Roman

@Ben_Jobe85 Reels. Short form. Attention spans are in the gutter. 8.25s! Thanks to Tiktok-style brainrot/conditioning

How does on actually get YT viewers? I see others gaining cross traffic... What is the secret?

@AleMartnezR1 @Remithephilguy You’re a mini logician! 🐣 🤛

@Rome2147 @Remithephilguy I am not a logician. That would explain it, 😅

No one talks about how unbelievably boring reading Aristotle is as compared to reading Plato. It's day and night

@AleMartnezR1 @Remithephilguy A dry, 🤖mechanical style is common among logicians, and Aristotle, being 𝐭𝐡𝐞 logician, reflected that style.

@Remithephilguy I read his Metaphysics like a century ago. It is a dry reading, very dry. Plato is a conversation, with questions, and rebuttals. It is what happens at real conversations.

@jdogmac117830 @AleMartnezR1 I’ve always wondered why many Atheists seem so angry. This needs to be studied

@AleMartnezR1 Most online atheists insult others constantly

I disagree. I have atheist friends with a very high IQ. Though, many other atheists love insulting, mocking, using slurs, proving they have a very low IQ.

‘Nothing’ is a contradictory object. If it obtains, it must be absent, absent of both ‘Everything’ and ‘Nothing' - yet it paradoxically exists through that very absence It functions as an object (it refers) but also fails to refer.

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 Just to be clear about your position moving forward, On ur view, is there causal interaction taking place? w’d it be veridical to say ‘something caused somthing’? Or is it all necessitation? Your use of personifying words makes me wonder: is the universe conscious on your view?

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 I see the gain and loss of emergent properties in the universe as necessary events made inevitable by the constant fundamental nature of the universe as it interacts with itself

Why the universe is Contingent. Two basic properties of a contingent object: The Logic: A necessary being or state does not undergo "exhaustion" or decay in its fundamental nature. However, the energy in our universe is constantly moving from a state of low entropy (high order/availability) to high entropy (disorder/unavailability). ​The Proof: Because the universe currently possesses usable energy, it must have had a beginning or a specific "low entropy" injection at a finite point in the past. Anything that begins to exist or changes its state over time is, by definition, contingent upon the conditions that set that state. @MartinTweats @Barely_Christ @philobrossuckdi @JockoBocko3 @CatholicCo200 @TomMore9 @limitandmind @salsoleto

@AmosKissel @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman I’m actually very sympathetic to that Aquinian line!

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman That's a good point, the previous syllogism in the tweet above the one you refer to is relevant though. The human concept of finite and infinite does not capture the essence of these concepts. So while we can have concepts of the eternal, essence, uncreated, they are not perfect.

A Necessary, Uncreated and Infinite Mind Exists: 1. Essences are conceptual entities (X´s essence is to be rational or have 'y' properties) 2. Geometrical forms have essences (The square´s essence is to have four sides of four equal angles) 3. Then, geometrical essences are conceptual entities 4. Conceptual entities reside in the mind. 5. Geometrical essences are necessary, uncreated and infinite. 6. Geometrical essences cannot depend on contingent, created and finite minds. 6.a If Geometrical essences cannot depend on contingent, created and finite minds, then there must exist a necessary, uncreated and infinite mind Conclusion: Then, geometrical essences reside in a necessary, uncreated and infinite mind

@AmosKissel @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman \\understanding a created concept doesn’t lead to understanding of an uncreated concept The concept ‘finite’ seems to lead to an understanding of an infinite concept - - which would be an uncreated concept And if the concept is created, we appear to have a counterexample

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman The contingency argument is about a chain of cause and effect, this current argument is about the quality of concepts. Understanding a created concept doesnt lead to understanding of an uncreated concept, seeing an effect can lead one to believe in a cause though

@AmosKissel @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman \\what is created and finite cannot lead to what is uncreated and eternal Isn’t 3 false under theism? All created and finite things ultimately lead back to God? According to the contingency argument: all contingent things lead back to a neces. being Are u playing devils advo?

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @Rome2147 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman 1. Human concepts are created/finite. 2. God's concepts are uncreated/ eternal. 3. What is created and finite cannot lead to what is uncreated and eternal. C. Human concepts cannot lead to the eternal &uncreated concepts

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman What you just said strikes me as unintelligible. What can you say more?

