Bill Vigus

Jewish believer in Jesus. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). Biologist. Libertarian/Conservative

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

No matter how insane or evil activists or rioters appear, or how anti-Jesus unbelievers are whether atheist or from other religions, don't forget to pray for their salvation and if possible witness to them. We were all once like them and G-d still saved us - Ephesians 2:3

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@brivael "Depending on the context" 😂
https://t.co/u4vzopJhAc

[Dani Buller @askdani__real]

In case you missed yesterday's congressional hearing:

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@abi4560 @MasterChief2Yah Numbers 1:18 shows Israel was normally registered “by their fathers’ houses,” but that’s a census rule, not a proof that legal sonship can’t confer tribal or royal standing. Jesus’ Judah/David claim is through Joseph legally and likely Mary biologically.

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 point. You conceded CoE doesn’t explain why the universe exists. So your view terminates in brute matter/energy while mine terminates in necessary God. Y is 'matter just exists' a better stopping point than a necessary concrete Creator?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 I never defined God as an abstract object. 'Necessary' & 'metaphysical ground' are abstract descriptions of a concrete reality, just as 'mammal' describes concrete dogs. Also uniqueness doesn’t make a category meaningless or collapse categories. This is getting away from the main

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 No. God isnt necessary because He has causal power. He has causal power because He is concrete personal reality, not an abstract object. 'Necessary' means not dependent or contingent. Why equate nonphysical with abstract when abstract things are causally inert?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 That’s not what I’m claiming. 'Metaphysical ground' doesnt mean abstract object. Abstract objects don’t create or cause anything. Not physical ≠ abstract. And 'necessary' means not dependent or contingent, not merely 'needed for my argument', Y treat those as the same?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 That treats explanation too narrowly. I’m not saying God is a prior physical mechanism but the metaphysical ground of contingent reality. 'Necessary' doesn’t mean 'needed for theism'. It means not dependent, derived, or contingent. Why stop at brute matter instead?

[Yossi Gestetner @YossiGestetner]

@RepThomasMassie @grok Before 2025, how many times did the @RepThomasMassie account mention the words USS Liberty? Answer in less than 20 words.

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 question is which is a better ultimate explanation. Y is unexplained matter more rational than necessary mind?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 Different respects, same concept: non-necessity. A chair is contingent as an arrangement. The universe is contingent if it doesn’t exist necessarily. And if CoE doesn’t explain why matter exists then your view ends at 'matter just exists.' Mine stops at necessary God/mind. The

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 Ur redefining contingent as 'created from nothing.' It means dependent or able not to exist. A chair from wood is still contingent. A part of the universe isnt identical to the universe any more than a tire is a car. Y does saying 'its rearranged matter' explain Y matter exists?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 There aren’t only '1 contingent thing.' Leaves, trees, stars, atoms, planets, & people are contingent. Grouping them as 'the universe' doesn’t make the whole self-explanatory. Why is 'the universe just exists' rational, but 'God exists necessarily' not?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 If CoE doesn’t explain why the universe exists that point drops. The theist isn’t saying 'everything needs an outside cause,' but that contingent things need an explanation. Why is 'the universe just exists' rational but 'God exists necessarily' irrational?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 A category can be meaningful even if only one thing fits it. 'Uncreated source of all else' would be unique by nature. But this sidesteps the issue: conservation of energy describes what happens within the universe. How does it explain why the universe/energy exists at all?

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 Necessary vs contingent isn’t arbitrary. It asks whether something exists by nature or depends on another explanation. 'Energy isn’t created' describes transformations within a closed system. It doesn’t explain why the system exists at all or why there is energy rather than none

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@BasedMikeLee BoM has major historical problems: no confirmed Nephite/Lamanite civilizations, no clear archaeological support for its massive wars/cities, DNA evidence does not support Native Americans as Israelites, & contains anachronisms - horses, chariots, steel, & Old World crops/animals

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@BryanDeanWright

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 That seems to assume the universe is exempt from the very principle being discussed. If the universe began to exist then its contingent & requires an explanation. Closed system only describes how energy behaves within the universe it doesn’t explain why the universe exists at all

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 I think I see your point but this conflates categories. A closed system concerns energy exchange within creation. Contingency concerns why creation exists at all. Creation could last forever but only God is eternal absolutely bc God is self existent, independent, necessary.

[Bill Vigus @BillVigus]

@MartinTweats