Limit and Mind | Know the Times

> Show me the evidence > Sure, that's a reasonable request. Here are the eyewitness testimonies to Jesus's life, death, and Resurection > That's not evidence > Ok, how about the myriad of archeological findings that support the historical Biblical account? > That's not evidence > Alright, let's use science. The Big Bang and Fine tuning show that a Creator is more likely than not > That's not evidence > Ok, perhaps a philosophical argument will do the trick. Contingency, MOA, Moral argument, and the Kalam. > That's not evidence > Ok, it's hard to see what you'll accept as evidence at this point. I'm starting to think you don't actually want the evidence.

@MarioFunk Yes we have to define God to know who He is. There problem is you see no difference between your arbitrary definition and the non-arbitrary definition of the theist. You think that saying he could be yellow is a meaningful retort in this conversation.

@limitandmind You are now asigning features to this “god”. I could say that this god is yellow, both our claims are equally unverifiable

> Show me the evidence > Sure, that's a reasonable request. Here are the eyewitness testimonies to Jesus's life, death, and Resurection > That's not evidence > Ok, how about the myriad of archeological findings that support the historical Biblical account? > That's not evidence > Alright, let's use science. The Big Bang and Fine tuning show that a Creator is more likely than not > That's not evidence > Ok, perhaps a philosophical argument will do the trick. Contingency, MOA, Moral argument, and the Kalam. > That's not evidence > Ok, it's hard to see what you'll accept as evidence at this point. I'm starting to think you don't actually want the evidence.

@cgp42 @mostlyreplies You just restated your assertion. Do you have a reason why it doesn’t escape the dilemma?

@limitandmind @mostlyreplies Because it doesn't escape the dilemma. The problem is it's either from God or outside God, and arguing it's from God doesn't solve it. Which is what the "third horn" does imo. It tries to expose a false dilemma that just isn't there.

> Morality is subjective? You don't have morality anymore. You have preference. > Reject the that things, like the universe, need an explanation? You undercut the motivation behind science, and you introduce radical skepticism about what we think we already know > Embrace materialism? You don't have the reality of mathematics anymore, it's just a useful fiction > Reject God? You get hell If the source of goodness goes away, the goodness goes with Him.

@MarioFunk @MerkMilly No, you can’t actually

@limitandmind @MerkMilly I can imagine a god with different features too, you can even deffend on a philosophical level that this creator god is evil or that it has no personal relationship with its creation. I agree philosophy is the best field for theism not to seem dumb, but there are still problems

@cgp42 @mostlyreplies I accept that. Now how does the third horn not escape the euthyphro?

@limitandmind @mostlyreplies I already have. We clearly still disagree. That's the point. It's possible to just accept that intelligent, rational people can disagree with you.

@clownesvanzandt “You’re nothing but a cosmic splat” - Neil Degrasse Tyson - Michael Scott

@limitandmind Cosmic splats and their monkey cousins don't want to hear that argument. They want to you to wonder at how intelligent they are

@MarioFunk Not sure what you’re asking here

@limitandmind And you know this amazing feature how?

@cgp42 @mostlyreplies By all means, share why you disagree. Why is that not a satisfactory answer to the dilemma?

@limitandmind @mostlyreplies I'm well aware of the response. But much like the Trinity, it's a response no one that isn't already on board is going to agree with. It's why it's still an objection thousands of years later. You should be able to grant there are rational reasons to disagree with you on this.

@MarioFunk @MerkMilly Because it’s easy to imagine a unicorn of a different color or size. Again, these are basic philosophical distinctions that you appear to be completely ignorant of.

@limitandmind @MerkMilly Why is it contingent? Besides you saying so. You say god is the necessary being, I say this unicorn is the necessary being, please tell me how is this different

@MarioFunk @MerkMilly Except a unicorn is contingent. We are postulating the necessary. This is basic stuff, man.

@MerkMilly @limitandmind Sure man, I can also say a magical, ethereal unicorn is a necessary being that created the universe and explain nature as well 😉

Neither horn of the dilemma is forced on the theist who actually thinks about it. The false choice assumes God’s commands are either arbitrary or that goodness is some external standard God has to obey. There is a third option: God is goodness itself. His nature just is the standard of moral perfection, necessary, unchanging, and not “governed” by anything outside Himself. Commands flow from that nature; they aren’t random decrees or submissions to a higher law.

@limitandmind @mostlyreplies Is something good because God says it is? Or does God obey what is morally good? If the former, that's divine command theory. If the latter, God isn't the source of good but is governed by it. Either way it undermines the relevance God can have on moral issues.

@MarioFunk No. Where it leads is the definition of non-arbitrary, because it is maximal in its great making properties.

@limitandmind Because you don’t know where it leads, that is the honest answer. You can make up a metaphysical being in order to cope, but the features of this being or whatever you want to atribute to it are just in your imagination

@freedarkcry “We denied the evidence because we didn’t like the conclusion” Fixed it for you

@limitandmind "We've tried every trick and they still want actual evidence, no fair"

@MarioFunk You can can just arbitrarily stop explaining things altogether because you don’t like where it leads, I guess

@limitandmind Sure, you can make up explanations in order to cope, I guess

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 Theism is not universally subjectively moral, that is incorrect.

@limitandmind @AleMartnezR1 Theism is, in all its forms, a subjective moral framework. Things that need an explanation do not need a fictional explanation. Math is still real even if the universe is an illusion. Hell is evidence that God, as defined by those who believe in hell, is not good.

@mostlyreplies @cgp42 Yeah, I simply don’t hold to divine command theory. Problem solved.

@limitandmind @cgp42 Subjective morality is proven to be subjective by whether the subject of actions or the object of actions are the source of the moral facts that determine whether it is true or not. Not only is God a subject Himself, His moral commands are revealed by subjects.

@Whilfrith 💯

@limitandmind Richard Dawkins sort of gave the game away when he said something to the effect of, if God Himself were to appear before him and speak, he would believe instead it was aliens using advanced technology to play a trick on him.

@KestrelArts It’s a wonderful approach and I need to use it more instead of goofing around as much as I do.

@limitandmind I have started off asking them what they would consider evidence, to save time. Usually they don't answer.

@EvenWokerPresby @ClubCalvinist You’re a real one, Sardaukar

@ClubCalvinist Presbyterians ruined Presbyterianism

Presbyterians and Presbyterians can’t even live together and be friends.

@Electrikhan_ Many don’t. They’ll rage, call me worthless, ask me why I don’t have a PhD in <whatever_point_they_want_to_make>, or say I’m basically a child for believing these things. I’m a super small account. That I got more likes than I have followers shows that I’m over the target.

@limitandmind They dont want a discussion, they want to be correct or at the least you to be wrong.

@Fido26424283 @SteveSyme1 Do you believe that infinity exists in reality?

@limitandmind @SteveSyme1 You are claiming God exists in reality. Not as a concept. Not as an idea. So if you want to prove that you will need empirical factual evidence that he exists in reality