Linus Loth

@wiguy45 @NotEvolution1 How are these intentional murders ("removal") needed? Why do you allow for the unborn to suffer? How are these murders not for arbitrary reasons? x.com/wiguy45/status…

@___loth___ @NotEvolution1 And there is a difference with the removal of an unwanted fetus. Your god supposed created those fail ones too.

The falsification principle is not falsifiable. Falsification is still inductive in practice.

@KestrelYTReal @WoStWi @NotEvolution1 How do you know this? Why should God prefer the easier?

@___loth___ @WoStWi @NotEvolution1 If a god were to make a universe it would be a base reality. not a simulated one. it would be much easier to.

@KestrelYTReal @WoStWi @NotEvolution1 How can you pinpoint a species if they are in constant flux?

@___loth___ @WoStWi @NotEvolution1 Thats the part you dont get from the joke Even if current pigs were to evolve wings they would no longer be pigs. The genetic changes needed to evolve that. Would make them not able to breed with pigs, making them their own species. Its called speciation. Thus pigs will not fly

@OlisCory @andreariveraps @NotEvolution1 I didn't read an argument there

@___loth___ @andreariveraps @NotEvolution1 Either way, it's just a plain 'nuh uh'

Dark matter, n. – The invisible, undetectable substance that supposedly holds the universe together, invoked liberally to prop up evolutionary cosmological theories that would otherwise fail to fit the evidence.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @NotEvolution1 You are just in denial

@___loth___ @OlisCory @NotEvolution1 You did say that, and either way, you don't have a solution. Still not wishful thinking, by definition of wishful thinking.

@OlisCory @andreariveraps @NotEvolution1 The falsification principle is not falsifiable. Falsification is still inductive in practice.

@___loth___ @andreariveraps @NotEvolution1 When you want to base conclusions on confirming your assumptions, yes. Science tries to DISprove its theories, though. Which is deductive in nature.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @NotEvolution1 I didn't said that I have no solution. Read more careful. Even if I had none, you have no reason to reject the absurd besides wishful thinking.

@___loth___ @OlisCory @NotEvolution1 you said you have no solution either, it's not my world view, it's everyone's world view.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 It leads to the absurd. That's not nothing. You are just too afraid to go where your worldview is leading you.

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 That's why the problem has no solution. And arguing against it leads to nothing, just wasting time.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 Welcome to the absurd

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 if you reject the foundation of logic, there is no logical conclusion. The argument is against everything and *for* nothing. There is no conclusion possible

@OlisCory @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 inter-subjectivity. Euphemism, still the same

@___loth___ @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 That's not subjectivism, lol.

@OlisCory @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 Even testing is inductive. Science cannot escape induction.

@___loth___ @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 That's why science doesn't prove anything. However, science works by deduction, not induction. And while we can't say for certain the future will behave like the past, it doing so has proven to be more likely than it not doing so. And if it doesn't, observations will show it.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 The existentialists were brave enough to come to this logical conclusion. Why aren't you brave enough?

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 rationality depends on the assumption of induction. if you consider that wishful thinking, that's fine. The problem is that you cannot use rationality after you reject the foundation of rationality 😉

@OlisCory @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 Nice subjectivism you got there

@___loth___ @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 ...so we keep using it until a better explanation comes along, and probably long after.

@wiguy45 @NotEvolution1 There is a difference between intentional murder and a fallen biological system.

@___loth___ @NotEvolution1 With what. You are aware that about 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail in the first eeek. And in the US about a million miscarriages each year. Abortions is less then a 10% addition to this.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 Tu quoque. Why is it rational to be engaged in wishful thinking in your view?

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 Then yours would be too. There are concepts defined as fundamental axioms. You also operate with the assumption of those being valid. If you attack those, you just concede rationality and cannot make any further conclusion.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 what are you talking about?

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 if we have the specifics of the test we can make a new test

@OlisCory @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 You are demanding an impossible task. How can you know anything with this kind of requirement?

@___loth___ @andreariveraps @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 Uhmmm, that's what they believed, until they made observations that showed it didn't. You seem to think that consistently showing predictions for SOME observations is enough... But the point is that it should predict ALL future observations. It didn't, which is why it was outed.

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 For the sake of the argument, I'll grant you that I also don't have a solution. You just admitted that your worldview is based on wishful-thinking.

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 you don't have one either, if you attempt to discard induction then you discard any thought, including your belief in a god

@andreariveraps @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 You cannot test historical events in a lab and still believe the universe is older than 5 minutes...

@___loth___ @OlisCory @HarryNockz @NotEvolution1 There is no model in christianity, no way to make or test predictions. There is no debate here 😅