Nathan

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls Pointing out that axioms are necessary preconditions for rational thought isn't circular; it's a transcendental argument—denying them requires using them.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls Unless you're claiming reason itself is unreliable, how is using it to examine dignity circular?

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls You’re confusing the subject of inquiry with the instrument of inquiry. Evaluating whether 'dignity' exists using reason isn't proving reason using reason—it's using a tool to evaluate a separate subject.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@ardent73 @athiestboi Adam and Eve broke the rule, but they didn't create the rule, demand blood, or set death as the penalty—God did. The question asks who established that specific system of atonement.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@Stavieking @athiestboi Deflecting to Islam is just a red herring—if Christian theology stands on its own merits, you should be able to answer the question directly without changing the subject."

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@Stavieking @athiestboi Your reply avoids the initial question entirely. Pointing out issues with another religion doesn't answer who set the rules or demanded blood atonement in Christian theology.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@MisterTestyX @athiestboi Calling out motives doesn't answer the actual questions asked. Theology should be able to explain why a blood sacrifice was required and who demanded the price without resorting to personal attacks.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@graspinthebible @athiestboi If a parent makes a rule that their child's mess can only be cleaned up by blood sacrifice, and then the parent provides the sacrifice themselves, the parent is still the one who demanded the blood. The question remains: why make blood necessary in the first place?

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@Chiderakanu @Ozedikus @dexnate24 Saw it on the tl and liked it as quickly as I could 😂😂😭

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@ExaminetheDay @dexnate24 @UgoCannon Classical metaphysics constructs a logical chain (potency/act, composition), but labeling the necessary ground of being 'God' or assuming it possesses intellect/will remains a philosophical step beyond demonstrating mere logical dependence.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@ExaminetheDay @dexnate24 @UgoCannon Calling the universe an 'unanswered clock' begs the question. A clock is known a priori to be an artifact designed by a human; assuming the universe shares that precise teleological nature is the point under debate, not an established premise.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@ExaminetheDay @dexnate24 @UgoCannon Showing that living things are contingent explains how physical matter shifts, but it doesn't automatically prove a necessary, uncaused primary act.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@ExaminetheDay @dexnate24 @UgoCannon Even if every composite part within the universe requires a cause for its becoming, concluding that existence itself requires a single, external ground of being commits a fallacy of composition.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@kat3chen @dexnate24 @ToutSuiteSinner Whataboutism depends on argument structure, not gender. Shifting the focus away from the original point to a different topic is still whataboutism regardless of who says it

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@IMPOSTER_0I @dexnate24 @TheRealDrEiak @Provokethoughtz Even at 73M a year, modern abortion tracking spans decades, totaling roughly 3–4 billion. Human history spans over 200,000 years with an estimated 108+ billion human beings having ever lived—where historical violence, warfare, and human mortality cumulative totals far exceed that

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@JockoBocko3 @MarcusFidelicus If an act's moral status depends entirely on who performs it rather than the act itself, morality becomes grounded in role authority rather than objective moral principles, which brings us right back to Divine Voluntarism and Special Pleading.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@JockoBocko3 @MarcusFidelicus That rests on a definitional retreat. Defining murder as 'unjustifiable killing' and then asserting God’s actions are always justifiable by definition is circular reasoning—it avoids explaining why taking an innocent life becomes moral when God does it.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls That’s how an analogy works—using a concrete tool to illustrate a functional relationship between abstract concepts. Address the function: how is using reason to recognize dignity circular?

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls Reason and logic are grounded in foundational axioms—such as the law of non-contradiction—and basic sensory/cognitive reliability. We don't need to invent or 'own' these principles for them to be valid; they are the necessary preconditions for coherent thought and inquiry itself.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls To demonstrate circularity, you have to show where my premise assumes my conclusion, not just point out that we use reason to evaluate reason.Expecting an ultimate prescriptive justification for the existence of logic before using it leads to an infinite regress, not circularity.

[Nathan @bdeasaka]

@GuthrieF62784 @Ephesians_Ch4 @dexnate24 @ezoochewqu @MarcusFidelicus @DoctorPauls You're conflating a description of a tool with a circular argument. Describing how reasoning operates in practice isn't begging the question—it’s identifying the function.