Ariel Bell

12.1K posts

Ariel Bell

Ariel Bell

@ArielBellCh

Ariel Bell, a Zeitgeist pngtuber formed from the wishes of malls. pfp by @Tmek7

Mall Ruins Katılım Şubat 2022
1K Takip Edilen166 Takipçiler
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
0
0
0
3
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
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
1
0
0
5
Not Evolution
Not Evolution@NotEvolution1·
Literally atheist dogma:
Not Evolution tweet media
English
86
10
65
4.3K
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
0
0
0
3
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
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
1
0
0
4
Lychi 🐝 🍨【VChibi】
Lychi 🐝 🍨【VChibi】@Lychibe·
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
Lychi 🐝 🍨【VChibi】 tweet media
HT
32
52
1.3K
8K
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
1
0
0
7
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
@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
1
0
0
7
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
1
0
0
7
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
@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!
ProdigalNo_More tweet mediaProdigalNo_More tweet mediaProdigalNo_More tweet mediaProdigalNo_More tweet media
English
1
0
0
10
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
1
0
0
6
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
1
0
0
8
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
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
1
0
0
7
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
@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
1
0
0
12
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
@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
1
0
0
11
Mike Solana
Mike Solana@micsolana·
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
32
2
319
8.9K
Mike Solana
Mike Solana@micsolana·
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
535
111
2.7K
134.6K
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
0
0
0
2
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
1
0
0
6
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
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
1
0
0
6
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
@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
1
0
0
6
Ariel Bell
Ariel Bell@ArielBellCh·
@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
1
0
0
7
ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More@ProdigalNo_More·
@ArielBellCh @NotEvolution1 I don't think you understand what is meant when we say that contradictions are impossible. It's not like they're really really rare, or so super difficult that it cannot happen. It's that they aren't anything!
ProdigalNo_More tweet mediaProdigalNo_More tweet media
English
1
0
0
8
TheMaverickk
TheMaverickk@_TheMaverickk·
@ArielBellCh @soh_toa its not even about game theory. Only one of these buttons kills. If you want to press it you are free to press it. No one stopping you. I'm just not jumping into the potential suicide pit just cause it sounds nice. Either way this is a hypothetical situation that isn't happening.
English
1
0
0
12
AVE
AVE@soh_toa·
This is stupid. It’s an anonymous vote. You have no ability to influence or gain knowledge of everyone else voting. You just have to trust that your loved ones aren’t fucking stupid so they pick red and know you will pick red too. Picking blue as the relatively close no stakes polls show is already practically a coin flip. If people’s lives were actually on the line who can say what the margin would be. And no I don’t think blue pushers are more trustworthy, just more emotionally easy to manipulate. They see the “selfless” option and pick it like seals not realising that the only people that need saving are THEM.
Geoff Thew@G0ffThew

The calculus to press red is, to put it kindly, short-sighted idiot math. It begins and ends with “what input gives me the best odds of living” with no regard for what the world you’d be living in - where everyone you can trust is dead and everyone else knows it - would look like

English
113
36
980
33.1K
Zeke
Zeke@FrankyHansmith·
@bdquinn Red button presser would be someone who avoids the whole conflict, so Tom Bombadil
English
3
0
2
392

Keşfet

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 @Lychibe @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates