Justin Thomas

@Galcondude @LatFilosof The first law describes how energy behaves, not its ontological status. We observe energy as a property of physical objects ie. magnetism, kinetic energy, temperature etc. which are themselves contingent.

@Footofthepath @LatFilosof So what is energy contingent upon? The first law of thermodynamics would indicate nothing.

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.

@Brilliand__ Let me put this a little more plainly; contingency is an ontological statement about x, y or z. "This exists. It doesn't need to but it can". That's not a physical property like mass or temperature. The elements in the set we call "the universe" are symmetrical in this regard.

@Footofthepath You've gotta be careful about carrying properties over. Many properties simply don't carry over from elements of the set to the entire set. (Which is his point.)

@Brilliand__ @LatFilosof Or maybe it's a bad argument predicated on a reification fallacy. Who's to say?

@Footofthepath @LatFilosof I daresay you're rather badly misunderstanding his argument.

@Brilliand__ All elements of this set are dependent. Sets do not exist apart from their elements. It really has nothing to do with properties carrying over. I'm not talking about plasmas being wet or photons being heavy.

@Samdrow5 @LatFilosof No. It was a response to a specific argument.

@Footofthepath @LatFilosof Did you just deny logic and philosophy as a discipline?

@LatFilosof The set that you've labeled "the universe" is dependent upon its elements just as all sets depend upon what they collect. To argue otherwise is to redefine what is meant by "set" to begin with.

anything else, yet still contain elements that are dependent on there being a set, and this set being the universe. This argument doesn’t establish a cause for the universe, only a dependency relationship. How best to describe the set is a completely different question.

@LatFilosof And I'll add that insofar as you've identified "the universe" as the set which includes all dependent things you have to explain how any given set that exists can be independent of its elements. Even a set of necessary elements is dependent on said elements.

@LatFilosof You're also ironically reifying "the universe" here as if it's a concrete thing in itself which it is plainly not true. Absent the things that we observe "the universe" has no ontology of its own any more than New York City exists absent people, buildings, laws, etc.

@heymike33 @LatFilosof I'd question whether "nothing" is actually possible given that the act of imagination presupposes an observer. Infinite regress rests solely on imagination whereas contingency arguments rest on empirical observation. If we want to move beyond idle fancies we need a metric.

@Footofthepath @LatFilosof Imagination at least frames the possible things that can be said about it: from nothing, an infinite regress, or a first cause that is itself uncaused.

@CailinasEirinn @gilmcgowan Why don't you take care of it for him? It's "dignified" and "compassionate", right? You love him? It's the right thing to do? Then what's stopping you?

My son is terminally ill and how DARE you take away his right to MAID??? I’ll got to me last day taking you down. Fuck you. @gilmcgowan

@Garnet_2203 You didn't love her enough to smother her with a pillow or lace her tea with fentanyl? Some daughter you are.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. My mother died of lung cancer. Almost a full year of constant pain and suffering. We couldn’t use MAID not because she didn’t deserve that choice, but because she also had dementia and wasn’t legally allowed to consent. We had the conversation before she got sick she was clear. If she ever faced a terminal illness, she would choose MAID. But dementia took that choice away from her. Our only option was palliative care. And because it was during COVID, we were told we wouldn’t be able to be with her in her final moments if she stayed in hospital. So I brought her home and cared for with the support of the palliative care nursing team. There were ambulance calls when her blood sugar spiralled out of control. Pain medication didn’t work. Prednisone made things worse. In the end it was pure suffering. So she suffered. Bedsores. Pain. The slow, cruel reality of a terminal illness. People who haven’t lived this don’t understand what they’re taking away. These aren’t people choosing death over life they’re choosing peace over prolonged suffering. MAID is compassion.

@BanjoAtheist "skepticism" seems to mean "asking questions that have been answered for millennia and acting smug when you can't understand the answer."

The greatest hoodwinker line in history. Sorry, Christian pals, but “Jesus died for us” is a real problem.

@prairiecentrist @The_Syrups Nobody's stopping you.

@prairiecentrist She's the premier. You don't like democracy?

@more_amalek On top of that if we remove persecution from the equation how does she explain Christianity conquering Rome? Rome crushed many false messiahs and incorporated every other religion into their pantheon. What made Christianity different?

@more_amalek Saint Justin Martyr wrote letters to the emperor asking for the persecution to end. He was martyred for his efforts. At no point did the emperor respond "We're not persecuting you". He had the saint killed.

In this clip, Prof. Candida Moss explains early Christians were not under constant persecution. Some were killed, often for breaking laws rather than belief. The “martyr” idea is messy, and the persecution narrative is exaggerated and still used politically today. Many cases resemble the ancient version of suicide by cop.

@ralford10 @NorthRockRache @Garnet_2203 Don't hide your wickedness behind the cross. Death is the enemy and here you are campaigning for it.

@NorthRockRache @Garnet_2203 Cool story ✝️ clearly you’ve never seen the suffering firsthand. Again, if YOU don’t like it, don’t choose it for YOURSELF 🤷🏼‍♀️

Danielle Smith has no right to control when people who are terminally ill and suffering can die. These are human beings in unbearable pain people facing the end of their lives, asking for dignity and peace. Taking that choice away isn’t care. It’s control. And the reality is, when you remove compassionate options, you risk leaving people feeling even more desperate and alone. Albertans deserve better.

@ralford10 @Garnet_2203 Anyone can find fentanyl or a bottle of nitrogen and a plastic bag in this country.

@Garnet_2203 I worked at an AB hospice. Before MAID, a doc said patients found “another way”…one that wasn’t peaceful. MAID is an incredibly dignified & empathetic choice for patients & families. Don’t like MAID? Don’t choose it. But do NOT force religious beliefs into public healthcare.

@Garnet_2203 They can end their own lives or have a family member do it. If it's the "right" thing to do there should be no problem. If their family won't do the "right" thing for fear of consequences that's on them.