Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Martin
9.2K posts
Martin
@MartinTweats
Exploring the Principle of Sufficient Reason and its implications for metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, and logic.
Ancient Kingdom of Mercia (UK) Katılım Şubat 2026
421 Takip Edilen258 Takipçiler
@WardProWords I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, Colin.
Is the following true or false?
x.com/MartinTweats/s…
Martin@MartinTweats
If you're asking for a picture of God, then your ask uses the wrong tool for the job. Pictures capture photons bouncing of material objects, i.e., light. If photons bounce off God, then it follows as a corollary that God material. Therefore, if you could take a picture of God, then it would prove that God exists materially, rather than immaterially. But if God is material, then He is not God, as material implies contingent, i.e., it is composite, has extension, volume, relation, mass and exists in spacetime. However, God can only be God if he exists necessarily as actus purus, rather than contingently. Therefore, it is the case that: 1. To ask for a picture of God is using the wrong tool, it's like asking for proof that the colour blue smells like steak & kidney pie. 2. To reject God on this basis does not refute the existence of God, it simply proves that you lack philosophy to ask metaphysical questions about God.
English
If you're asking for a picture of God, then your ask uses the wrong tool for the job.
Pictures capture photons bouncing of material objects, i.e., light. If photons bounce off God, then it follows as a corollary that God material. Therefore, if you could take a picture of God, then it would prove that God exists materially, rather than immaterially.
But if God is material, then He is not God, as material implies contingent, i.e., it is composite, has extension, volume, relation, mass and exists in spacetime. However, God can only be God if he exists necessarily as actus purus, rather than contingently.
Therefore, it is the case that:
1. To ask for a picture of God is using the wrong tool, it's like asking for proof that the colour blue smells like steak & kidney pie.
2. To reject God on this basis does not refute the existence of God, it simply proves that you lack philosophy to ask metaphysical questions about God.
BlackSword@Blacksword011
English
@CapacAmaru Your first question presupposes that image refers to material only, rather than immaterial attributes, e.g., rational mind.
Your question question presupposes that God cannot manifest in the material world.
What magic book?
English
@MartinTweats 1. how can we be made in gods image if you can't see him?
2. how do you wrestle with someone you can't see?
3. how do you pontificate on the nature of god when you don't even read his magic book?
English
You have no pictures of math, so math must not be real.
You have no pictures of logic, so logic must not be real.
You have no pictures of modal truth, so modal truth must not be real.
Right?
Lars Iggy@LarsTheBadMan
@MartinTweats ok, so if you have no pics, how do you know this "god" character is real and not a figment of your imagination? You have no fucking evidence. If there was you could show me. You got like "a cell is complex. God must be real". That shit is just evidence for your ignorance.
English
@LarsTheBadMan You have no pictures of math, so math must not be real.
You have no pictures of logic, so logic must not be real.
You have no pictures of modal truth, so modal truth must not be real.
Right?
English
@MartinTweats ok, so if you have no pics, how do you know this "god" character is real and not a figment of your imagination?
You have no fucking evidence. If there was you could show me.
You got like "a cell is complex. God must be real".
That shit is just evidence for your ignorance.
English
@MartinTweats You appear to have entirely missed the point of the post.
English
@vadabac340 Being made in God's image refers to ontology, not dispositional quality.
Being able to be photographed is a dispositional quality.
English
@MartinTweats So we're not made in God's image, so the bible isn't true.
English
One cannot take a picture of math, yet math has a mode of existence and it used every day.
One cannot take a picture of logic, yet logic has a mode of existence and it used every day.
One cannot take a picture of modal truth, yet modal truth has a mode of existence and it used every day.
English
@MartinTweats 😂
you have a hilariously autistic/literal reading of this!
English
@Common_Sense_G Would you find a priori reasoning (pure logic) persuasive in establishing God’s existence, or would you only accept a posteriori evidence (empirical, observable facts)?
English
@MartinTweats Interesting that what do you suggest we should ask for as evidence your god exists?
English
@RomanIgla "Pics or it didn't happen"
I that's quite explicit in the type of evidence that he demands as proof.
English
@MartinTweats Come on. He is asking for any evidence, not literal pictures.
English
@MartinTweats You can't picture many thinks. Nobody can picture 1+1=2. It's math. And there are other things beyond matter, such as human thought, curiosity, etc.
English
Existence is simply being, and it can take any mode of existence, e.g., material, immaterial, abstract, conceptual etc.
Your first premise is false, as math, modal truth and logic exist yet cannot affect or be affected.
Your second premise is false, as math, modal truth and logic exist yet exist in no spatiotemporal location.
Your third premise is false, as math, modal truth and logic exist yet they are all still regardless of a mind thinking about them.
English
@MartinTweats Existence usually qualifies by:
1. Causal power: can it affect or be affected?
2. Spatiotemporal location: when/where is it?
3. Independence from Mind: what is there when no one thinks of it?
God passes none of these.
English
@MaestroManX Is it true or false that if God is not material, then he is not God?
English
@MartinTweats “But if God is material, then He is not God”
I love how you religitards use this WORD as both a name and a title. It’s a title. It’s a word. It is said differently in all languages.
This fictional character of the Jews is named Yahweh.
English
@PureReluctance @VbcApologetics So is a good person someone who is good 24/7, or someone who is good when they have an opportunity to do good?
English
@MartinTweats @VbcApologetics It depends on the intention.
You can have good intentions and still mess up.
You can also have bad days in general.
English
By what moral standard are you using the term, "good"?
Atheist Girl@iamAtheistGirl
if you need a “god” to be good you aren’t good you’re just a psychopath on a leash
English
Foreknowledge of an event is not causation of the event.
If I see someone jump off a cliff, then I have the foreknowledge that they'll go splat when they hit the ground.
My foreknowledge of that event is not causation of that event.
The Skeptic@TheSkepticWiz
English
@TheSkepticWiz Foreknowledge of an event is not causation of the event.
If I see someone jump off a cliff, then I have the foreknowledge that they'll go splat when they hit the ground.
My foreknowledge of that event is not causation of that event.
English
English
@MartinTweats @salsoleto @CowardsofUvalde You certainly seem obsessed with porn today. Is that how you’re spending the sabbath?
English
There is no reason why killing a child needs to be legal.
There are numerous reasons why wanting to kill a child needs be illegal.
Uvalde Police Are Cowards@CowardsofUvalde
@KatelynTweeter Nobody is PRO abortion. We just recognize that it needs to be legal for a variety of reasons. We're pro keeping it legal, and that's all
English
@MartinTweats Even when I was agnostic I saw the virtues of community and stability with religion.
English
Your gladness is predicated on a falsehood.
Atheist voice👁️🥩@banks_neche
I'm glad religion is slowing dying a natural death in my generation
English
Share a picture of the book that has shaped you intellectually on Natural Theology or Philosophy of Religion.
English