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]

@Lion_IRC In quotations preceded by "so you agree" -p1- followed by "IS FALSE."

You can't be this stupid. I mean you can be.

If you this the premise is true, please tell me at what time your god was caused into existence.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC No need to throw a temper tantrum.

This is a pretty easy litmus to pass:

Do you affirm the fact that P1 is false?

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

Exactly. Bathtub toys float.

[Ark Encounter @ArkEncounter]

Noah’s ark didn’t look like a bathtub toy.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC Not quite what an uncaused thing is but I am glad we are in agreement:

P1 is false.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC Ok so then we are in agreement that:

"IF a possibility cannot actualize itself, then it MUST be actualized by something else."

Is FALSE. Because it MUSTN'T given the reality UNCAUSED things.

RIGHT?

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC in the realm of food, just like causation is not exhaustive in the realm of extant things.

This is very basic stuff here.

[Diagoras of Melos @MelosOf]

@Lion_IRC Those are not analogous conditionals even close to the form of the OP.

An analog would be something like "If food X doesn't itself taste like vanilla, then somwthing else will make it taste like vanilla."

Obviously this is false, because vanilla is not exhaustive on flavor /

[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.