wrf3 @stablecross

Christian, Grandfather, Software Engineer (Lisp enthusiast), Iconoclast, B.S. Applied Math stablecross.com Atlanta Joined August 2009

Tweets

33K
Followers

398
Following

1K
Likes

9K

wrf3 @stablecross

14 hours ago

@PracticalTheolo @kb_french Neither did quantum mechanics. Oh, wait it did. Sometimes, revelation takes time. And, just QM, it sometimes baffles the mind. That it blows all of your intuitions doesn’t make it not true.

0 0 0 8 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

16 hours ago

“Obviously” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, since evaluation of third-party consciousness is subjective. After all, it’s obvious to me that a non-corporeal consciousness exists (God); it’s apparently not obvious to you. Emergent means that consciousness is produced by the motion of stuff. Revealed by means that the motion of stuff is produced by consciousness. Alternatively, what is the nature of cause itself? That we don’t know and it admits of several possibilities.

0 0 0 6 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

a day ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn It also depends on one’s desire to actually have a relationship with God. A relationship not unlike marriage.

1 0 0 7 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

2 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn Right. But what determines your choice of axioms so that your evaluation leads to your conclusion. You could chose different axioms.

1 0 0 7 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

2 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn We all have the same evidence.

1 0 0 11 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

2 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn It can’t possibly be rationally justified - because there are more axioms in mind space than there are in meat space. And reality doesn’t tell you which axioms actually obtain. Absent revelation, you pick the axioms that support your desired conclusion.

1 0 0 10 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

2 days ago

It’s one thing to say “God does not exist” as a brute fact. That’s fine. But most atheists don’t want to leave it there; they want reasons to justify their unbelief. So they come up with arguments such as: the Logical Problem of Evil (Epicurus, J. L. Mackie); Evidential Problem of Evil / Argument from Suffering (Hume, Rowe, Draper); Argument from Biblical Atrocities / Immoral Divine Commands ( Dawkins).

1 1 1 21 1

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

2 days ago

@ThatAntiTheist1 @McClureShawn It’s impossible to know if consciousness is the result of the behavior of stuff (emergent) or is revealed by the behavior of stuff (basic). It may very well be that consciousness isn’t limited to humans.

1 0 0 10 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

3 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn Why does it take multiple posts to get you to understand that your belief in what their morals are is a component of your unbelief?

1 0 0 13 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

3 days ago

@ThatAntiTheist1 @McClureShawn It’s funny the level of proof you demand, since there are things that exist, but can’t be verified by a third party to exist. Consciousness being the prime example.

1 0 0 9 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

3 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn “Some of those deities being so awful …” And, as I used to be an atheist myself, it’s very easy to wrap my head around the unbelief of others.

1 0 0 11 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

4 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn But you like Santa. At least he has a moral code that doesn’t cause immediate rejection. That you think your moral compass a) points to a “true north” and b) that God answers to your moral compass is a common mistake.

1 0 0 11 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

4 days ago

@TheHumanSpoon @McClureShawn And the circle continues.

1 0 0 12 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

4 days ago

Well of course that’s what you’re doing. The problem is that you think you have a basis - other than your own desires - for judging God. Then you use that disconnect between who God has revealed himself to be and who you think he should be to convince yourself he doesn’t really exist.

1 0 0 11 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

5 days ago

@rootcausesleuth I know where you’re coming from. You don’t get to judge God as morally wrong. It’s your priors that are wrong - not God.

0 0 0 11 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

5 days ago

@worldviewdesign @darwintojesus So you’re a slave to your biology?

0 0 0 44 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

6 days ago

When you have multiple axioms about the world to choose from; all generating consistent - but mutually exclusive - worldviews, and which cannot be empirically bound to the world, on what basis do you prefer one over the other? It can’t be reason - axioms cannot be proven by reason, and it can’t be empiricism. What are you left with?

0 0 1 125 0

View Details

wrf3 @stablecross

6 days ago

@alexandernotkin @Philip_Goff That’s because infinity weirds nature. We have no way of knowing if actual infinities exist. We pretend they do, and that pretense is the basis of r.e.