Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Will Bouwman]

So before God created the universe, what not-god existed without which God would have been nothing?

Time to study Trinitarian Theology, Will.

So which one was the not-god?

...the problem is that not all epistemological strategies are equal. For example, if one presuppositionally insists that none of the relevant evidence from things like mind, consciousness, rationality, identity, experience, morality, and so on is allowed to count...

Anyone who manifestly ignores any relevant evidence is not taken seriously as a philosopher. That you can't understand how exactly the same evidence, which we are all familiar with, can be interpreted by physicalists, idealists and dualists is your weakness, not anyone else's. What everyone agrees on is that phenomena exist. If you can prove anything follows from that, you will make philosophical history and I will be happy to concede that you really are as clever as you think you are.

[bahman]

...think of a change in a substance (by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties that define the formation of the substance) like a falling apple.

Is falling part of a falling apple's substance in your view?

What do you mean? An apple is a substance so its parts like electrons and the like.

[Immanuel Can]

So before God created the universe, what not-god existed without which God would have been nothing?

Time to study Trinitarian Theology, Will.

So which one was the not-god?

Um...I'm drawn to sarcasm here, but I'm going to refrain. I'll say instead there's something about Trinitarianism you've simply obviously missed. But I think you need at least a basic familiarity with the concept before any elucidation is possible, so I'll leave it to your option whether or not you decide to find out why the question doesn't make sense.

...the problem is that not all epistemological strategies are equal. For example, if one presuppositionally insists that none of the relevant evidence from things like mind, consciousness, rationality, identity, experience, morality, and so on is allowed to count...

Anyone who manifestly ignores any relevant evidence is not taken seriously as a philosopher.

If that were true, there would be neither Physicalists nor Idealists. They're both presuppositional positions, not empirical ones. Both rule out the contrary evidence by fiat, before the conversation is even allowed to begin.

And really, they're both self-defeating, but in different ways. Idealism is analytically self-contradictory, and Physicalism relies on the very faculties it denies have any reality in order to make any assertion at all.

[Will Bouwman]

Time to study Trinitarian Theology, Will.

So which one was the not-god?

Um...I'm drawn to sarcasm here, but I'm going to refrain. I'll say instead there's something about Trinitarianism you've simply obviously missed. But I think you need at least a basic familiarity with the concept before any elucidation is possible...

I feel much the same about you and western philosophy. Given my efforts to furnish you with the basic familiarity you clearly lack, it seems a bit mean spirited for you not to return the favour.

...so I'll leave it to your option whether or not you decide to find out why the question doesn't make sense.

I'm guessing it's because what you call "Trinitarian theology" is a specific, but definitely not Catholic, interpretation of the Catholic trinity, itself an expression of much older efforts to understand the origin of the universe and it's apparent division into matter and set animating principle, father, son and holy ghost, but refined through lens of a particular Christian mythology, by people whose work you happen to like, who wrote decades, if not centuries after the otherwise unrecorded events the story is supposed to recount. Feel free to correct me, and if the urge for sarcasm reappears, don't refrain on my account.

...there would be neither Physicalists nor Idealists. They're both presuppositional positions, not empirical ones.

Why's that then? Do you understand what empirical means?

Both rule out the contrary evidence by fiat, before the conversation is even allowed to begin.

Well, this is the crux of your misunderstanding. What empirical evidence does either rule out?

[Immanuel Can]

...it seems a bit mean spirited for you not to return the favour.

I'm happy to do you the favour you did me, by pointing you to a book. But I doubt you'll see that as a favour if you're not actually interested in the subject.

So, no, nothing "mean-spirited." Something quite equitable, instead. If you ever decide to consider the subject, a very approachable little book that would give you the basics might be Reeves's "Delighting in the Trinity."

Better?

...there would be neither Physicalists nor Idealists. They're both presuppositional positions, not empirical ones.

Why's that then? Do you understand what empirical means?

Of course. It refers to the disciplined study of observation and experience, and specifically, it usually alludes to science. Neither Physicalism nor Idealism has it going for them. Both are based on the presuppositional denial of observation and experience in certain areas: Physicalism, to anything in reality that is non-physical, including human experiences like mind, cognitions, reason, identity, morality and so forth; and Idealism, to reality in total as any reliable subject...unless the Idealist wants to become a dualist and not quite an Idealist, and admit that the external world is at least somewhat reliable and can be used for the drawing of experiences and observations.

[Will Bouwman]

...it seems a bit mean spirited for you not to return the favour.

