Nathan Roszman

1.All change presupposes time (before the change, and after). 2.Creation is a kind of change. 3.If God created time, He would be causing a change. 4.Creating time presupposes the existence of time. 5.Therefore, time is not the kind of thing that can be created.

@nanbyz @Catholic_bro Sure, i'll own that. "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" (Acts 24:14)

@NathanRoszman @Catholic_bro Heresies, you mean.

If the Trinity is false, why was it universally confessed so early?

@DPGBehler @rootcausesleuth @SwordMasterPub I appreciate much of what @SwordMasterPub posts, and I like many things about the Church of Christ, but I think they, as well as all christians need to be open to well reasoned objections to our interpretation of Scripture.

@rootcausesleuth @NathanRoszman @SwordMasterPub He is flailing a bit, and I’m glad everyone is seeing the inconsistencies and absurdities. Getting people out of oppressive cults starts with a few cracks in the wall, and I’m hoping these are a start.

I have a lot of friends and mutual who follow and friend around with this guy. I genuinely don’t get it. He thinks you’re all going to hell for having worship that involves instruments. Why are you being so friendly with him? Because he takes shots at Calvinism? Sorry, but his cult is far worse. I recommend unfollowing or calling him to repent.

@SwordMasterPub @rootcausesleuth @DPGBehler "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (1Tim 2:8) The N.T. specifies that men should pray with lifted hands. I don't know of any passage that authorizes Christian men to pray with their hands down. Picking and choosing.

I don't know what a "Vibram Fivefinger" is. Chairs and carpets are authorized as expedients. That is, we are told to assemble, but no specification is given as to how or where. Since nothing is specified, then chairs and carpets (and buildings in general) are authorized as expedients to help fulfill the command. God specified worship. For example, God specified that we should use bread (ἄρτος) and fruit of the vine (γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου) for the Lord's Supper. We are therefore not authorized to add any other elements to the Lord's Supper. Where God has specified, we have not the authority or liberty to alter in any way. Where God has not specified, we have liberty to accomplish God's commands in the most efficient manner we see fit. Most people understand this in their normal lives, but when it comes to worship, suddenly they seem to not understand how specificity works. They resort to "well, you didn't say not to" as if that is a reasonable response.

Neo-Pagans have sometimes forgotten, when they set out to do everything that the old pagans did, that the final thing the old pagans did was to get christened.

@kepilar77 @MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @Remithephilguy @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @lamelaza7_ @LyingWrongAgain @Ben_Jobe85 @pfitzart @sakalbu Yes, that kind of evidence exists to the same degree that logical implication or numbers exist; mentally.

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @Remithephilguy @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @lamelaza7_ @LyingWrongAgain @Ben_Jobe85 @NathanRoszman @pfitzart @sakalbu Is priori evidence that something exists in reality?

Proof for God as the truth-maker of logia truths. 1. Only the intellect can conceive of truths and falsehood. 2. Then, only a being with intellect can be a truth-maker. 3. Logical truths exist 4. Then, the truth-maker of logical truths is a being with intellect. 5. Logical truths are unchanging and necessary. 6. A being with a changing and contingent intellect could not be the truth-maker of logical truths. 7. Therefore, the truth-maker of logical truths is unchanging and necessary.

@tokolosh1961 @pfitzart @AleMartnezR1 @Remithephilguy @AristotleRevolt @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @lamelaza7_ @LyingWrongAgain @Ben_Jobe85 @sakalbu How many decimals would the Bible need to give for you to consider it accurate? Any statement of the value of π that fits in a book is going to be approximate.

@pfitzart @AleMartnezR1 @Remithephilguy @AristotleRevolt @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @lamelaza7_ @LyingWrongAgain @Ben_Jobe85 @NathanRoszman @sakalbu No. I understand geometry. The biblical god has no idea about pi, completely miscalculates it. There is also the matter of a world flood etc.

@PrayPuffPlay @LyingWrongAgain @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @MartinTweats @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 Pizza is necessary in a different sense.🍕🤌

@LyingWrongAgain @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @MartinTweats @HDYGTYQL @NathanRoszman @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 A pizza is a contingent thing. God can’t possibly be contingent.

Another Ontological Formulation 1. Only beings whose non-existence is conceivable without contradiction are gods (lower-case g). 2. God is not a god (lower-case g). Conclusion Therefore, God’s non-existence is not conceivable without contradiction. Premise 1: The Definition of "gods" ​This premise suggests that if a being is a "lower-case god" (like Zeus or Thor), it is a contingent being. You can imagine a world where they don't exist without breaking the laws of logic. Their existence is "possible" but not "required." ​Premise 2: The Distinction of "God" ​This premise defines the "Upper-case God" as a Necessary Being. In philosophy (specifically in the tradition of St. Anselm or Alvin Plantinga), God is defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." If God’s non-existence involves a logical contradiction, then God exists by necessity. ​The Conclusion ​The conclusion forces a categorical split. It asserts that "God" belongs to a different ontological category than "gods." While gods are part of the furniture of the universe (like planets or people), God is the foundation of existence itself.

