Ethan Muse

@MatthewIgnatius @Dude_Largepants @uncledoomer Lol, it's okay to admit you are wrong sometimes.

@emuse1955 @Dude_Largepants @uncledoomer *Maybe.* And no.

this hypothetical brings out two types of people: people who would take this deal in a heartbeat and be 100 million richer within 3-4 weeks, and people who failed geometry

Okay, so apparently the fact that you would have to bet your life that you will be able to raise 10 million dollars to hire a team of experts to help you commit a bunch of felonies to solve an unknown problem of unknown complexity within a year is not even a point of 'actual concern.'

@emuse1955 @Dude_Largepants @uncledoomer Even just ten million dollars buys a lot of expert help. Again, the only point of actual concern you’ve raised is a constantly moving box.

With first and second, the point is simply that the rules are perfectly consistent with the box being in locations that would be completely inaccessible to you. That seems like more than a small problem, no? You are not concerned about betting your life on your ability to break into a safe in a heavily guarded vault? Also, I think you are a fool if you think you would actually have an *unlimited credit line* in this scenario. Plus you'd have to give away lots of your upside and burn lots of time to even have a chance of securing that.

@emuse1955 @Dude_Largepants @uncledoomer If you want to turn the first two into the fourth I guess I can’t stop you. And again, with almost a year and a nearly unlimited credit line, I’m just not concerned about the third.

I'm assuming you think it excludes the first because it says "in your country," but it only says that it is *hidden somewhere in your country* not that it stays in your country. Imagine they placed it in a weather balloon or a rocket or something like that at beginning of event. Same goes for the second option too. These are related to the fourth of course, but the idea with the fourth one was just that you couldn't use intersecting radii and these are about inaccessibility. As for third, be more imaginative. It could be in a secure/restricted/guarded area, it could be bolted to the bottom of a lake, you could have a nested loop of very secure safes with decoy safes inside, etc...

@Dude_Largepants @emuse1955 @uncledoomer It absolutely excludes the first and mostly excludes the second. The third is of no concern whatsoever given fifty weeks to work with. Only the fourth could really be a problem.

Interdependence between synoptics was widely accepted before critical scholarship… Augustinian hypothesis was prevailing view… I think there are good arguments for Marcan priority, but I think critics tend to be pretty sloppy andumimaginative when evaluating Matthean alternatives… they also, as a rule, place way too much weight on conjectural text criticism and way too little weight on the historical value of patristic testimony.

Sounds like Bart Ehrman has written a new book that explicitly spells out the deficient moral philosophy that accompanies Tom Holland's work. Fascinating. youtu.be/Cz57BuQOCmQ?si…

@goingawoll @BMcGrewvy IMO, the reasoning was so atrocious that I think it discredits him as an ‘expert’ about any subject. I dont care how much information he’s read about a topic, I do not trust him to process information on my behalf. I’ll go with Lydia instead…

@BMcGrewvy I thought the whole premise of this interview was nuts, I had to stop! Like, obviously if you interview a historian about metaethics, you’re going to get a mix of “uh… I think morality is… objectively subjectively a matter of—“, just like if you interview any random philosopher

@michaelbd This is condemned proposition #55 in the Syllabus of Errors: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.”

I’m actually starting to think this is a James Lindsay sock puppet. It’s that stupid. 1) If the separation of Church and State is necessary to be a conservative, Edmund Burke is not a conservative 2) But Catholic integralists would be!

@ANewCrusade33 It is rare to find a heretic that loves chastity

They always end up supporting Gooning!

@GothamChess @Dexerto @chesscom I thought it was a guide for beginners “AND BEYOND”!?!?

@Dexerto Straight up ridiculous. It's a book for beginners. How is this going to help the players? @chesscom

YouTuber GothamChess’s book "How to Win at Chess" has been banned at the Speed Chess Championship Finals

Here's the Intercessory Prayer Paul shared on Instagram for Micah.

@cremieuxrecueil rare UK policing W

I am requiring all Freemasons to identify themselves.

@Immaculata_City Bach’s greatest work was his Mass in B Minor.

Catholic Mozart beats Lutheran Bach

@steven18613 @ShamelessPopery @PelopeAl41549 @jkdavis89 @ThoughtfulSaint Look up ‘modus ponens.’

@emuse1955 @ShamelessPopery @PelopeAl41549 @jkdavis89 @ThoughtfulSaint Is embedded in the premise and is definitionally fallacious and illogical because it begs the question

Joe Heschmeyer @ShamelessPopery is now publicly claiming I lied and lured him into a debate about the papacy. I figured I needed to respond to that claim. I am many things but I can assure you I was not being dishonest and I hope this video clarifies things. (With that said I don't hold anything against Joe or @CapturingChrist)

@steven18613 @ShamelessPopery @PelopeAl41549 @jkdavis89 @ThoughtfulSaint The conclusion is embedded in a conditional.

@emuse1955 @ShamelessPopery @PelopeAl41549 @jkdavis89 @ThoughtfulSaint Your conclusion is in p1 that’s definitionally begging the question

@UbiPetrus2019 @ElijahElishaRap Based Bl. Pius IX

@ElijahElishaRap <<You're the one who believes that Vatican I teaches the Pope can decree in complete opposition to the bishops.>> There's no method of enforcement to ensure he can't so I am correct.

You're the one who is requiring the Catholic of proving the papacy by showing where the Pope acted alone. You're the one who believes that Vatican I teaches the Pope can decree in complete opposition to the bishops. We're correcting those errors of yours. We do not believe such a separation is possible. It is a false dichotomy. You do not know the papacy and Vatican I better than Pope Pius IX. You expect us to listen to your interpretation and ignore the ones he approved (Letters of Swiss bishops, German bishops and Fessler's book). This isn't a matter of "checks and balances". It is a matter of you falsely thinking we teach the Pope can decree in isolation from the Church and her bishops.

I took his argument to be: (P1) If the ‘institutional fullness of the Church’ was lost, then there was a Great Apostasy. (P2) If the popes that succeeded Peter didnt have universal jurisdiction, then the ‘institutional fullness of the Church’ was lost. (P3) The popes that succeeded Peter didnt have universal jurisdiction. (C) There was a Great Apostasy. I dont think you should respond to this by saying that he would reach the same conclusion from a stronger version of P2 that he happens to accept. That doesnt get you off the hook for refuting the weaker version of P2. However, do think that he failed to meet his burden: He needed to provide a reason to affirm (P2) *on the supposition that Catholicism is false.* He didnt independently motivate P2. If he proves that universal jurisdiction was immediately lost with Linus, he refutes Catholicism, but he also undercuts (P2). But if (P2) is undercut, the argument fails to satisfy his burden. Also, it is very annoying that he evaded the central question with a minimalistic interpretation of the LDS doctrine of Great Apostasy (and refused to defend it in a way consistent with the truth of Mormonism!) Would have been better if the resolution was explicitly about indefectability.

@PelopeAl41549 @jkdavis89 @ThoughtfulSaint Exactly this. My not engaging on the papal jurisdiction debate isn't because I don't understand the LDS claim, but because it's literally irrelevant to the debate. Both sides agree that the pope's authority is not like the authority of an apostle receiving new revelation.