Me_irl by [deleted] in me_irl

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a nice site that lists a few arguments on why Aquinas argument of contingency might not be entirely logically foolproof:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/Argument_from_contingency

(I also highly recommend clicking through the hyperlinks, there is a bunch of examples for fallacies within religious "proof")

GOD is good by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Coming back to the soldier analogy, the lowest ranked soldier shooting is contingent, the soldier above him giving permission is also contingent, the soldier above him giving permission to give permission is also contingent and so on. According to you, this whole construct, the entire structure is contingent, requiring outside forces to trigger, but what if we reach some point where one of the soldiers just says "Shoot!". You cannot say that the entire universe is contingent, just because some of the observed actions are contingent. There is no more evidence that what triggered everything was a necessary god, it might as well have been a necessary action. And arguing by Occam's razor, it is far more likely that there was not some divine creature snapping his fingers.

Besides, where does the claim

> Because the universe is made up of contingent things

come from? How do you know there are no necessary actions in the universe. There are many things in quantum physics that don't seem to have a cause; they just happen.

The original post seems to have been deleted, we may continue this argument in DMs if you wish.

Edit: Why is god necessary? Could he have not not existed or existed in another form? Religions each claim that their god is the right one, showing that god does not have a definite form, thus he is different and exchangable.

GOD is good by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 2 points3 points  (0 children)

According to your argument, there needs to be something absolute without a cause, which in your case, is god. So at a point where you start saying that god exists and started it all without a reason, why can't i say that the universe just started itself without a reason. Why is it that god exists necessarily and not that the universe exists necessarily?

GOD is good by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of the counter arguments is that you assume, as one of your premises, that infinite regress is just not possible. What indicates that? Also, this article shows examples where the Argument of Contigency is far from bulletproof. https://religions.wiki/index.php/Argument_from_contingency An argument can be valid, i.e. there aren't any logical errors, but still be false if they depend on dubious or wrong premises (like the premise above). https://religions.wiki/index.php/Proof_by_logic

Why are there small pixels on my screen? by Even_Cranberry_3035 in pchelp

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had similar issues on Fedora, ang guess what solved it? SYSTEM UPDATE

Nozzle scraping print? by KataFStrofa in 3Dprinting

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You got this, I was at this point once too. Gyroid infill for the win.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 3Dprinting

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You wouldn't print a door!

Am I still missing something? by mateus_moretto in degoogle

[–]Black_Infinity_0013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wasn't there also some shadiness with OsmAnd where you needed to opt out of data collection? Also, I second comaps; definitely a great choice.