Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

In case you missed it, here is the recent debate I had on creation vs. evolution. I'll be releasing it soon as an episode of @RealAtheology too.

🔗 here: @darwintojesus/note/p-198875195?r=5n6b1&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@darwintojesus…

@AmericanGwyn One of my all-time favorites. I reread it and Moby Dick every year.

This morning, I decided to start my education over again. Perhaps because I feel so utterly lost. Perhaps because many of the things I believed in turned out to be shadow and ash. Where to even start? As the horse trainer Buck Brannaman says, “At the beginning would be nice.”

Set a reminder for my upcoming Space! twitter.com/i/spaces/1qxvv…

Just a reminder to all that "World War II with Tom Hanks" premiers at 8pm May 25th on @HISTORY with a 3-episode drop followed by 17 more episodes on a once a week release schedule. I am one of a great many contributors. I hope you'll check it out! #WorldWarIITomHanks @NutopiaTV

@darwintojesus Moral autonomy

What gives atheists the right to criticize God’s moral standards?

@WriterJohnBuck @darwintojesus I’ve said nothing predictive about the theistic hypothesis. I’ve only said something predictive about the hypothesis of indifference and the intrinsic probability of theism and the hypothesis of indifference.

@SpeedWatkins @darwintojesus So then it does seem that models of God have empirical content to them, insofar as they predict things differently than other hypotheses.

Proof the earth isn’t round:

@WriterJohnBuck @darwintojesus Not quite right. If suffering and evil confirm a hypothesis incompatible with theism, like a hypothesis of indifference, and theism is no more intrinsically probable than such a hypothesis, then it does follow that suffering and evil disconfirm theism.

@SpeedWatkins @darwintojesus If models of God have no empirical content then no instance of unjust suffering or evil can function as disconfirmation of God.

The “Earn this” scene in Saving Private Ryan (1998) becomes heavier the older you get. Miller doesn’t die talking about patriotism or glory, just placing the unbearable weight of all those sacrifices onto one ordinary man standing in front of him.

@freganmitts @waldenpod @FrankVIII Thank you!

@SpeedWatkins @waldenpod @FrankVIII Messaged you!

Lfg 🔥🔥🔥 @freganmitts @FrankVIII

@freganmitts @waldenpod @FrankVIII Yes please!

@SpeedWatkins @waldenpod @FrankVIII Lmk if you want a code!

@MinistriesMicah @WoosterJeeves2 @darwintojesus My opinion is that the incoherence runs deeper than perfect justice and unsurpassable mercy. God is also supposed to be universally graceful. There is a genuine *logical* puzzle as to how these three divine attributes are compossible. There are good reasons to think they are not.

@MinistriesMicah @WoosterJeeves2 @darwintojesus The theist is committed to those attributes being unsurpassable (in some infinite sense on a “sliding” scale) because it is the theist who supposes that God is “that which none greater can be conceived.” The “can be conceived” is important in this context.

@WoosterJeeves2 @SpeedWatkins @darwintojesus You’re also treating divine attributes like independent sliders pushed to infinity. In classical theism, God’s attributes are perfectly harmonized, not competing extremes. So premise 2 (m → ~j) is simply unsupported. 2/2

@WoosterJeeves2 @SpeedWatkins @darwintojesus Your argument only works if mercy and justice are logical opposites, but they aren’t. “Maximally merciful” does not mean “never judges” or “never punishes.” A judge can be both just and merciful without contradiction. 1/2

@The_Pilgrim67 @papistspike You are not independent of your rationality. You couldn’t be. That’s Descartes’ lesson. No one is suggesting that the order of being must begin with your point of view, but your order of knowing must begin with your rationality within your point of view.

I just explained why that is not true. We have the independent tools of rationality. We could not have created these. Of course this cannot be proven without a circular argument but that is irrelevant. But the impossibility of us creating them is self-evident. I explained what aspects of knowledge could not be explained by our own knowledge. Let me expand. Since our memories & perceptions cannot be proven with 100% assurance our ability to connect a priori & a posteriori facts cannot be proven with 100% assurance. Our knowledge thus cannot be known if it's 100% complete. Kant recognized this problem. But his Ding an sich basically destroyed the ability gaining true knowledge. The only way to overcome this is through revelation by the 100% self-conscious Trinity. The tools to determine rationality must either exist outside of us or we create them. So knowledge true knowledge is either independent of us or created independently by each person. The former is rational the latter is not. The Trinity provides the a priori rationality.

The skeptic needn’t claim knowledge in order to doubt; at most, she provisionally supposes certain appearances or propositions for the sake of inquiry. A lesson of Pyrrhonism is that suspension of judgment is internally coherent without committing oneself to any knowledge claims.

@The_Pilgrim67 @papistspike Any revelation still must be filtered through your point of view. You must decide whether what you experience is a revelation or a hallucination. So, your knowledge still begins with you.

Not true. You would have to disprove theism for that. If I start with God as the source of all knowledge I can validate that that knowledge doesn't start with me by using tools I didn't design or create. 1. I cannot be the source of logic. It's irrational 2. We can debate the source but not its existence. Correct? 3. Logic must exist a priori otherwise this discussion cannot happen. This is not my autonomous viewpoint 4. Abstract symbols exist regardless of me. We can debate their source but not the existence. 5. Other people have symbols similar to ours. We can debate their source but no their existence. 6. There is a reality outside of me. Which worldview provides a rational explanation. 7. If you argue for a brain in a vat then who made the brain? 8. If doxastic experience is real then people can have intuition. You must disprove God to prove that a specific intuition did not come from God. 9. Christian theism is rational. It is the best & only explanation for reality. I will acknowledge the circularity in all arguments. However, this is not the real point. Circularity is not always a fallacy. The real question is which explanation provides the rational answer.

@The_Pilgrim67 @papistspike You still reason from within your point of view. You can only transcend your point of view by beginning within it. Even still, you can never abandon it entirely.

Ok, so you just destroyed true know. Does this mean you're really just a skeptic like Hume? I believe Kant recognized this problem & just pre-supposed a bunch of things. But he couldn't solve the connection between facts. >Even if you think knowledge begins somewhere else, you could only think that from within your point of view. This is not entirely true. We do have the ability to reason rationally. I have a hard time convincing myself that I invented logical reasoning. I also have a hard time convincing myself that I don't experience anything. So if I consider myself to be internally & externally rational, & I have evidence of sensory or doxastic experience (eg I read a book on the theory of knowledge) I can determine if it is rational. If I determine the theory is non-contradictory, logically sound & coherent I should accept that theory as warranted & rational. We live this way every day. If we don't act this way then all life is ultimately an absurdity & irrational. Of course, I believe the 100% self-conscious Trinity is the source of all knowledge.

@The_Pilgrim67 @papistspike There are certain forms of thought that we “cannot get behind” and evaluate “from the outside.” Our point of view is one such form of thought. Even if you think knowledge begins somewhere else, you could only think that from within your point of view.

>All of our knowledge begins with our point of view< Whose knowledge. Your's, mine? Which is correct? How can we even find out? What starting point? The human mind? You need some significant a priori pre-suppositions before you have a point of view, right? This could have serious sociological repercussions. Has this not made some man the ultimate source of law. Hume tried to work out the full implication of Descartes’ emphasis upon the human mind as the most ultimate foundation for knowledge. He concluded that upon such a basis no knowledge is possible. I agree with Hume here. This is why Descartes failed. True knowledge is impossible when the human mind is the starting point. There are a few other things to consider. How do we connect a priori & a posteriori facts? How do we go from analytic to synthetic reasoning? How do we solve intersubjective communication?