Roman

@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

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

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

@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 I’m seeing a path that suggests it’s actually entailed by your view

@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.

@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 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.

@AleMartnezR1 \\If the universe contains objective beauty that transcends mere evolutionary utility It’s transcendence of mere evolutionary utility is a simple corollary of ‘objective’ beauty You coulda js shaved off the sentence following objective beauty. can I ask, why did you include it?

Argument from Beauty Premise 1: If the universe contains objective beauty that transcends mere evolutionary utility, it must have a source in a transcendent Mind. ​Premise 2: The universe contains objective beauty that transcends mere evolutionary utility (e.g., the mathematical symmetry of a snowflake or the profound emotional resonance of a sunset). ​Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a source in a transcendent Mind (God).

@MarcusFidelicus @java_warrior 👍

@Rome2147 @java_warrior Atheism has nothing to say about anything Learn words

I share in this frustration. Atheism (if it is true) has implications, some even harder to resolve without complicating our epistemology. Atheism is an active claim about the state of the world. The fact that atheism has implications licenses it to a burden of proof.

@java_warrior Or (and this one just frustrates me bc its just so wrong! ) thinking that atheism only claims no God!), thinking that Atheism says nothing about morality, meaning, freewill, explanations (PSR) Notice that: every consequence of a worldview is also a claim of that worldview.

Thinking atheism is not met with a burden of proof.

@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

@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