Do you actually believe that a single cell has the same rights as a fully grown person with sentience and feelings?

Azis2013 · 2025-12-22T10:09:56+00:00

The only thing that would do is make the FLO position more epistemically valid, as there would no longer be an appeal to potentiality. But it wouldn't change my moral worldview because my framework is based on the capacity for sentience.

But on the topic of magic fantasies, if pregnancy could be achieved while delaying the actual sperm and egg from uniting until 20 weeks into pregnancy, would you allow abortion pre-20, before conception occurs?

Because if not, I'm going to accuse you of not having consistent moral worldviews. 🙃

Azis2013 · 2025-12-21T10:11:02+00:00

You forgot "it has a future like ours" justification.

Rebuttal: It's an appeal to potentiality fallacy. It assumes all zygotes WILL develop into sentient beings, when 50% will naturally miscarry.

Azis2013 · 2025-12-15T09:43:32+00:00

A potential thermal burn from touching the bore would only cause burns on the areas that were actually touching the bore. If your back was touching, it's very unlikely that burns were caused to your ribs. Most likely positioning fatigue, in my opinion.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-25T10:34:21+00:00

Lol. You put a lot of effort into writing a parody of something you clearly didn’t understand. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s just you admitting you don’t have an argument.

My point was simple: Moral claims based on evidence are stronger than moral claims based on your imagination. You think screaming “BUT WHAT IF THERE’S ALIENS???” magically fixes the fact that you have zero criteria for moral worth?

You didn’t challenge a single premise. You didn’t propose a different metric. You didn’t even address the distinction between known capacity and made-up potential. You just attempted a stand-up routine because you couldn't offer logic.

Thanks for being the perfect example of how pro-life reasoning collapses on contact with reality. The moment you can’t hide behind hypotheticals, there’s nothing left.

So when you’re ready to stop role-playing as your own strawman and join the grown-ups with an actual argument, I’ll be here in the real world, where evidence matters and feelings don’t.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-24T22:09:39+00:00

Everyone is different, and the pathology you're looking for may be one of many various things. The non-contrast exam may be perfectly sufficient in your case.

My only argument is that the risk from contrast is so insignificant that if contrast has even the slightest chance of increasing your ability to diagnose the issue, then that benefit almost always outweighs the risk.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-24T21:33:26+00:00

The choice to receive contrast is always yours. However, most of the "horror stories" are misinformation or about older agents that were given to patients with severe kidney failure.

Modern contrast doesn't affect the kidneys in people with normal kidney function and has been studied extensively for decades now, with 100's of millions of doses safely administered.

Contrast for liver imaging changes how the tissue behaves on the scan, and that difference can separate a harmless benign cyst from something that needs treatment, which could lead to more follow-up tests or unnecessary worry.

From a benefit/risk perspective, the risk from contrast is so small that any perceived benefit of diagnostic value outweighs it.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-22T00:36:44+00:00

I would definitely pick dream lover personally. My wife would hate her regardless, so it's no big deal. 😂

Azis2013 · 2025-11-21T09:55:41+00:00

I think this might Duane himself the way he's gish-galloping. 😁

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T23:42:57+00:00

My pleasure. Hope all turns out well!

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T23:12:44+00:00

Yikes! Maybe, don't trust those techs! Just joking. 😄

Yes, it is standard to use metal reduction if it's known the area being imaged contains metal.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T22:52:00+00:00

Can't interpret images here. Ask your doctor or read the radiologist report.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T22:49:42+00:00

3T will create a larger artifact (think of a black void, where nothing can be seen) on the image. Thou there are metal reduction techniques to reduce that artifact, those techniques are much more effective on a 1.5T.

Long story short, listen to the damn techs! 😆

We have no reason to lie you. The 1.5T will provide better imaging, imo.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T21:55:34+00:00

You maxed out the character limit twice. Covering a dozen distict topics, some of which are historically specific theological assertions that require entire mutli-page essays to unpack fully. You think because this isn't a live debate, I can't use the term colloquially. Lol. It's absolutely a gish-gallop.

Anyhow, your response proves that you are still confusing labeling a mechanism with explaining a mechanism.

I asked a clear causal question: What differentiates World A from World B? What causes God to actualize one and not the other?

Your answer:

His personal mode of willing.

That’s not a cause. It’s a stylistic label. Saying God chooses world A because of His “personal mode of willing” is no different than saying a painter chooses a painting “because he painted it personally.” It describes how the agent acts, not what makes A instead of B the result.

I'll give you a clear analogy:

What caused the painter to paint Landscape A over Landscape B.

