Don’t_worry_about_it

@JohnAndersn3c8 @JoshuaLWatson Well, most concepts hold to DDS, or just to say God is non-composite as if he were composite, he’d de dependent on his parts (since wholes can’t exist without their parts), thus, making him not the ultimate being

@JoshuaLWatson Is it conclusively proven that God doesn't have parts?

if parts are so good why doesn't God have any?

@ektromati @dog_domain @analyticatheism What’s the argument for p1?

@dog_domain @Marcast1000 @analyticatheism I didn’t say otherwise. That’s why the argument isn’t: T: theism is true. 1. T 2. T -> Aic 3. Aic But in Catholicism there are claims about God’s intentions as Creator with epistemic implications for God’s creatures.

If you believe that Atheism is a rational, reasonable, and respectable position (as many Theistic philosophers do), then philosophical Atheism should not give you any anxiety. If you think Atheism is irrational, then philosophical Atheism should give you intellectual anxiety.

@Skye_Gunn @markgamache @KR3Wmatic It’s still a belief tho, it’s a proposition that’s true in virtue of it being empirically supported

@markgamache @KR3Wmatic But that's because gravity actually does exist

As an atheist, what's the best response to a believer bringing up Pascal's Wager?

@NateJeisman @markgamache @KR3Wmatic That’s true, but his position is people can’t voluntarily choose them, there is something that prevents it, maybe some epistemic/rational norms, I’m inclined to take his position

@markgamache @KR3Wmatic Anyone can believe anything. Or not believe anything.

@Tsar_Martyr @magusissweet Define “proper”. If it’s anything that implies created or designed, you’re just question begging against the atheist. Also “proper” logic or thought is gibberish, proper according to what? In virtue of what?

@magusissweet That would mean that there is no such thing as proper thought or logic

If evolution is true then your brain has no purpose

@TyTalks2020 @CensorshipsGay @Stone_tossers Except outcomes are things that are evaluated by each agent, so it can’t be objective in the standard sense, it’s more subjectivist/anti realist. And the definition of “worse” would necessitate an agent declaring a criterion for worse conditions relative to the ideal conditions

The outcomes. Through countless years of being a human. Why do we lock up the guilty? Because they make things worse. But but but... how do you know it's worse????? Because that's what that word means... Terrible people make things worse. If it was a good thing that they were worse... we wouldn't say it's worse... "Worse" expresses the idea that things have dropped in quality. Again, if that was good, we would say it's good. So we can see with our eyes what happens when a bad person is allowed to do whatever he wants. Things end up objectively worse... Because it is objectively worse... we can say that the thing is objectively bad...

@TyTalks2020 @CensorshipsGay @Stone_tossers Are you saying these are objectively bad? If so, what’s the grounding for such moral proposition? And I’m talking about metaethics, not applied ethics. In virtue of what is harming the guilty bad?

That goes into my original statement of macro vs micro. Harming the innocent is bad. Harming the guilty is good. Well, that's what my morality is. You may think that all harm is bad. But we can measure the outcomes. Let's see what happens to a society that openly harms the innocent vs a society that openly harms the guilty. Which one does better?

@TyTalks2020 @CensorshipsGay @Stone_tossers Ok, explain. Let’s say we have the moral proposition “harm is bad” and it’s true, what grounds that? Outcomes is extremely vague as some actions would deem it acceptable if for a greater good (e.g. surgical procedure), but others wouldn’t

@Marcast1000 @CensorshipsGay @Stone_tossers In outcomes. Does action = making things better or worse?

@TyTalks2020 @CensorshipsGay @Stone_tossers How do u ground the moral truths?

What I'm saying is that, overall there is a 100% objective morality. That is based on 'better.' Better to be strong or weak? Strong. Everyone will say that. Why? Because it leads to better outcomes. But let's take the death penalty. We're both for it (Hypothetically). But I want it for less severe crimes than you. Which one of us is correct? The more defined you get into specific situations, the more subjective it becomes.

