Ryan Scollard

@FischerKing64 But, we've almost won...

Domestically the USA is not in good shape. It is indebted, it is awash in illegal aliens, cities are littered with homeless drug addicts - our infrastructure sucks. The best thing for the USA is to focus on rebuilding itself, and leaving the rest of the world alone.

As systems solidify their hold the number of viable choices outside of them dwindles rapidly The system then begins to optimize for those that operate most successfully inside it When things are new and uncertain, great and terrible changes can occur but as it solidifies the number of optimal moves narrows, the great innovations were achieved early on in a state of flux, now there are only minor adjustments to make and it all comes down to who can most perfectly execute the strategy that has been proven superior The game state has been solved, Nash equilibrium has been achieved Systems in this state almost always favor those who have played the longest, who built positions back when the system was in flux and uncertainty allowed for more risks and larger wins Your society has ossified, but this is a state of affairs that cannot stand People, but very specifically young men, must act upon the world, they must exercise dominion, control space, they must become If they can make something of themselves, realize their ambition inside a system that still has room for them, they will operate inside of it, they will defend it with their lives But if the system has become so narrow, so optimized for others that there is little left to achieve inside of it, young men will chafe under the weight of those restrictions Even worse, if they follow the narrow road laid out for them, the one that they are told is the only path forward, and then they are rug pulled, told that they should never have expected success after following the only available path, something far more dangerous starts to occur Many will simply give up, check out, and die off--but others will begin to tear the system apart Yes, they know that breaking the system is dangerous but the only thing more dangerous is dying a slow death in lowly obscurity having never made your mark on the world Generations must turn over, the elite must circulate, the society must breath and grow, space must be made for what comes next, one paradigm must give way to the next If the system tries too hard to hold on to what it was, it will lose everything it ever has been, all traditions must be living traditions, all systems must breath and grow If they don't the young will rip it to pieces in the desperate attempt to escape the inevitable suffocation inside those rigid walls It may result in chaos, terrible and bloody But at least for some, chaos will not be a pit, it will be a ladder

@AleMartnezR1 Finally, Christianity is self-validating. It explains the world we actually live in: moral guilt, human dignity, beauty, suffering, our longing for meaning, and our inability to save ourselves.

@AleMartnezR1 Islam is historically downstream. It accepts Jesus, Mary, prophecy, revelation, judgment, creation, angels, etc., but then asks us to reject the earliest and best-attested Christian claims about Jesus in favor of a revelation 600 years later.

1. If something is limited by mathematical values, then it is dependent 2. If something is dependent, then it is contingent 3. The universe is limited by mathematical values. Therefore, the universe is contingent.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 That's my point and Wolfram's! Why? Why isn't it chaos? I know you really want to argue about the Christian God but we're still determining whether we think a mind is a better explanation or a brute fact. Empirical arguments come later.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 Nothing (above the quantum level) in physics and nature is chaos. We live in a natural physical world, yet you’re arguing for a non-physical supernatural one. You’re the one who has to do much more explaining here. Also, how does a creator entity get you to the Christian idol?

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 We have the same problems elsewhere that matter could be random but its predictable and repeatable despite not having any reason why. E.g. the problem of induction

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 But its not just a label, as Wolfram said fuller quote: “There’s no particular reason that the roughly 10^80 particles couldn’t each be following their own rules… and yet they don’t; they’re all following the same simple rules.”

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 You have a way of talking around the subject. We both appeal to a priori explanations - brute fact v. mind - to explain our basic assumptions. In one, we expect logic, order, and life, the other chaos, Boltzmann brains - at best -and no trust in our cognitive faculties.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 A creator god is an a priori assumption because you can’t draw conclusions from a demonstrable reference god. And your personal idol Christian god goes completely against the claim of the necessity of a creator. Your “explanation” is a post rationalization to fill the gaps.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 Then deal with the content.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 Not difficult at all.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 Precisely why thats a difficult source for you.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 Stephen Wolfram is an atheist who “… finds standard claims of a personal God implausible” 😂

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 It doesn’t rely on any a priori assumptions, we're asking which worldview best explains those basic assumptions.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 It’s not satisfying at all because is completely relies on a priori assumptions (we’ve been there). On top of that, you don’t have any demonstrable evidence that connects your unnecessary god with an allegedly necessary creator entity. All you got is a contradictory book.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 Yes, it is very satisfying and has far more explanatory power than the alternative. One cannot even justify reason in Naturalism. Re laws: “There’s no reason that the 10^80 particles couldn’t each be following their own rules… and yet they don’t” - Stephen Wolfram

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 You present this as if a universe created by a mind would be a satisfying answer when it just creates a question that outdoes all the others! Also, there are no “laws” in nature, it’s just a label we added to patterns we see.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 Knowing that, we must ask, "what worldview best explains our observations?" Is it one large brute fact that doesnt produce any others, and which, unexpectedly has laws and obeys rules and unexplainably produced abiogenesis, or a world created by a mind?

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 Yes, the issue of hard solipsism is a thing. But it’s also useless to keep going back on it, so what’s your point?

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 You cannot prove your brain exists anymore than you can prove I exist, or that there is an external world. You certainly cannot use logic to prove reason exists (circular) etc. These are basic operative assumptions we all must accept before we can even begin doing science.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 We have demonstrable, factual evidence that our brains exist. Reason is just applied logic and facts to draw a conclusion.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 Right, like your brain. Or reason, these are things we must assume.

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 Factually founded means grounded in reality/existence. In other words, there is no reference god to draw factual conclusions from. There is only a hypothetical concept of a god construct.

Rare pro-Nazi stance by the @washingtonpost. Brave.

@Midgard_Walker @AleMartnezR1 This argument does not argue for the Christian God. BTW, what do you think is factually founded?

@Bostonscollard @AleMartnezR1 There is no (onto)logical argument for a personal idol god (like the Christian one), only a creator entity. All of these “arguments” are based on a priori assumptions sans factual foundation. To identify a creator with any of the idol gods is a completely separate claim.