Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz

wow, flatearth trolls are epically stupid. I will never tire of saying that. If you think Bad Logic is about me, you're even dumber than I thought. impressive!

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

I'm pretty much convinced most people really are not interested in facts, unless the facts reinforce whatever conclusion they have already reached.

Please, change my mind.

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@AWorldOutOfMind I wonder if it's worth pointing out that another couple of decades of climate change will make this look like a tiny little trickle?

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@llamapantsngoat @NoHolyScripture @NickZeroP I have a hypothesis that the fundamental problem is...evolution. There simply isn't a strong selection pressure for unbiased rational analysis. Arguably there is a selection pressure towards cognitive biases. You need only look at most 'debates' on here.

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@3Vikings1 but if there is no such thing as free will, then these ideas collapse. As I'm convinced free will is an illusion [1] it's not hard to reject theism.

[1] See change of mood/behaviour in response to ingested chemicals; see arguments about deterministic universe 2/2

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@3Vikings1 I think 'free will' is a problem for theists, particularly Christians. Much of theology seems to hinge around God not interfering with our free choice (the problem of Evil, for instance, or hiddenness (we have to have faith ie choose to believe).... 1/x

[BBC Bitesize @bbcbitesize]

What is white privilege?

We asked @JohnAmaechi, psychologist, best-selling author and former NBA basketball player to explain it for us.

👉 https://t.co/t7LIENTnPn

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@michelingubben1 @cathmoelic @ConfidenceCult @TDisputations @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist Again i don't feel like that really explains anything. I interpret that as "the first cause always created everything and had no other capability". I'd agree by saying "existence is, non-existence isn't". Where's the agency?

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@michelingubben1 @cathmoelic @ConfidenceCult @TDisputations @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist That's a red herring. The fundamental issue is why must the first cause have agency? I've seen nothing that makes that unavoidable. Even if we accept the universe is "fine tuned" (I'm not convinced) *at most* that increases the likelihood of deliberate action.

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@michelingubben1 @cathmoelic @ConfidenceCult @TDisputations @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist And straightaway we're struggling with the language: how can something that has no capacity to change suddenly decide to cause something?

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@cathmoelic @ConfidenceCult @TDisputations @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @michelingubben1 @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist ...is self evident. We have no way of knowing how many other "universes " that Dynamic FC has spawned that cannot support thinking life; in science that's a bad hypothesis, but in philosophy it's a perfectly reasonable statement challenge 😉

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@cathmoelic @ConfidenceCult @TDisputations @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @michelingubben1 @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist In using "active" you then seem to assert that there is deliberate choice amongst possibilities. I argue that it's sufficient that the FC has capacity to change, then it's merely a matter of statistics. That the change enabled a universes capable of "thinking life"...

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@theosib2 @connermckay_ Agreed: our axioms are always tested against reality. That is our basis of reasoning.

The solipsist argument of "ah but trusting reality is faith!" Is technically correct but in every sense futile.

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

Seriously, how many #GOP would have literally died of stroke literally screaming for his resignation had Obama mispronounced Yosemite?

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@girlbos Good luck ☹️

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@TDisputations @cathmoelic @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @michelingubben1 @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist I completely understand the concept of an abstraction (a category) and an instantiation of that abstraction.

I just find the whole "argument" far too loose to be considered proof. Unless you've evidence all philosophers believe in god in which case I'll go do some formal study

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@cathmoelic @michelingubben1 @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @TDisputations @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist I am actually comfortable with the idea of infinite regression; it seems to me no more difficult to accept than "it all starts with god". (In fact, for me it's somewhat easier).

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@cathmoelic @michelingubben1 @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @TDisputations @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist I don't think the Twitter format helps, but I've never seen any more expansive texts on this argument that did any better than you did (most were much worse tbh).

And I'm still not entirely convinced there must be a first cause anyway...

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@TDisputations @cathmoelic @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @michelingubben1 @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist I'm not expecting answers, I'm giving some hints as to why I find these unconvincing arguments

[Miss Hapless Bad Logic Bikini ArguDaz @ArguDaz]

@TDisputations @cathmoelic @JackMurray2 @Teeniebeanster @michelingubben1 @TMR_2017 @OvrcmplctdHstry @PBDerbysAtheist That reads very much as "I wish this to be so". The problem I have is that terminology is so vague it cannot be relied upon. For example, you say "more immaterial", which suggests a continuum from material<>immaterial. How does that work? How is something "*like* knowledge"?