@Rome2147 @MartinTweats @LyingWrongAgain @CatholicCo200 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_ @Truthseeker_562 @NathanRoszman Right. Separate the concrete instatiation of an object, from its essence conceptually.

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 I am not arguing f conceivability. Your reconfiguring universe is constantly switching from having one property instance p to having another property p’ (1 just like p); but if it can gain n lose properties. It’s *actually* not necessarily one way rather than another - contingent

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 Does being able to imagine the world being a way it isn't actually entail that it isn't necessary? I can imagine a number of mutually exclusive conceptions of a God so none can be necessary. Does that make sense to you?

@AleMartnezR1 I noticed: The conclusion just a logical truth of a being ‘Spirit’ It’s necessarily true by itself. It needs no argument.

1. God is a spirit substance 2. The nature of spirit substance is essentially and fully exemplified by God 3 God is by definition non-material Then, to be spirit substance is to be non-material

@AleMartnezR1 @dannyphiltalk @Leophilius Suppose only an omnipotent being could annihilate me. Now, suppose Atheism. So, there is no omnipotent being (the only thing that could annihilate me) it’s trivial to see that; if the only the thing that could annihilate me does not exist, then I cannot be annihilated

@Rome2147 @dannyphiltalk @Leophilius Sure, go ahead.

Atheism entails materalism. It cannot be otherwise, without contradiction ​Premise 1: Materialism and "The Spiritual" are a true dichotomy (exhausting all possibilities of reality). ​Premise 2: ¬Materialism ⇒ Spiritual Reality ​Premise 3: Spiritual Reality ⇒ Theism ​Conclusion: Therefore, ¬Theism ⇒ Materialism (via Contraposition) @MartinTweats @JockoBocko3 @Barely_Christ @CatholicCo200 @Truthseeker_562 @limitandmind @lamelaza7_

@AleMartnezR1 @dannyphiltalk @Leophilius We only need to accept that an Afterlife would count as a “Spiritual Reality” for my argument to run. \\I believe we cease..// That’s fine! Counter-models don’t need to be grounded in reality they can imagined and as contrived as possible they just need to break a rule!

@Rome2147 @dannyphiltalk @Leophilius Roman, I believe that we cease to exist at death, though. I do not know if this would help for your argument. Hypothetically, assume I believe in a substance called 'soul', for the sake of your argument (Though, I do not).

@AleMartnezR1 @dannyphiltalk @Leophilius Natural Theist, Do you accept an Afterlife is a spiritual reality? If I can prove to you by presenting a model where the Afterlife and Atheism are both true, I will have prove indirectly proven: (Spiritual Reality → Theism) is false (SR ∧ ~T) are compatible! do you agree?

@dannyphiltalk @Leophilius No substantial objection. Thanks. I expected it.

@SpeedWatkins @DrFrankTurek Theism; Some God exists; some x exists such that it is God-like. No x in particular, just some x. In particular, i mean; there is a such as person as God or some such person 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 God Materialism; All entities are material. Material reality exhausts all of reality.

@Rome2147 @DrFrankTurek We have to stipulate what we mean by theism and materialism. From those stipulations, entailments follow. What definitions do you stipulate when using those terms? What do you mean by them?

I don’t think we should quibble here. No, atheism doesn’t entail materialism, but materialism does entail atheism. Materialism also is, arguably, a better explanation than theism, so @DrFrankTurek is at least circling an interesting discussion to have with an atheist.

@SpeedWatkins @DrFrankTurek So, you concede strict bare materialism (its contents alone) by itself entail atheism. The moment you stipulate that, you’re making use of content other than assumption of bare material. & theism does not entail that :) i’d like to see a purely logical derivation if u 🧠 it does

@Rome2147 @DrFrankTurek This is trivially easy to do, but it requires stipulating that theism entails at least one wholly immaterial mind that is separate and distinct from (ie over and above) any material reality.

@SpeedWatkins @DrFrankTurek And if you think it does @SpeedWatkins , I challenge you to provide a strict purely logical demonstration of that entailment. You can’t use make use of anything but the assumption of Bare Materialism, obvious logical truths and or tautologies and impeccable inferences

@SpeedWatkins @DrFrankTurek Materialism doesn’t entail atheism. I can quite clearly conceive of a necessarily existent, necessarily material, enormously powerful God. Classical theism doesn’t hold a monopoly on the conceptual space of all possible God-concepts. Treating it as if it did would be a mistake.