you can prove necessity, if necessity is used the way I outlined

Saying that x is necessary (x exists in all possible worlds) means that x not existing entails a contradiction. Which is why I said - in order for you to show God is necessary you would have to show the contradiction. I dont know how else you would want to establish that something is necessary. I dont know what you mean by absolute infinity, but if its something like modal realism where all possible worlds exist, then no - I dont see why would modal realism has to be true - but even aside from that , if that is taken to be true that would lead to modal collapse

@AtmanIsBrahman its a bad argument, unless you can show the contradiction in saying God doesnt exist (because the word 'necessary' relates to logical necessity) Everyone will agree that if a necessary being exists then it exists in all possible worlds, but other than just assigning the property of necessity to God, for this to be substantial you would have to establish why God has that property. Merely baking in necessity in the definition wont do much. Most of the arguments for God are trash, and even the ones that go through, they dont conclude the existence of God, they conclude something else (like the Universe has a cause, which is btw controversial). And as a sidepoint - most arguments use a different definition of God compared to how Leo uses that word ,therefore these arguments are actually concluding something substantially different than what most people on this forum would try to argue for

You can have ADHD and not do this. You can also be a horny motherfucker and still not do this. "Im just a coomer" isnt gonna be enough here. Especially given that it seems now that he doesnt even think that it was wrong what he did because he frames it as "implied consent" which is wild. Whats funny is that using his logic (even assuming that pxie actually shared her bf's stuff without consent) if someone sharing nudes without consent means that he/she automatically consents to his/her nudes being shared without asking for their consent, then Destiny shouldnt have an issue with the hacker leaking his shit, because Destiny has done the exact same shit in the past with pxie, melina

Yeah I agree - If she actually shared his shit without his consent, then it is really a giant clusterfuck and her reputation should be highly damaged (and if he thinks he can win a case against her, then he should go for it)

Implied consent is such a wild thing in the context of what he did. I don't know why he thinks that its a reasonable thing to invoke. Even if he could prove (which to my knowledge he couldn't) that Pxie shared that video without her bf's consent, that still wouldn't make what he did better - it would only establish that Pxie is a piece of shit as well.

Sometimes though the math is compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysics and the issue comes when you try to use / try to pretend that the facts about special relativity and quantum mechanics is somehow evidence that your preferred metaphysics is true. I think thats one way to cirtique Leo , because he would either need to show why the facts about quantum mechanics and special relativity can't be comaptible with a different metaphyiscs or he would need to show some explanatory virtue or virtues that he thinks his metaphyiscs is better on compared to other metaphysical theories. Ideally , if we would have the power to do so - we would write a perfect algorithm for any given problem or question, but thats not how life works most of the time (ill-defined problems, lack of knowledge etc), so we use heruistics and shortcuts ,but ideally we would algorithmize it (there are physical computational limits, but I don't see a logical issue - like I don't see why in principle we couldn't formalize all of our problems and then write an algorithm for it). Although we have to be careful with intuitions, because they can also be misleading or even if they are true, they can be used as conclusions, but often times the implications that are derived from a given conclusion can also be false (just like you said with the problem of misinterpretation).

There are multiple different things not just solipsism that seem to be close to impossible to prove or to disprove (if those terms like 'prove' and 'disprove' are defined in an inferential sense) . If you only care about inferential justification, then you should probably stay agnostic about a big set of metaphysical claims (including whether solipsism is true or false) But if you are okay with non-inferential justification or if you don't care about inferential justification, then there might be ways to get around it . Direct experience could be potentially categorized under "non-inferential justification" , but I personally still have issues with how the term 'direct experience' is used, because it seem to be used in a vague way and sometimes people seem to be using the term in different ways (because one person can claim that direct experience "proves" that solipsism is true and another can say that direct experience proves/tells you that a completely different metaphysics is true).

No not necessarily, because under my semantics, explanations doesn't have to have an explanation. There is a difference between saying X explains choice Y vs choice Y doesn't have any explanation at all. But to be more precise, I can put it this way - running back the exact same scenario multiple times (same circumstance, same environment, same preferences etc), where you are presented with the exact same options, do you have the ability to choose a different option ? if yes, then I would categorize that as free will.