I'm happy to do you the favour you did me, by pointing you to a book.

Well, the favour I have done is to give you the benefit of my experience and knowledge. It is that I thought you might return. If it is recommendations you are after, should you be interested in western philosophy, mine would be to take a course; I'm afraid no single book will cover it.

...there would be neither Physicalists nor Idealists. They're both presuppositional positions, not empirical ones.

Why's that then? Do you understand what empirical means?

Of course. It refers to the disciplined study of observation and experience, and specifically, it usually alludes to science.

Since presupposition clearly concerns you, be aware that 'observation' presupposes something being observed. In the context of philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological position that, in essence, takes Descartes's dictum that only experience is definitely real and runs with it. Empiricists can be physicalists or idealists, the difference is that physicalists attribute the experiences everyone agrees exist to physical sources, while idealists do so to mental sources.

Neither Physicalism nor Idealism has it going for them. Both are based on the presuppositional denial of observation and experience in certain areas: Physicalism, to anything in reality that is non-physical, including human experiences like mind, cognitions, reason, identity, morality and so forth; and Idealism, to reality in total as any reliable subject...

It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it will never be true. I don't know of any physicalists nor idealists who deny any sort of experience. If you do, then you should cite them, rather than make assertions based on your own presuppositions.

...unless the Idealist wants to become a dualist and not quite an Idealist, and admit that the external world is at least somewhat reliable and can be used for the drawing of experiences and observations.

As I keep saying, anyone is free to take any position they want; there are many ways to interpret exactly the same experiences.

[Immanuel Can]

...it seems a bit mean spirited for you not to return the favour.

I'm happy to do you the favour you did me, by pointing you to a book.

Well, the favour I have done is to give you the benefit of my experience and knowledge. It is that I thought you might return.

I would have had to have written my own book on the Trinity in order to offer you exactly the same. I haven't so I've done what I can, under the circumstances.

Since presupposition clearly concerns you, be aware that 'observation' presupposes something being observed.

Of course. And Idealism has to presuppose that there are no authentic "observations."

physicalists attribute the experiences everyone agrees exist to physical sources,

Which begs the key question: is Physicalism true? Physicalism assumes its own truth, in order to get itself off the ground, and thereafter has to assume as well that physical things explain all phenomena, including all mental and cognitive ones. But it's 100% assumption, and not at all a matter of observation and demonstration.

I don't know of any physicalists nor idealists who deny any sort of experience.

Then, I suppose, you don't know any Physicalists or Idealists who really believe what they say, and live as if they believe it. And in that, my observations accord with yours. I find, as you do, that they aren't rationally consistent. One can't possibly live as either...and so they do not.

But that doesn't seem a stroke in favour of their ideology, does it?

[Will Bouwman]

Idealism has to presuppose that there are no authentic "observations."

That is not true. Idealism does not insist that there are no objects to observe. In some versions the substance of external objects, which are perfectly 'real', is mental, not material.

physicalists attribute the experiences everyone agrees exist to physical sources,

Which begs the key question: is Physicalism true? Physicalism assumes its own truth...

All isms are based on axioms which are assumed for the purpose of the argument. As I keep saying, philosophy is fundamentally story telling, and any philosopher worth reading understands that. The people who insist their stories are the truth haven't grasped this.

I don't know of any physicalists nor idealists who deny any sort of experience.

Then, I suppose, you don't know any Physicalists or Idealists who really believe what they say, and live as if they believe it. And in that, my observations accord with yours. I find, as you do, that they aren't rationally consistent. One can't possibly live as either...and so they do not.

If you had the basic tools, you could try to prove that Berkeley, for instance, could not live rationally according to his beliefs, but you would fail.

[Immanuel Can]

Idealism does not insist that there are no objects to observe.

If "objects" are only "mental," then there's no "observing" them. One can only "observe" one's own ideation, which means one's ideas are not being dictated or disciplined by any reality.

physicalists attribute the experiences everyone agrees exist to physical sources,

Which begs the key question: is Physicalism true? Physicalism assumes its own truth...

All isms are based on axioms which are assumed for the purpose of the argument.

Physicalism is assuming its own conclusion, not making any "argument" for it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All isms are based on axioms which are assumed for the purpose of the argument.

Physicalism is assuming its own conclusion, not making any "argument" for it.

No?
With reference to scientific antirealism;
what is physical [conclusion from argument] is because the human-based science-physics framework and system comprising a collective-of-subject in intersubjective consensus said so as based on its constitution upon human observations and empirical evidences.

