Alicornucopia

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@packsmarginalia @moneyisprinted @sam_eagan Yes but don't buy gold. Stocks have better returns and are more accessible

[Josh Merfeld @Josh_Merfeld]

All the people talking about the +1 are really missing the forest for the trees.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@jaxoninaction @ThoughtfulSaint Incorrect, methodological norms are unimportant. Data should always trump dogma whatever the norm is in any discipline

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@jaxoninaction @ThoughtfulSaint You implied Dan doesn't always believe in data over dogma.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@CapelliPj @50B_Official @GenericSnarky Christian leaders should be held ro a higher standard than secular leaders. Higher/more powerful public figures should be held to a higher standard than lower ones. At the limit, it's front page news if the Pope mugs someone even though muggings happen every day

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@50B_Official @CapelliPj @GenericSnarky The media circus was obviously motivated. But still, there's a big difference between State Bureaucrat #31 giving the green light for your kids to be molested and an archbishop doing the same

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@StallionCornell @ThoughtfulSaint You are flat-out lying here. Stop it.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@StallionCornell @ThoughtfulSaint What, so if someone asks Jacob whether Gandhi was LDS he doesn't have the authority to say one way or the other?

Everyone has the authority to declare whether someone is LDS. What you mean is that Jacob can't *decide* whether someone is LDS, but he doesn't pretend to.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@StallionCornell @ThoughtfulSaint Playing coy would be saying "I don't understand that, no" when you do in fact understand that.

Your point seems to be that the definition Jacob used was unacceptable. You're picking and choosing what words others are allowed to use. You have no stewardship to do that.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@StallionCornell @ThoughtfulSaint You just accused him of picking and choosing acceptable definitions of words. You're doing that right here, saying only one definition (technically on the records) is valid. You know he meant another definition, you understand that. Don't play coy.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@StallionCornell @ThoughtfulSaint You understand Jacob wasn't literally saying "Dan isn't in the records of the church"? It's you picking and choosing when Jacob is/isn't allowed to use nuance or an alternate definition. He wouldn't disagree if you said Dan is by one definition LDS.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Matyydrox @canraptor_ I think you could save some space by swapping 1 and 2

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@sugarbets_ @Jdkoa @nic_carter It absolutely is if you use AI to code. Or frankly use it much for anything

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@cqkten @davemeyers322 @bitcloud @optislav_x Sure whatever, ours isn't sufficiently good

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@davemeyers322 @bitcloud @optislav_x You can't. Artificial neurons != real neurons. An LLM will work the same whether normal or physically printed in a chip, whereas a biological fruitfly will act very different from our digital copy of one.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Cole77981911 @WhtPrl95 It's either that or the physical human body somehow creates the immortal soul, which is much weirder. I'm just bringing it up as an example of something not obviously contingent on anything

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Cole77981911 @WhtPrl95 So you can admit the contingency chain logic doesn't work for souls, right? There's no chain at all. Maybe A235...A236 implies a self-existent A1, but we don't even have an A235 for souls, they just show up. The assertion that they're contingent is just that.

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Cole77981911 @WhtPrl95 Ok sure, I don't think a chair was preexistent for example. I think the matter it is made of is self-existent in some capacity, and souls (probably including animal souls) are self-existent. Conception doesn't create souls, God puts them there

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Cole77981911 @WhtPrl95 It's not fundamentally a chain of things. Each thing is simply self-existent. Here in creation I agree it's a chain that terminates in God though.

I'm asking why God is the way he is and it seems like your answer is also "for no reason".

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Cole77981911 @WhtPrl95 We don't believe in creation ex nihilo btw so we reject the idea of created things generally the way you mean it

[Alicornucopia @Alicornucopia1]

@Cole77981911 @WhtPrl95 Right but what gave him the power to be whatever he wanted to be? I would say "he simply had that power" the way I say "atoms simply attract each other." If you blame the latter on laws of physics, why not also blame the former on something external to God as well?