@HDYGTYQL @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 This is where it gets really weird, and those who bite the bullet claim that God is "beyond being" (whatever that could possibly mean).

@MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @NathanRoszman @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 Outside of time is never and outside of space is nowhere. To include God in the category of existence (location in spacetime) is either a contradiction or category error.

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 I get it. A four sided triangle is impossible to think. One could grant that a triangle is defined as having three sides and still deny the existence of triangles. One could grant that the definition of God includes necessary existence, and still deny there is such a Being.

@NathanRoszman @MartinTweats @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 Brother. Read carefully: someone who claims a triangle has four sides. Is that person actually thinking of a triangle, or something else?

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 No. That's why I maintain that someone could actually hold the mistaken belief known as atheism.

@NathanRoszman @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 I see your point, thank you. When you say, "all that exists", are you including God in that set?

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 One could deny the existence of triangles. I believe that there are strong ontological arguments, and even that God's existence can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. But I think it takes more than proving the existence of a necessary Being; that's the first step. 😸🙏

@MartinTweats @NathanRoszman @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 That's the point. If you conceive of God as not existing, you are conceiving of something else. Assume one claims he is conceiving if a triangle with four sides, we would immediatily know he is not conceiving a triangle, but something else.

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 Of course. I would draw a distinction between thinking about an entity, and holding a belief about the existence of such an entity (neither of which affects the actual existence of the entity). I was just pointing out that it's possible to believe all that exists is contingent.

@NathanRoszman @AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 Would you agree that, thinking only of contingent things does not mean that a necessary thing doesn't exist, it simply means people aren't thinking that necessary thing.

@AleMartnezR1 @Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @MartinTweats @HDYGTYQL @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 You're right that one cannot conceive of a necessary being which could fail to exist. But surely you acknowledge that the atheist can conceive of reality consisting of only contingent beings. It's not a contradiction, as far as I can tell. I think it is metaphysically impossible.

@Harri18971 @AristotleRevolt @CatholicCo200 @MartinTweats @HDYGTYQL @NathanRoszman @Remithephilguy @RodRuiz14 @Christobvious @Ben_Jobe85 I have proven by logical means that God's non existence cannot be conceived without contradiction. Your objection fails.

@brecksvillean @IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera x.com/i/status/20270… That's the point I was making here. The original argument only succeeds in saying that if God exists, His existence must be necessary existence.

@IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @NathanRoszman @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera Imagine I have never heard of Kant, but simply said this (combining a couple of points made above):

1. Whatever exists through itself, it cannot not to exist. 2. God exists through itself 3. Then, God cannot not to exist. **P1 If an entity is the source of its own being, it lacks the "potentiality" to not exist. To suggest it could "not be" would require an external power greater than a self-existent being, which is a logical impossibility in this framework. For something to "not exist" or "cease to exist," it usually requires a cause of destruction or a lack of sustaining conditions. ​Contingent beings are "separable" from existence (they can be thought of as non-existent without contradiction). ​Self-existent beings are "inseparable" from existence. Because they do not depend on any prior cause, there is no "off switch" outside of them. If they exist through themselves, they possess the power of being eternally.

@brecksvillean @IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera Yes, that is how I see it.

@NathanRoszman @IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera ok - so by using this logic for God, you are admitting that P2 is not just a description of God's nature, but an existence claim?

@brecksvillean @IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera The sentence, "The apple is red," does not assume the existence of an apple. It explicitly states that an apple exists; "The apple is..." The sentence also expresses the way in which the apple exists, (with a certain relationship to the red part of the visible light spectrum).

@IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @NathanRoszman @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera To say "X has property P" (like "The apple is red"), you must first assume X exists. If "existence" or "necessary existence" is treated as a property, you are ***presupposing*** the entity's existence in order to describe its nature, which leads back to begging the question.

@brecksvillean @MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @IamJonte_ @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera This is a legitimate objection. The argument only proves that if there is a God (defined as existing through itself), His existence would be necessary existence.

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @NathanRoszman @IamJonte_ @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera The metaphysical correctness does not move from the conceptual realm (what God would be if He existed) to the actual realm (that He does exist) without a bare assertion that this definition applies to reality

@brecksvillean @MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @IamJonte_ @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera "Existence is not a predicate... ... what actually exists in the world." Not only is existence legitimately predicated of things, but you can't even seem to avoid doing so in the next sentence.

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @NathanRoszman @IamJonte_ @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera The Predicate defense does not work since existence is not a real predicate. If existence is part of God's definition, then the argument is analytic - it only tells you what words mean, not what actually exists in the world

@icarus62 @IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera If you can show that the essential properties of a being are logically inconsistent or metaphysically impossible, you will effectively disprove the existence of such a being.

@IamJonte_ @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @NathanRoszman @sakalbu @AristotleRevolt @AlexVvoni @jmqcabrera No imaginary entity can be proven not to exist. You can't prove that Thor doesn't exist, or Santa Claus. Nevertheless, a rational understanding of the world, and of human nature, tells you that these characters are invented by humans. Same for all gods and goddesses.