@The_Nekonian @nyaraVT God is the absolute reality, He would be the transcendent creature that’s radically different from everything else, He’s uniquely unique, He *is* existence, He *is* divinity

@nyaraVT From an atheistic pov, what do you think God could be? If you were to just hypothetically believe for a second.

If God is real, she will forgive me for not being convinced by her existence

@NatzSakdis @Scarlet_FuryYT @darwintojesus Idiot, logic isn’t a thing that exists, are you that dense and in competent? Go find one person who takes that view logic, because I’ll confident they don’t know what logic formally is in philosophy

@Marcast1000 @Scarlet_FuryYT @darwintojesus Go actually not being a full on post-modernist that denies comprehension and objective reality

Atheists using a test to prove that tests work.

@NatzSakdis @Scarlet_FuryYT @darwintojesus What’s not logic, you know why? Because logic doesn’t have say on the world, and LOEM is a “law” in the sense that it’s a tautology within the classical schema, it’s an axiom. You’re not talking about logic if you think that helps your case. Go actually study logic

@Marcast1000 @Scarlet_FuryYT @darwintojesus Are you for real? Ever heard of Paulis exclusion principle? No two electrons are assigned one given quantum number. That's what? Logic. Law of excluded middle. I know atheist cope can get bad, but dear God...

@Scarlet_FuryYT @darwintojesus Logic doesn’t exist tho, ur confused

@darwintojesus Alternatively: Atheists using logic to prove logic exists, also known as a paradox

@MitraHispana @m966021 That’s fine, then we can just say there are instances of privation such that God would prevent if the evil doesn’t have a greater good nor a prevention of an equal or worse evil. I’m talking abt gratuitous evils ofc

@m966021 Plotinus thought of evil as an absence of good. So, it doesn’t exist as a positive force on its own, but we certainly note (and should oppose) it’s absence

I want to grab anyone who denies the problem of evil by the neck and have them read the letters or diaries of the Jews, the resistance, etc. of WWII. Tell me evil does not exist. I dare you.

@cpchambe @darwintojesus He’s talking about God being ontologically prior, not temporally prior. I’m assuming he’s a CT, so God is the ontological foundation reality falls upon, I’m not sure of the meaning of “create” in this context, but I’m sure the CT has an explanation

@darwintojesus Saying ‘before the Big Bang’ is incoherent if time itself begins with the universe. And saying ‘God created’ is an action claim. Actions require temporal sequence. So if God is outside time, it’s incoherent to say God does anything, much less create a universe.

God.

@m966021 Privation theory is irrelevant, just grant it and argue there are instances of privation given God’s actualization of the world, his omniproperties, and gratuitous evils

I wish I had the confidence of people who don't know anything about the problem of evil.

@wesley1631128 @Robbservations2 @NotEvolution1 Because in dialecticals, it’s up to the person affirming a proposition to provide epistemic justification for their position, not just provide an explanation then shift the burden

@Marcast1000 @Robbservations2 @NotEvolution1 They keep asking for evidence that we're right but can't give evidence we're wrong

@Robbservations2 @wesley1631128 @NotEvolution1 That’s just false, the atheist in the image is being dishonest as he’s making the claims, but isn’t willing by to justify because he “lacks” belief, which contradicts his initial claims. So it’s his BOP of fulfill it.

@wesley1631128 @Marcast1000 @NotEvolution1 The OP is dishonestly strawmanning the situation and shifting the burden of proof. The existence of a God, of meaning to the universe and objective morality are all ORIGINAL CLAIMS made by the OP. HIS burden of proof.

@wesley1631128 @Robbservations2 @NotEvolution1 You made the claim, that the Christian model of God doesn’t exist, what’s the argument? Btw, I’m not Christian, not even theist

@Marcast1000 @Robbservations2 @NotEvolution1 Bro literally confirmed the meme🤣

@Robbservations2 @NotEvolution1 Alright, what’s the argument?

@NotEvolution1 I don’t claim ”There is no God!” But I….DO….claim that YOUR God, the God of the Bible, doesn’t exist, and demonstrably so. And that the Bible is demonstrably NOT the “Word of God” as claimed.