Lion IRC

@SeanFlan45 @FamilyDrBen @violetroses755 I'm arguing that not only is it my business - it's my moral obligation to oppose #abortion

@MelosOf If you dont accept causation, just say that you find spontaneous, uncaused, mysteriously unpredictable, chance to be a more... *cough* scientific... *cough* rational... explanation.

@MelosOf P1 doesn't assert universal causation. It offers an if/then *alternative*. If not self-actualizing, then something else. And that doesn't preclude a third option - uncaused.

The Argument from Cosmic Choice 1. ​If a possibility cannot actualize itself, then it must be actualized by something else. 2. ​If a possibility must be actualized by something else, then a conscious act to choose this possibility over another must have occurred. 3. ​A possibility cannot actualize itself. ​Therefore, a conscious act to choose this possibility over another must have occurred. 4. ​The universe is a possibility. ​Therefore, a conscious act to choose this universe over another must have occurred. The argument is: P → Q Q → R P Therefore, R. (from 1–3 by hypothetical syllogism and modus ponens) U Therefore, the universe was consciously chosen. (This follows if Premises 1–3 are understood to apply specifically to the universe.)

@LifeNewsHQ Seems like unborn babies have no rights and neither do newborn babies. What we really need is some #woke #atheist to educate us about whether buying and selling humans is always wrong.

Should gay men be able to buy a baby via surrogacy?

@xonphused P1. Evidence of God is needed to convince people God exists. P2. Billions of people are convinced God exists. Therefore there must be evidence God exists. ...am I understanding you correctly?

If your god was evident, people wouldn’t need convincing.

@MelosOf @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign You haven't tracked what I said. A necessary thing, by definition, *must* exist. Therefore it's *impossible* for it not to exist. Do you accept that "impossible" is the *opposite* of possible? If so, we wouldn't describe an inevitably *necessary* thing as... a possibility.

@Lion_IRC @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign No, but I think it's funny, presuming you think your god is necessary, under this construal it is not even possible for your god to exist.

1. Every possibility entails a choice. 2. Every choice entails an intelligence behind that choice. 3. The universe is a possibility. Therefore, the universe entails a choice. (from 1 and 3) Therefore, the universe entails an intelligence behind that choice. (from 2 and 4)

@KhalilAndani @AleMartnezR1 What question is being begged?

@AleMartnezR1 All this begs the question

Dr. Andrew Loke. The First Cause has volition "Rather, the first cause must be able to bring about the first event by itself. And secondly, the first cause must also have the capacity to prevent itself from changing initially, such that—because otherwise the first cause would not have been initially changeless, right, without the first event. And so what this means is that the first cause must be able to hold back from causing the first event initially, and yet it must also have the capacity to bring about the first event by itself. And so this dual capacity of holding back and bringing forth describes a kind of freedom, right, that is not determined by prior events... Rather, it is a personal agent, right? It's a personal agent that has this kind of freedom of holding back and bringing forth by itself. And so, and therefore, we have established that the first cause is a personal creator" youtu.be/jGIxNMJecCw?si…

@Info2Consider @AtheistTakes Hyperactive Agency Detection arose because we DO detect agency - thru empirical and repeated sensory evidence. Its as sound as Newtons 1st Law. Stationary things dont start moving all by themselves. And the explanatory power of agency is more rational than spontaneous movement.

Or… perhaps humans are naturally wired to perceive agency because a Creator designed us that way. The HADD hypothesis doesn’t disprove God. It merely describes a cognitive tendency. Whether that tendency is an evolutionary byproduct or an intentional design feature is the very question under debate. In fact, if God exists, we’d expect humans to possess an innate capacity to recognize agency and seek Him (Romans 1:19–20; Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Woah this is deep

@horusrage @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign You can claim that spontaneous events like the Big Bang or snowflakes 'just happen' purely by chance - with no agency/choice involved. But that's no better than saying "it's just magic". Don't you need to do better than that when arguing against the explanatory power of theism?

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign @Lion_IRC Irreducible complexity argument. Snowflake pattern forms by a mote of dust hitting cold water making a complex ice pattern. Simple to complex ... no intelligence required.

@MelosOf I assume you must be so busy / time poor that you can't do anything but gainsaying and hand waiving.

@Lion_IRC To say they're true would be to completely misunderstand and bastardize modal logic.

@MelosOf @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign Do you agree that a necessary thing *must* exist. Therefore it's *impossible* for it not to exist. Therefore it's not a 'possibility' that it exists. Therefore *possible* events on the other hand entail a binary yes/no (choice) as to whether they eventuate?

@Lion_IRC @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign This is not what the argument from possibility is attempting to establish.

@SawtelleAn5682 You asserted that people pretend to believe God exists and you can't even justify that claim with an explanation as to why anyone (other than an atheist) would do that. Lame.

@Lion_IRC That's a non-sequitur question only the pretender can respond to. The why doesn't make a difference.

Pretending a god exists is harmful.

@Thomas_Banacek @NotEvolution1 If an #atheist has no problem with Higher Alien Lifeforms, and the idea of parallel universes, what's wrong with God/Heaven? You can call death a 'singularity' if you want. And when you die there's a wormhole to another dimension. Why would that weaken my belief in the bible?

@Lion_IRC @NotEvolution1 So these aliens have a magical place called heaven for you to go to after you die? Oh, and this also means the creator isn’t omnipresent.

@nzmkroberts @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign So which do you choose if not chance? Inevitable? (Necessity)? I gave you that option if that's the one you prefer.

@Lion_IRC @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign I never said pure chance. Every event is determined by the laws of the universe. Nothing can avoid those laws, because that is just the way matter and energy interact.

@Thomas_Banacek @NotEvolution1 If God was an 'alien from another galaxy' then my bible is true.

@Lion_IRC @NotEvolution1 If it were proved that all life on earth was created by aliens from another galaxy, would you accept this as true or cling to your Bible?

@AleMartnezR1 @MelosOf @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign I vote for the premiss which is more plausible than its negation. You come to a fork in the road, you make a choice between two possibilities. This seems properly basic. But the negation of that premiss would be to toss a coin and let it 'decide'. Or that choice is an illusion.

@Lion_IRC @MelosOf @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign How do u vote, mate? 😅😀🙂

@MelosOf No they're not.

@AleMartnezR1 P1, P2 and P3 are false.

@Atomsmade What's the name of that religion which says there's no God, that sin is imaginary, that there's no afterlife punishment of evil... 🤔

Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it 🖤

@AleMartnezR1 @MelosOf @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign We should just vote on it. Right? LOL

@Lion_IRC @MelosOf @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign Easier. P1 is true. 😚

@nzmkroberts @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign The problem with that is - Unpredictable is an anathema to science. You might a well say 'magic'. Or "God spontaneously did it." And "inevitable" requires a Unified Theory of Everything. Which people like #atheist Stephen Hawking eventually came to believe was impossible.

@nzmkroberts @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign That's the only way to avoid P1. ...by assuming that every event is pure chance. Either unpredictable or inevitable given sufficient time.