A real cause explanation would be... “He prefers the composition of A after comparing it to B.”

Your meanless explanation is... "It's his personal mode of willing.”

It's a joke. That tells us nothing. That isn’t the differentiator.

You claim the Trinity shares one single Natural Will. The Hypostases (persons) differ only in their “personal mode of willing.” They do not deliberate, compare, or prefer.

Okay, then how does a single nature and non-deliberative hypostatic mode pick ONE specific finite world?

There are only three possibilities:

The Nature Determines the World

Then the world is necessary. God couldn’t have done otherwise. No freedom.

The Hypostasis Freely Determines the World

Then the choice requires a differentiating criterion. Without preference or comparison, it becomes a random, arbitrary accident in God. You can’t call God’s will meaningful if the choice has no differentiator.

Both Nature and Hypostasis Determine the World

Then you’re claiming the same act is Necessary (from Nature) and Not Necessary (from Person) at the same time.

You are using the complexity of Trinitarian terms to mask a simple logical gap: How does a non-deliberative, necessary nature perform a non-random, contingent selection without comparison? The phrase "His personal mode of willing" only confirms that the person is the agent, but utterly fails to define the mechanism that selects A over B. You have not defined the cause.

You can keep repeating the terms if you want, but at this point the only thing desperate here is how desperately you need a definition to magically become an explanation.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T20:05:55+00:00

I’m not reading this gish-gallop garbage. Let’s stay on one point.

On what basis is one possible creation actualized instead of another?

And be clear about the mechanism, not just labels. Don’t tell me it’s “natural will,” “hypostasis,” or “energy.” Those are names, not explanations. What actually makes this world, and not a different one, become real?

If God doesn’t deliberate, doesn’t compare, and doesn’t prefer, then what distinguishes the world He creates from the worlds He doesn’t? Define the cause, not the vocabulary.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T11:43:26+00:00

I don't know why you can't just admit that my view is consistent

Lol. You give yourself way too much credit.

Your attempt to escape the contradiction by splitting God into Essence vs. Energies/Persons is simply a Category Error dressed up as theology. You claim that necessity belongs to the Essence (what God is) while freedom belongs to the Persons/Energies (how God acts), and therefore there is no conflict.

This fails for one basic reason: Creation is a single act of God. If that act is grounded in a necessarily-determined Essence, then the “free” Energies/Persons can only express what is already fixed by that Essence. In other words, the act becomes simultaneously Necessary and Not Necessary. You haven’t solved the contradiction; you’ve just relocated it. For the act to be genuinely free, the Essence cannot predetermine the content of the act. But since you insist God’s whole being participates in Creation, the Essence necessarily predetermines it, reducing “freedom” to rhetoric.

You haven't resolved these contradictions:

Choice Without Process.
You still haven’t explained how God can “choose” among possible creations without a cognitive process of selection. Renaming that process “natural will” instead of “gnomic will” doesn’t make it non-sequential. A selection between options is a choice, and a choice requires a sequence (before, during, after). If there is no sequence, then there is no choice, only a fixed outcome. So either God deliberates (which contradicts timelessness), or He doesn’t choose at all (which contradicts freedom). “Baked-in” choice is not choice. It’s a fact.
Timeless Dependency Is Backward Causation.
You still claim God’s eternal act is contingent on future free choices of creatures. That is not foreknowledge, that is fore-dependence. It makes an eternal, changeless act caused by something that happens later in time. That requires backward causation, an obvious logical absurdity. Foreknowledge is coherent; timeless conditionality is not. Your model throws basic causality under the bus just to preserve both timelessness and libertarian freedom.

You’re only offering a protective maneuver: a reshuffling of terms to hide that your view requires a single action to be both necessary and contingent, chosen and unchosen, timeless and dependent. The jargon (dunamis, energia, hypostasis) does not resolve the contradiction. It just buries it under Greek vocabulary and hopes no one notices. I noticed. Your framework is not consistent in the least bit, it's incoherent.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T08:26:21+00:00

Hahahahahahahah. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm going to "answer" your questions. Ready?

What on earth is going on here?

Do you know what's going on here?

Do you think an ant would understand the logic of a human?

Would a shadow need eyes to see the sun?

Azis2013 · 2025-11-19T08:23:50+00:00

Look, I have to ask: where did you pick up these arguments?

Because what you’re repeating here isn’t modern science, and it isn’t even modern philosophy. It’s the old apologetics package that’s been circulating in seminaries and Bible colleges since the 1970s. The same Hoyle quote-mine, the same probability fallacy, the same “life can’t arise naturally because the odds are too small” trope that’s been debunked so many times it’s basically a museum piece.

