Diagoras of Melos

Hopefully I can help some people that need it. Just message for any help.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AApologetics It depends on the god, but all god claims fall into two categories:

1. Not confirmed to be true
2. Confirmed to be false.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@darwintojesus This is false

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC You dont even accept universal causation. Unless you can tell me what caused your god to start existing.

Simple mistakes like this make your attempt at mockery, well, pitiful. But another good indicator as to why these arguments for a god ought not be taken seriously.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC "If X is not caused by itself then it is caused by somwthing else" - that is universal causation.

More options, like uncaused, that make the premise false.

When a premise divides everything into 2 categories, but there are more than 2 categories, then the premise is false.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@BruceWayneDND @MartinTweats No. It is poorly defined and confined.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@MartinTweats @JCrikets36515 Necessity is not defined by material existence.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@MartinTweats It fails for all the same reasons it failed hundreds of years before plantinga.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AleMartnezR1 P1 and P4 are false.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC these arguments are really, really, bad and wouldn't make it past first day community college remedial philosophy.

And I've explained this to this kid on more than one occasion already.

When I just say "P1 is false," that's already more of a response than this drivel deserves.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC I always elaborate when asked.

P1 invokes universal causation or PSR, which is famously false.

P2 invokes universal agent causation, which is just philosophically bankrupt.

P3 says self actualization is impossible, which rules out any action a god might partake in.

I mean, /

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign Going off of what you said: "therefore it is not a "possibility that it exists."

If something exists then by default it is possible that it exists. If it is not a possibility it by default does not exist.

Necessity doesn't matter.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AleMartnezR1 @nzmkroberts @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign @Lion_IRC This is false

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign No, but I think it's funny, presuming you think your god is necessary, under this construal it is not even possible for your god to exist.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC To say they're true would be to completely misunderstand and bastardize modal logic.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC @AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign This is not what the argument from possibility is attempting to establish.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AleMartnezR1 In philosophy, this has been known to be false for a very long time.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AleMartnezR1 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all false.

I've already warned you to stay away from Andrew Loke.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AleMartnezR1 @Lion_IRC @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @darwintojesus @PhilosopherJoeC @worldviewdesign P1 is a universal statement that attempts to define the state of possibility as entailing a choice, which, in philosophy, is not only definitionally wrong but a concept fundamentally backwards to something like Decision Theory.

So, P1 is false. Sorry kid.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@AleMartnezR1 @MartinTweats @CatholicCo200 @PhilosopherJoeC @allegiantfaith @SpeedWatkins @RandySVoges P1 one is false.
Sorry, kid.