Koroviev

Not sure what you mean wit the difference between Origin and origin. Santa Clause satisfies an intellect's desire for magic to exist but that does not mean that Santa exists. An interstellar sneeze satisfies the intellect's desire for a sufficient reason for the universe to exist. Yes there absolutely does have to be some origin to the universe, but that does not mean that origin had to be a being. It does not mean it had to be on purpose, it does not mean that if it was a being that being ever had or continues to have any concern for the universe whatsoever. All that it means is that it has some origin. Thus we have to assume that that origin is consistent with the principles we know are not contradicted or contradict-able until there is sufficient proof otherwise.

Everything that cannot be proven is not true unless it is in the category of creator then it refers to god? But there's no proof for god and no fundamental difference between god and anything else that cannot be proven except that god is in the creator category. All of this being said, we can go back to your original statement, which was that you are arguing principles and everyone you argue with is arguing their beliefs. A principle, as I think most people here understand it, is a fundamental truth. It is the job of philosophy, and science and math, to apply those principles to reality. This is how Gauss came up with his squared cube. He knew there was a principle of squares so he applied it to places others had not. As well as how scientists come up with, and disprove theories, and how we can all know whether or not something is true. A belief is when you have an exception to something that is true without proof that exception does exist, especially when that exception cannot exist.

That is completely fine. There absolutely can be "special cases." However, if there is a special case you have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, I can use the same logic you used to say that Santa Clause is a special case, as are leprechauns, and unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster, all of which are just as likely to be "special cases" as any of the gods.

I don't know what you mean by "Truth." As we agreed to above we know something is true because it is logically consistent and empirically supported. Thus that which is not logically consistent and not empirically supported is not true, or does not exist. This does not mean we know everything, or even that we could ever know everything, whatever that even means. What it does mean is that that which is not logically consistent and cannot be empirically supported cannot exist. We can also say that even if there are things that we cannot understand because they have no impact on our reality are no different from not existing because they cannot be empirically supported (and usually they aren't logically consistent either).

Are you saying that there are things that are not logically consistent, keeping in mind that things can be counter-intuitive but still logically consistent, and not supported empirically that we could potentially know and that has an effect on our reality?

Thank you, this is the absolute and fundamental key. That which is real, that which exists, and that which is true must be able to be proven through tests of consistency and repeatability. Outside of that is unknowable and has no bearing on us.

You will probably be interested in this movie. They've just started screenings of it, more to come soon. http://killinged.com/ They touch on this in the movie but in the mean time check out the link between charter schools and fethullah gulen. Lots of politicians getting lots of money from him and taking lots of trips to turkey... The reality of the situation is that NO ONE Is going to care about your childrens' education as much as you (I hope that doesn't sound like "we don't care" because that's not what I mean ). Homeschooling is likely to be your best bet. If there is absolutely no way to do that then there are some pretty decent alternative schools out there. No matter what you choose it has to be (at least) supplemented by at home learning. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45323-school-teachers-who-just-show-up-for-the-paycheck/

No, as far as I know materialists do not say that concepts are material, I suppose I could be wrong there in which case I'd be having this same discussion with them. So, how is Leibniz' Monadology different from Plato's higher forms? Both say that there is this "place" where the perfect forms of everything "exist" that we can know nothing about, except that it contains the perfect forms of all things. Both say that as soon as things come into being they become imperfect. Both were determinists. Yet there is no possible way that anyone could ever know if this other realm actually exists. This brings us back to the issue of contradictions between what's in the mind and what's in reality. When those contradictions arise one side must defer. Either what is outside of the mind is true or what is inside the mind is true. If what is inside the mind is true then last night I really was riding on a Jamaican humpback whale through space. if what is outside the mind is true then it must be rationally consistent and empirically supported. It is just as likely that there is a realm of perfect forms, as there is a realm of imperfect forms, as there is a realm of opposite forms, as there is of plant forms, and god forms, and dog forms. If we can't know anything about them how can we possibly say that they do exist, or that one is any more ludicrous than the other. On top of that, who's to say what is perfect?? Is the same chair perfect for both me and the 500 pound guy sitting in his mom's basement? what does it even mean to be a perfect rock? Is there a perfect human? is it a man or a woman? Or is it all arbitrary because there is no way to say one way or the other so you can make up whatever rules you want? Are you really saying that none of this is an issue with this theory?

Don't you think that saying everything is a principle is a bit broad?

By this definition aren't I a principle? I am a substance that causes events to exist, and can cause such an event. As is my wife, my dog, and everything including things like rocks (if a rock falls and hits another rock it has caused an even to exist). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by logic is un-creative since logic is a concept and concepts cannot be creative. People can be creative. To use logic you have to be creative. But to say logic is un-creative is like saying a rock is un-creative. As far as your question about rational consistency and empirical support goes I do not have enough information to answer this yet. According to the common definition of a principle then they are separate principles (although I'm not sure what relevance this has). However according to your definition of principle they are neither, but the square principle is not a principle either since none of them are substances that causes events to exist or could cause an even to exits. Instead they are all simply concepts.

So, no rational consistency and empirical support is not a principle? What is your definition of a principle?

But how do we get the principles if not through sense data. Also, is rational consistency and empirically supported a principle or not?

So you are saying that when there is a contradiction between what is in the mind and what is in reality (what is material) what is in the mind always wins? Or is it that we as humans cannot know anything?

