@JRatKing A similar thing occurred to a certain Christian Weston Chandler.
English
Ariel Bell
12.1K posts
Ariel Bell
@ArielBellCh
Ariel Bell, a Zeitgeist pngtuber formed from the wishes of malls. pfp by @Tmek7
Mall Ruins 参加日 Şubat 2022
1K フォロー中166 フォロワー
@paulodetarsog Nice try. Big Bathroom over here trying to sell more toilets.
English
Todo mundo aqui concorda que isso resolveria boa parte desse debate?
Português
@EclipseVR @shadowe_wolfe I don't care what pew says on this topic that has never happened in practice. If it happened, I'd be pressing blue. And you and all the other red voters will either be picking up the pieces of an absolutely fucked world or you'll see you're wrong and we care about each other.
English
you’re missing the point.
51% blue is an outcome, not a choice you can verify in a blind lethal vote.
pew found 59% median social trust in surveyed high-income countries, but only 27% in surveyed middle-income countries, where the bulk of the global population lives.
that is nowhere near safe enough to bet your life on.
English
if you want to skip 30 minutes of arguing:
global trust is nowhere near secure enough to carry this hypothetical.
pew found surveyed high-income countries at 59% median social trust, while middle-income countries were at 27%.
save yourself the headache: x.com/EclipseVR/stat…
eve@EclipseVR
if you press red, you are guaranteed to survive and may help fix the problem later. if you press blue, you get a few minutes of moral superiority before you die. apparently this is a tough choice for some people.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 I disagree. "We don't know" isn't a dismissal of anything save for assertion of certainty in its absence. If we saw something and asked "Where did it come from?" the answer would come from evidence, such as observing formation of a similar thing.
English
But you are, if only inadvertently. You're dismissing the law of causality, the law of contradiction, and motion, etc. But they are axioms of all science. As mentioned, we cannot accept them for some things, but then deny them for others. That makes them arbitrary and subjective, whimsical.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 You're using "A can't be simultaneously B and C but also neither B nor C and also not A" as a useful statement rather than something that's just tautologically true. It's a distraction. It's something we can take for granted. It's not even worth asserting.
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 I'm not sure what you're asking here.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 Nonsense. Nothing scientific is being discarded.
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 So we're just gonna toss science to the wind then? That doesn't seem like a good solution.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 Then what's the point of saying it if it barely makes sense even linguistically?
English
But that's not a contradiction. A contradiction is only two opposing truths at the same time and in the same relationship. So what light cannot be is a wave and not a wave, at the same time and in the same relationship; and it cannot be a particle and not a particle at the same time and in the same relationship.
English
Whenever I mention lolis i get a lot of new followers
Loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli loli
HT
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 We don't know the first two things, the third is meaningless. It is far more accurate to say "We know nature is, but not whether it always was."
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 It's not about what we don't know, but about what we do know. We know Nature has been caused. We know self-causation is a contradiction. We know contradictions are impossible. There's no escaping any of those facts no matter how uncomfortable they may make us feel.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 "If a truth's contrary can be true, no truth about anything can be known"
This isn't the case. Light is a wave. Light is a particle. Both of these are true, and we're still capable of knowing things.
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 Well we haven't got the luxury of accepting these principles for some things but then discard them when they no longer suit us or seem confusing. These are immutable absolutes that are axioms of all of science, not only empirical science, but formal sciences too!
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 Well for example Aristotle asserts actuality before potentiality and being before becoming, but this all just feels like language/logic games and not an actual or useful model for predicting whether there may or may not be a god. It doesn't follow.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 All it feels like you're telling me is "reality without God is inconceivable to me" and that feels like the only self-evident claim I've read in this thread.
We haven't even finished thoroughly examining and understanding nature, and there hasn't been a lick of the supernatural.
English
I'm not sure how it cannot. If there is no God, then Nature is all there is. Yet, we know through empirical observation that, as a whole, it was caused. And self-causation is impossible. So the means of causation could not have been natural. That literally is science ruling out every other option.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 It's not. There's a lot of "must be, must be, cannot not be", but there's not a clear reason why that must be the case.
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 That was answered in the last two attachments for this post:
x.com/ProdigalNo_Mor…
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More
But I'm not asking about what we don't know. I'm attempting to address what we do know. We know that contradictions are impossible. So the cause for what-is could not have been by any means natural. And Aristotle and other scientists since him have expounded upon the fact that because there is anything at all, there necessarily had to be an eternal, immutable and personal being (EIP). And there is only one revealed anywhere in the world: the God of the Bible. All other claims come up short.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 No, I don't think that necessarily follows and don't see why it would.
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 a distraction? That's the crux of the whole problem with there being no God! It is impossible for there not to be because that leaves only contradiction.
English
for the blues absolutely LOSING IT in my mentions rn: no, you simply didn’t think the question, which implied agency, included babies and comatose patients who are literally not capable of “choosing,” and no amount of pleading and crying will convince me otherwise, sorry
English
interesting how completely the conversation has shifted to kids. initially, most people assumed we were talking about adults, not babies smashing buttons, which kind of breaks the thought experiment. that this is all we’re now discussing implies blues understand they were wrong.
notsoErudite@notsoErudite
Since everyone was very curious my answer, my answer is obviously blue. Gotta save the naive, the kids, the blue lovers, and the principally hope-pilled people. You red button pickers need therapy.
English
@micsolana Wrong. Blues are simply approaching from another direction to try getting reds to understand they're wrong; people they care about will pick blue, after all.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 Why would something impersonal then necessarily be contingent on something else to exist? Why would it necessarily act as you prescribe simply because it's impersonal?
English
Because anything less would be contingent upon something else for its existence, which leads to a contradictory infinite regress. It's really only another form or positing something from nothing, again, self-causation.
An eternal, immutable and impersonal being would remain as it is unless acted upon by an outside force. Choosing to cause the universe is only consistent with an EIP.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 That feels like a distraction. Let's set that aside until it becomes relevant to the conversation at-hand.
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 Because understanding that contradictions are impossible sets guidelines we cannot pass - such as natural causation of Nature, i.e. self-causation. It sounds like something reasonable, but when we really consider it, we realize it is unintelligible nonsense.
English
@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 What would possible lead one to the conclusion that an EIP is required? Why would it be out of the question for there to be an EI?
English
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 An eternal, immutable and impersonal being would remain as it is unless acted upon by an outside force.
English