Victor Null
6.8K posts
can’t wait for this to start a phm vs interstellar war (we know who’s losing immediately)
ryan@tincrowfilm
i stand by my letterboxd review
English
@KiwloOsu @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations This idea that quantum mechanics refutes Aristotle and Aquinas is confused. I’m not sure what you mean by “not potentialities waiting to be analyzed in the sense of Aristotle/Aquinas”
English
@vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations It’s a heavy metaphysical posit to simply take as an axiom. Certainly there is grave tension with modern physics which allows us to understand phenomena without it. Quantum superpositions are not potentialities waiting to be actualized in the sense of Aristotle/Aquinas
English
@lakersspammer This is a good thing to hear. I figured they’d introduce rocky very early on and skim the part where he’s alone
English
Just saw Project Hail Mary, thought the middle of the movie wasn’t the greatest pacing but once Rocky is fully involved it makes up for it completely. 8.5/10
English
@Maximumatheist Are you aware that child trafficking is a big problem? The people who engage in these things, are they just going along with a determinist system that they have no control over? Are they not actually doing anything wrong because there is no inherent value to humans?
English
Imagine being a grown adult and thinking demons are real.
Operation Heal America@OperHealAmerica
Demons still tremble at the sound of His name. The name of Jesus.
English
@LatFilosof If it’s a fallacy of composition, then surely you should be able to provide the example of a set of dependent things that isn’t dependent. Your brick example isn’t the same thing and you know it. You’re essentially saying 0+0…+0 can somehow equal 1
English
Arguably, premise 1 isnt true. It’s not clear that if every element has property X, the set has property X. The set in itself can be uncaused while all the elements of set are caused. The universe can be the set of all caused things while not being caused. Fallacy of composition.
Natural Theist@AleMartnezR1
1. A set of dependent things is itself dependent. 2. Anything dependent requires a cause outside itself 3. The universe is a set of dependent things. 4. Therefore, the universe requires a cause outside itself.
English
@KiwloOsu @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations The fact that you mention infinite regress proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just talking out of your ass at this point. Infinite regress isn’t relevant to the argument.
Why do you reject act/potency?
English
@vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations That act/potency is a real metaphysical distinction and that a series of infinite regresses require a terminus
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations You didn’t articulate any other valid reasons. I responded to them with substance and reason for why. You ignored all of it.
English
@vant008 @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Nothing YOU said was really of any substance. You correctly pointed out that Feser does not commit blatant special pleading, which I acknowledged. But you continued to act as if that was what I was arguing when I articulated other reasons for not finding it convincing
English
@KiwloOsu @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations What assumptions are you rejecting? Be specific (I assume you would’ve said ‘Aristotle metaphysics’ as a vague way to avoid)
English
@vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations It isn't a critique of the internal logical consistency of the argument. One is not compelled to accept the argument if one does not accept the assumptions without which the argument does not follow
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations So then we can add another point:
- doesn’t even know which arguments are being referred to
Peak arrogance reached. Congrats.
English
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Your stupid ass literally commented “here’s 5 ways that all fail” without:
1. Knowing what the 5 ways are
2. Having read the book
3. Having read the arguments
4. Having understood the arguments
5. Having basic philosophy knowledge
Yet you accuse ME of arrogance? lol. Projection
English
@vant008 @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations It’s funny how you think if you dress up the same thousand year old argument in fancier philosophical jargon that it really changes anything. So much arrogance coming from you
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations And then to accuse me of arrogance after trying to dismiss a sound argument as “jargon” (because if you don’t understand it, it MUST be jargon) while piety signaling as if you know the basics of what Jesus wants, and then thinking you can declare an argument as social pleading ju
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations I should add, it’s always a sign of mild retardation when someone accuses an argument of “jargon” because they don’t understand basic philosophy. The equivalent would be calling a doctors argument for why a certain illness is dangerous “medical jargon” as a way to dismiss it.
English
@KiwloOsu @TDisputations I should also emphasize that in 10+ comments (5 of which were responses to me) provided 0 valid critiques. Atheists are truly retarded.
English
@KiwloOsu @TDisputations “Here’s the five ways that all fail”
-retard that didn’t read the book, didn’t even read the argument, doesn’t understand the argument, isn’t able to mount a valid critique against the argument, and thinks calling something an “assumption” serves as a meaningful critique
GIF
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations This is a funny thing to say considering you haven’t read the book either, hadn’t even read the damn argument you were critiquing, and still didn’t address anything I said or provide any substance in the 6 comments you left. Why even bother responding? 😭 straight up retardation
English
@Carecans1 @vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Guy with an antisemitic header can’t read, shocking! Maybe get Nick Fuentes to read it to you as a bedtime story
English
@KiwloOsu @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations “You can still however argue that …”
Yet you haven’t done so. At this point, you’re set on trying to falsely accuse the argument of special pleading because you don’t know how to deal with it. 5th comment and nothing of substance.
English
@vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Allowance of “purely actual” with limited justification are functionally identical to simply special pleading your unmoved mover into existence
English
@KiwloOsu @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Still nothing of substance and this is the 4th comment. Why even bother responding? This is worse than running.
Also it’s funny that people think calling something an “assumption” or pointing out supposed “assumptions” serves as any sort of valid critique.
English
@vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Avoid special pleading blatantly, it is rife with Aristotelian metaphysical assumptions and multiple other dubiousnesses which are of course difficult to discuss in full detail with a limited character count. You can still however argue these metaphysical assumptions and the-
English
@KiwloOsu @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations So you didn’t know what tf you’re talking about. Cool. 3rd comment and still nothing.
English
@vant008 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations I was perhaps imprecise. I should have said that “the most commonly delivered form of the unmoved mover argument involves blatant special pleading.” I looked into Feser more after this original discussion and my conclusion is that though this argument is cleverly designed to -
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations You haven’t addressed anything I said thus far. 2nd comment from you and nothing. Cool.
English
@KiwloOsu @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations Calling out bad arguments and critiques that attempt to argue against his very existence doesn’t need humility. So your silly virtue signaling attempt fails.
English
@vant008 @Carecans1 @LeoTelez110 @TDisputations I didn’t run from your critiques you posted a reply to a month old thread bro. Have some humility, isnt that what Jesus would have wanted?
English