I'm not sure why this matters or is relevant Yes the principle of squaring is a principle The principle of squaring is ONLY a principle because it is rationally consistent and empirically supported. Yes, if when Gauss squared a cube it was a living breathing giraffe every time he would come to the same conclusions, but if it was both a cube and a giraffe and a whale and a rock, or if it sometimes turned into a rock and sometimes turned into an airplane it would cease to be either rationally consistent or empirically supported respectively. Thus something can only be a principle if it is rationally consistent and empirically supported. This makes rational consistency and empirically supported the very first principle. Without rationality Gauss could not have gotten to the conclusions he did, and he was proven correct because he (and everyone else) got the same conclusions every time they did the math. So are you saying that everyone you have discussions with is not using rationality and empirical evidence which is why these conversations never get anywhere, or maybe you have a different definition of principle? Or is there something else I'm missing?

Ok, I finally had time to make it through that article and thanks it's a pretty cool and interesting lesson on math history. My question relating it back to this follows. If when you doubled a cube it turned into a living breathing giraffe would Gauss have come to the same conclusion?

Thanks you bring up some really good and really powerful points I think. I definitely see where you're coming from and I think you're absolutely right. It's really not guilt because there's not any empathy (otherwise it wouldn't have been done in the first place). now that I think about it it's more fear than anything else. Fear of what would happen if other people found out, fear of consequences, fear of hell. Not enough fear though to stop the actions all together. At least in your situation you know it is a hormonal issue and can realize and understand that and attempt to fix it. For my dad, well not so much.

Right, and as I understand it, at least in this context, a principle is a fundamental truth. Briefly looked at that link and it seems a bit over my head but I should have some time tomorrow to dig more into it.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. You are open to arguments from the view that fundamental truths, or gods cast their shadows into our minds? So..no? you're only open to arguments that are based around god? Also, is the idea that we cannot understand anything but what a god would allow us to understand, i.e. the shadow that a god would cast onto our minds? Again not sure where this is coming from or what it even means? God is also the basis for creativity and political freedom? your arguments are based on god and everyone else is just debating their beliefs which don't have associated fundamental truths? Wouldn't the fundamental truths that everyone you are arguing against be basing their "beliefs" on be that violence is immoral, and you can only know something exists or is true if it is rationally consistent and empirically supported? again not criticizing just trying to understand. That definitely goes along with it nicely, I'd never heard that before. I wasn't, however, necessarily looking at it from the stand point of I can get away with whatever I want because I can just ask for forgiveness on Sunday (premeditation?), but more of they feel bad about the things they've done up until they ask for forgiveness. More along the lines of "I've made a mistake" religion seems to give you an out without actually having to make amends with those you've wronged.

Donnadogsoth, I have a question. Have you given even the slightest consideration that you may be wrong? I mean good on you for sticking to your beliefs, and props to Will for sticking with the conversations, but they never seem to get anywhere, and it tends to be because you refuse to budge no matter what arguments or evidence are given. If you haven't given any consideration that you may be wrong, doesn't that mean you're blindly following your beliefs which kind of goes against the whole point of this community? One of the first rules of philosophy, and critical thinking, is that you give extra consideration to the arguments that go against what you think to be true to try and make up for any confirmation bias or blind spots all of us have. I mean if you're not going to be open to arguments that's fine, you're free to do what you want, but it's not ok to pretend to be open while refusing to be open at all. Simply because this is the internet and I can see this coming up, this is in no way trying to say that we are right and you are wrong simply curious as to how you are approaching this and other conversations like it.

Side note: this wasn't arguing that pirating media was moral, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of how the exact same thing is considered both moral and immoral by the same people. If I was to make that argument it would be more along the lines of: If I purchase something don't I own it and therefore have the right to use it how I please. If people really had any understanding of value for value anymore then producers of media would be encouraging people to "pirate" their media since in the end it's gaining them a wider audience an therefor they have a larger pool of people who would be willing to return the value they provided. It is easier to make sharing your media illegal/immoral than it is to produce content from which people get a lot of value. I think they went back and forth on this but I'd thought they settled on "steal a car" since as WorBlux said if it was as easy as a download everyone would do it

True, them and the government. Unfortunately, they're the ones that make it an issue.

I was just thinking about how funny it was that pirating, or "sharing," music/media is considered evil and immoral. Whereas socialism and taxation are considered the epitome of morality. One person buying something and voluntarily sharing it with others = immoral and evil One person working hard and having their money involuntarily taken from them = moral and good

How/why does the government own the land?

<rant> I was reading through some of the posts from this morning when it really started to hit me just how much of a coping mechanism religion is. If you think about it because of religion you can get away with anything, up to and including murder, whether you've actually made amends with the party you've actually wronged or not. As long as you apologize to Jesus he will forgive you no matter who else you've actually wronged. This is especially true for parents. For me personally my dad did a lot of really awful and stupid things when I was growing up, but all he had to do was go to church the next Sunday, put on a good face, eat some bread, drink some wine, and all was forgiven and forgotten. Not only that but he was magically transformed into a moral person, and if we disagreed or didn't want to go to church and give thanks for all of the "great things" we were given when an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being was allowing these things to happen, we were immoral. On top of all of that if anyone even hinted at anything being wrong we were automatically punished and threatened with everlasting hell-fires because they had been forgiven for their sins, and "if Jesus could forgive the whole world for their sins we could forgive one person for their mistakes." I mean what kind of screwed up system gives the immoral people rewards and piece of mind while at the same time punishing those who have been wronged. As long as you give yourself to Jesus all of your sins will be forgiven. </rant>

I keep forgetting that I want to post this so finally here it is the Zen TV Experiment. One of the other podcasts I listen to bring it up about once a year just as a reminder and I don't think it's gotten out enough. I highly recommend trying the experiment for yourself rather than just reading through the material I will warn you though it may make you not want to watch TV. http://www.spack.org/words/zentv.html I'd love to hear your thoughts.