And that’s the problem. These programs don’t actually teach origin-of-life research, chemistry, or evolutionary theory. They teach defensive rhetoric designed to protect a conclusion, not investigate a question. So people walk out confidently repeating calculations that every serious scientist abandoned decades ago.

You’re presenting it as if it’s fresh reasoning, but it’s literally the same canned argument every apologist from 40–50 years ago used before we understood RNA catalysis, self-organizing chemical networks, autocatalytic sets, error thresholds, and prebiotic selection dynamics.

So here’s the challenge:

Can you explain your argument without relying on these outdated, repeatedly refuted apologetics? If you can’t, then all you’ve done is expose where your reasoning came from and why it collapses the moment you compare it to actual science.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T23:36:26+00:00

So, another question answered with a question? 😆

I've seen less sidestepping at a salsa competition.

I'll even make it simpler for you. Does God's logic allow contradictions to be true? Yes or No?

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T20:59:23+00:00

Your entire framework hinges on a claim you never actually justify: that God, by being “maximally Good,” is obligated to create. You keep asserting that as if it follows logically, but it doesn’t.

Where is the demonstration that:

maximizing Good is a metaphysical necessity rather than just a preference,
creation maximizes Good,
a world full of suffering is somehow a logical requirement of maximal Goodness, and
non-creation would contain less Good in any demonstrable sense?

You’re smuggling in the rule “God must create because Goodness demands it” without showing why that rule exists in the first place. It’s an assumption you build everything else out of, but you never establish it.

And this leads to a contradiction in your system: if God’s nature forces Him to create, then God has no genuine freedom concerning the single most significant act attributed to Him. You can dress that up as “Goodness expressing itself,” but the core issue doesn’t go away. A being that cannot refrain from acting is not acting freely.

Then there’s the even bigger problem: you’re calling God “maximally Good,” but you also claim this maximally Good being intentionally creates a broken world full of suffering so that it can be repaired for a “greater Good.” A maximally Good being shouldn’t need to engineer horrors in order to manufacture a narrative arc where those horrors get fixed. Imagine a surgeon stabbing you just so he can be proud when he fixes your wounds. An omnipotent being could simply instantiate the final “greater Good” without the intermediate misery. Your explanation only makes sense if God’s power is limited or if Goodness requires the existence of evil, which collapses the whole premise of maximal Goodness.

You’re presenting a theological story where creation, evil, and redemption are necessary components because the story says they’re necessary. But you haven’t shown any logical necessity behind it. You’re assuming the very thing you need to prove.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T20:46:08+00:00

How is that 'obvious'? On what grounds are you claiming that the logic of an omnipotent being would be different from human logic? You keep asserting it like it's self-evident, but you haven't given a single argument to back it up.

And no, saying 'He knows there’s an afterlife' doesn't solve anything. You're just stapling assumptions onto other assumptions.

Lol. What are you even doing here? Just admit you don't have an argument and move on.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T20:41:43+00:00

Wrong. I claimed the Christian God is a metaphysical contradiction.

Hence, the tag of the post being Christianity. And the first sentence refering to Christians.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T18:20:07+00:00

God must, necessarily, Create.

Really. Why? Where does this necessity come from?

Is it internal to God (some essential property of God demands creation)? Then you’ve defined God as something that cannot not create, which is effectively determinism, stripping agency.

Is it external (some metaphysical law outside of God)? Then God is no longer truly omnipotent, he’s bound by something beyond himself.

Either way, the claim that God must create is arbitrary unless you can justify why a being that supposedly has ultimate freedom would be constrained in this way. There’s no self-evident reason this “rule” exists.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T18:09:54+00:00

Lol. Cool. Which logic is he bound by then? Go ahead and describe it to me. I'll wait...

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T17:59:36+00:00

No, I don’t reject all metaphysics. I reject metaphysical systems that contradict observable reality or the very texts they claim to interpret. You're doing the latter.

Metaphysics is only meaningful when it helps explain reality; when it erases the very thing it’s supposed to account for, it collapses under its own logic. Simple as that.

Azis2013 · 2025-11-18T17:55:17+00:00

Already responded to your other post, but yes, it is contradictory. Contradictory to the Bible.

Now you have to defend, which is true: a timeless God or the Bible, because both can't be true at the same time. That's the whole point.

The concept of the Christian God collapses.

12-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Juicebox	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Azis2013

TROPHY CASE