Relativist

Directly: The people involved with collection of the information, including informants in other countries and the agents who collected it. Indirectly:...

How does being elected confer the moral right to expose national security and put lives at risk? Why did you ignore everything else I said?

So you're agreeing with his statement, "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the la...

Your "key fact" (taken from Trump's talking points) is a red herring, and it's moot because: 1. Trump's own words clearly indicate that the "war plan"...

Some great people have risen out of harsh conditions of oppression and poverty. By combating these ills of society, we rob society of the great people...

If only these guys could persuade elected politicians to confront the evidence. The majority are ignoring the evidence and reciting the false mantra o...

Case in point: you bought the false narrative: Declassification Power Absolution/Hillary/Witch Hunt/Russia Hoax. Hillary didn't get preferential treat...

I'll address this. His most egregious moral failure is to manipulate his followers into believing his false narrative (e.g. he did nothing wrong, he c...

I notice that the bribe allegation is tied to the firing of Shokin, the prosecutor general that Biden got fired at the behest of the EU and Ukranian a...

I'm not trying to change your mind about materialism. I was just pointing out that it didn't stop with Nrwton.

Are you unfamiliar with the late David M. Armstrong? He was a materialist metaphysician, and who's metaphysics is still widely discussed in the litera...

You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this i...

I propose defining "God" in a minimalist way as the entity that is ostensibly entailed by one or more deistic arguments. E.g. The Kalam Cosmological A...

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people claim there is (or isn't) "evidence" that God exists. It leads to unproductive discusions. Most generally, ev...

I approach it similarly to the way Alven Plantinga argues for the rationality of theism. Demonstrating rationality is distinct from proving something ...

So you embrace it, which means you can defend it.So: 1) what's the relevance of getting more votes than prior sitting Presidents when his opponent got...

I'm curious if you see anything wrong with this statement of Trump's. I count 7 things.

We perceive order, and infer laws of nature that account for it. So I agree our perception of order is a critical step in our understanding of nature,...

It seems superfluous to try and construe order as an intrinsic property, because laws of nature fully account for the perceived order.

There's nothing wrong with threatening mass protest if there's a defensible reason for that mass protest. However, making knowably false assertions ab...

It seems to me, the reason we can sometimes perceive order is because the laws of nature result in patterns and order. Conceivably, there are laws of ...

The "who designed the designer" question arises from the premise that complex organization is best explained by a designer. The design argument goes s...

About a year ago, Trump actually said: " I’ve been investigated by the Democrats more than Billy the Kid, Jesse James, and Al Capone, combined.”

I'm sympathetic to some of this. Based on the publicly available information, I don't think a felony charge is warranted. However, while everyday crim...

Yep. And we should remember that when he was running for President in 2016, he promised he'd negotiate a better deal with Iran, "A Trump presidency wi...

The Trump team has asserted the Constitution imbues a President with absolute control over document classification. If prosecution came down to this, ...

That sounds more like post hoc rationalization than hypothesis testing.

It's not a testable hypothesis, and it's not even entailed by accepted physics - so no, it's not Science.

It's not a testable hypothesis, so explain what you mean.

Here's the thing: even if she actually did it for corrupt reasons, it's impossible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it shou...

It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. An...

I prefer not to go there, because it feeds the Trumpian narrative that judge's are either biased for, or against him. The (bad) decision is explainabl...

I agree. Even if there is relevance to the documents, they need to compare the associated delay of a Master's review with the alternative delay of the...

Yep. The argument appeals to those who believe there must be a reason for our existing. i.e.those who don't like the idea that we're accidents.They ov...

IMO, information leaked to the press should always be taken with a grain of salt, treated more as an allegation than a fact. That said, the latest all...

You must be unfamiliar with the facts. Trump has been treated better than anyone else would possibly be treated. For starters, he violated the Preside...

I agree there's a near certainty that tax fraud was committed, but it remains to be seen if a sufficiently strong case can be made against Trump, spec...

The Fermi paradox depends on the questionable premise that the development of technologically advanced intelligent life is inevitable. I see no reason...

I haven't read every post, but the posts I read seem due to a lack of understanding of modal logic. I explained the problem in my first post.

When I said it makes no sense, I wasn't indicating it was invalid. It's just that the argument is vacuous, so I see no sense in posting it on a philos...

The part in bold makes no sense. (a) is the premise "Jane believes with justification that John is a bachelor". A premise is treated as true, so why m...

Both are invalid. The language is misleading because there are two different modalities within the argument: epistemic and metaphysical. I think this ...

OK, let's play the whataboutism game. The Clinton's returned, or paid for, what they took from the White House after it became an issue, and there wer...

Premises 1 and 2 reflect your beliefs Premise 3 is a statement of fact that is independent of your beliefs This makes your conclusion (as written) a b...

Are you under the impression that that when objects are taken in a search warrant, law enforcement operates with perfection regarding what they seize?...

My inclination is to take the identity of indiscernibles seriously, which entails an absolute identity. You are not identical the "you" of 10 years ag...

Sadly perhaps, philosophy often involves considering the implications of concepts that nothing to do with the real world.

As the argument is written, the modality of the statements is a bit confusing. I think some people are confusing epistemic possibility ("AFAIK I could...

No. That's because Premise 8 states: ?p: Kp Which means there is knowledge of p (knowledge = a belief that is true). Consider Schroedinger's cat. You ...

My analysis of what? Of the argument? Premise 8 asserts someone is omniscient, and this contradicts no other premise. Aside from the argument, I'd say...