Prophet Rob

I was begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 Yes you can either call it pantheism or atheism depending on what you want to refer to as a God

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 I am more than happy with brute facts, I embrace it! All views pushed to their limits will have their Just is’s Certain primitive identities are brute facts just for example. I wasn’t going to fight you on that point. I was wanting to show your views entail a kind of theism

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

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 I think there's no intention behind why there had to be conscious aspects of the universe and that asking why is looking for something there can't be It feels like asking why there had to be a conscious God if there is one. We're never going to get anything other than just is

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 I’d say so yeah. If there’s an endpoint to explanation and this endpoint is a self-explained fact, then we’ve arrived at a fact that “Just is!” 0 = 0 There’s no why for it - - the questions are confused.. it just is the way it is and that’s all! We’re lead back to Russell

@KhalilAndani @Gnosisinformant Never grant the conditions of intelligibility and laugh at where it goes

I don’t see why TAG can’t be used to prove other worldviews like Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism doenst have any of the logical handicaps that Christian theology has @Gnosisinformant

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 Does self explanation count as brute fact?

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 It has no explanation. There is no why. It is unexplained. I am not asking: if it is a brute fact some conscious agent is in fact casually necessitated This is false on your view; the constant fundamental nature of the universe causally necessitated each item in the chain

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 Can you elaborate on what you mean by brute fact?

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 In your universe this is true: It is brute fact why conscious agents are necessitated but it is a necessary fact: conscious agents 𝐜𝐚𝐧 be causally necessitated (bc they’re actually C-necessitated!) - - it’s possible they have a necessary cause Would you agree w my assessment

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 I'm near ambivalent about whether or not there is a conscious perspective that is aware of the whole universe but I doubt there is.

@Rome2147 @AleMartnezR1 Deterministic casual interaction where all events are necessary because they are the result of necessary events. I think the universe is conscious in the sense that you and I are the universe and we are conscious.

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 The classical infinite density singularity big bang hypothesizes this sort of state existing initially without space I think we can only speculate about events so far in the past that we can't hope to observe for ourselves

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 I get you, thank you kindly for the explanation. Which leads me to ask: can matter exist on it's own with no existence of space?

Argument from Contingency Premise 1: If each of the parts of any whole has contingent existence, then the whole itself has contingent existence. Premise 2: Each of the parts of nature or the universe as a whole has contingent existence. Deduction and Premise 3: Therefore, nature or the universe as a whole has contingent existence. Premise 4: Definition: If something exists contingently, it is causally derived from or dependent on something other than itself. Deduction and Premise 5: Therefore, nature or the universe as a whole is causally derived from or dependent on something other than itself. Premise 6: The something on which nature or the universe depends is either the Principle of Plenitude, which requires infinitely many worlds in time and/or space; or it is God. Premise 7: The something on which nature or the universe depends is not the Principle of Plenitude or infinitely many worlds. Final Conclusion: The something on which nature or the universe depends is God. Rem B. Edwards (Ph.D., Emory University, 1962) is Lindsay Young Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus at The University of Tennessee, Knoxvill.

@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

@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?

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 I like your philosophy! But I don’t it escapes my conclusion; the universe is contingent. If it is constantly reconfiguring itself from the same material, it is constantly acquiring a new instance of material. It follows that it is not necessarily one way rather than another

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 This wouldn't exist in a background void, there isn't really a void. The substance performs the function of both the what and where.

@MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 In some biphasic matter-space substance concepts the substance is like a 3 dimensional lattice where matter is tangles in the lattice and what we perceive as empty vacuum is the lattice in an untangled state.

@AleMartnezR1 @halal_editor You can easily suppose and that's enough for your weak will

@halal_editor @thesaviorweneed He wont, he cant. We can easily prove is contingent. He cannot prove is necessary

@halal_editor @AleMartnezR1 I think you're in the same boat so don't get too smug about it

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 🌻Thank you, my brother, for finally conceding that you have NO Evidence for what you believe; At least we both agreed that you are engaging in blind belief. As for my worldview, I will leave it up to the audience to decide based on our conversation. It was nice talking to U.

@halal_editor @AleMartnezR1 I can't, which is part of why I'm saying you can't evidence the opposite either

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 That’s a red herring. Please answer what I am asking; this is the fourth time I am repeating it. 📌Please provide at least one piece of evidence that a pen is necessary or that it has to exist. I am waiting.

@AleMartnezR1 @halal_editor I think that's just a bit of motivated reasoning

@thesaviorweneed @halal_editor We know it.

@halal_editor @AleMartnezR1 Well a necessary universe seems as ordinary as a necessary God to me and I think you're mistaken about what my practical life establishes because it led me to believe the opposite of you

@thesaviorweneed @AleMartnezR1 99.9% of humans + 99.9% of your own practical life are more than sufficient to establish the “status quo.” That is how, epistemologically, people distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary. 📌So now, please provide at least one piece of evidence that a pen is necessary.

@AleMartnezR1 @halal_editor I think you're just assuming that there are contingent parts and have no way to know this. That's why I don't accept your argument

Rob, you know and you have been told innumerable times how the universe is composed of contingent parts, and it cannot be itself necessary for that reason. You deny what is clear-water obvious to Logic, Reason and the senses. That is why those who engage you end up realizing it, and probably, prefer to leave off the conversation.

@halal_editor @AleMartnezR1 Also, I'm not actually trying to convince you that the universe is necessary, I'm trying to convince you that the contrary cannot be supported by observation

@halal_editor @AleMartnezR1 Who decides what the status quo is? Is the claim that the universe can't be necessary extraordinary?