Physicalism in the above sense do not assume its own conclusion, but arrive at its conclusion based on human derived empirical evidence.
Whatever the conclusion, it is contingent to the human conditions.

On the other hand, theism assumes its own conclusion.

1. God exists. [based on faith]
2. The universe exists because God created it.
3. Therefore, God exists because the universe exists.

[Immanuel Can]

what is physical [conclusion from argument] is because the human-based science-physics framework and system comprising a collective-of-subject in intersubjective consensus said so as based on its constitution upon human observations and empirical evidences.

Word salad.

Are you Kamala?

[Veritas Aequitas]

what is physical [conclusion from argument] is because the human-based science-physics framework and system comprising a collective-of-subject in intersubjective consensus said so as based on its constitution upon human observations and empirical evidences.

Word salad.

Are you Kamala?

It is obvious when a senile [like you] hears of any knowledge, that is word salad to him.
Are you Biden?

That is why the most you can do is to believe in a fictitious God based on blind faith to save your fictitious soul.

[Immanuel Can]

what is physical [conclusion from argument] is because the human-based science-physics framework and system comprising a collective-of-subject in intersubjective consensus said so as based on its constitution upon human observations and empirical evidences.

Word salad.

It is obvious when a senile [like you] hears of any knowledge, that is word salad to him.

Look at your sentence above. It makes no sense. Nobody can understand it. It's not only composed of jargon, but the grammar doesn't add up to a coherent thought.

"Physical" doesn't mean "conclusion from argument," (which seems itself to be a phrase lacking an "an"). What is "human-based science," since ALL science is "human-based," by nature of the case. What is "science-physics framework and system"? What's does "collective-of-subject" mean, and what's it got to do with "intersubjective consensus"?....You get the problem.

That's what makes it a "word salad." It's just babble, as written.

[Will Bouwman]

Idealism does not insist that there are no objects to observe.

If "objects" are only "mental," then there's no "observing" them. One can only "observe" one's own ideation, which means one's ideas are not being dictated or discipliined by any reality.

Well, since you have never formally studied philosophy, perhaps it is too much to expect that you understand the basic principles and concepts. Idealism, like all ideas, has many variations. Yours is just one and it would be a woefully uneducated mistake to assume it is the only one.
Here is just one alternative: some idealists think that the fundamental substance, basically 'stuff', that the universe is made of is mental. Sounds crazy? Well, what are fundamental particles made of? Or put it in a context you might be more comfortable with: what did God create that became quarks, the nuclei they constitute, and the electrons that orbit nuclei making atoms that are the building blocks of everything tangible in creation?
If any version of the big bang is true, then it is very difficult to conceive how fundamental particles could be 'physical' in a way that includes 'solid'. Quantum field theory is one mainstream response among physicists that describes a universe without fundamental solidity. Generally physicists stay clear of attributing anything to particles but measurable qualities: mass, charge, spin and whatnot; the question of what quantum fields are made of isn't how they spend their working day.

Which begs the key question: is Physicalism true? Physicalism assumes its own truth...

All isms are based on axioms which are assumed for the purpose of the argument.

Physicalism is assuming its own conclusion, not making any "argument" for it.

That's just hopeless comprehension. Either that or you don't know what axiom means. Again: idealism, dualism and physicalism are all explanations for the same experiences we are all familiar with. None of them are conclusions, they are axioms, assumptions if you rather, from which arguments are built. True, some people argue to those axioms, but no one so far with real success.
In the unlikely event that you follow my recommendation and actually study philosophy, you would discover that, by and large, everyone who goes through the process learns a bit of intellectual humility and understands that shooting your mouth off and pretending to know stuff you don't, makes you look like an idiot.

[Will Bouwman]

All isms are based on axioms which are assumed for the purpose of the argument.

Physicalism is assuming its own conclusion, not making any "argument" for it.

No?
With reference to scientific antirealism;
what is physical [conclusion from argument] is because the human-based science-physics framework and system comprising a collective-of-subject in intersubjective consensus said so as based on its constitution upon human observations and empirical evidences.

Well yeah, but there are many different frameworks.

Physicalism in the above sense do not assume its own conclusion, but arrive at its conclusion based on human derived empirical evidence.

Yep. The same empirical evidence by which idealists and dualists arrive at their conclusions.

On the other hand, theism assumes its own conclusion.

Nah. It's just another response to the same data, just with extra torture for unbelievers.