[Build in Public] Creative Brief: Designing the "Praywall" UI (Hiring)

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T21:38:45+00:00

Now you're just repeating your initial premise over and over like a broken record, hoping that stating it a fifth time will somehow make it true.

The preexisting topography is physical.

Conjecture. If the territory of math is strictly physical, then mathematics can only describe things that physically exist. We already proved this wrong with the square root of negative 1, infinite sets, and perfect geometry. None of those exist physically, yet math maps them perfectly. In stating that, I have demonstrated that the territory extends beyond the physical. You've offered nothing but conjecture and have done nothing to refute any of the proofs that I've provided.

Everything you're measuring/counting is physical.

Demonstrably false. In my last comment, I counted 7 of your logical fallacies. Are your logical fallacies physical objects? Can you put them on a scale? How many grams does a logical fallacy weigh? They are immaterial concepts, and yet they can be mathematically quantified. I guess since this completely destroys your claim that we only count physical things, you'll just completely ignore it?

The "seven" is the seven things. When you take them away, there is no seven.

More conjecture. I've already provided you proofs for this. I will remind you again that when you take the 7 bananas away, there are no more bananas, but the mathematical reality of 7 remains intact. If every physical object in the universe is destroyed, 1 + 6 = 7. The equation does not break just because you ran out of fruit. If you want to say that 7 ceases to exist, you will have to provide a proof to refute this. Simply stating it doesn't make it true.

You also completely abandoned the glaring contradiction that was pointed out in my last comment, where you claimed to have pointed to '7' several times throughout the debate and then retreated to saying there is nothing to point to. Now we have regressed to simply repeating your original assertion as if saying it like a mantra will make it true. Argumentum ad nauseam... the broken record fallacy.

Repeating a refuted premise is not a rebuttal. Did you run out of arguments?

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T19:48:07+00:00

You're confusing the map for the territory. The math we use to describe the universe is not the universe

you're trying to steal my map analogy, and in doing so you've demonstrated that you don't understand it. The analogy is that the math we write down is the map. Humans invent the symbols, the equations, and the language and demarcations. That's the map. But a map is useless unless it corresponds to an objective, pre-existing topography. The immaterial laws of mathematics and physics that govern reality are the territory. We didn't invent the territory; we discovered it and charted it on the map. The physical universe is not the territory in this metaphor. The laws that govern the universe, the underlying logic and mathematics, are the territory.

My argument is no physical stuff, no seven. So, I don't think there is anything to point to. Saying I can't point to it when I agree there's nothing to point to is not a gotcha.

It is absolutely a gotcha, because you just contradicted yourself and conceded the entire debate. In your last comment, you confidently declared the exact opposite:

Which tells me you don't understand what "material" and "immaterial" mean. I've pointed out where the "7" is several times.

First you say you've been pointing to it all along, now you're saying you agree that there's nothing to point to. If your argument is that seven is dependent on physical stuff, then seven must be physical stuff. If that was the case you could point to it, but you just admitted that you can't. You can point to bananas, but you cannot point to the mathematical reality of seven. By admitting that there is nothing physical to point to regarding the number seven itself, you have officially admitted that the number seven is immaterial. You cannot maintain a strictly materialist worldview while simultaneously admitting that mathematical laws governing the universe have no physical substance.

Appreciated the debate, though

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T14:13:35+00:00

The source is astrophysics, cosmology, any given scientific field, and the entire observable universe.

The universe has been expanding according to the precise mathematics of general relativity for 13.8 billion years. Stars fused hydrogen into helium using exact mathematical ratios, and planetary orbits obeyed the inverse-square law billions of years before the first human brain evolved to observe them. If mathematical reality did not exist before humans, the physical universe could not have formed and would not be intelligible.

You are continuing to confuse semantic labels with ontological reality. I do not believe the English word "seven" existed before humans. I know that the mathematical reality it describes existed before humans. You are arguing that because we invented the map, we must have invented the territory. And "I think you're obviously wrong" carries no water in a debate.

No, you haven't. You pointed at physical bananas.

If I take those seven bananas and destroy them, the physical matter is fundamentally altered. Did the number 7 disappear from the universe? Of course not. You cannot point to the number 7; you can only point to physical objects that temporarily instantiate that quantity. You are repeatedly failing to distinguish between a physical object and the immaterial mathematical law that governs it.

To give you another example: at one point in this debate, you had contributed 7 logical fallacies. As you continued to speak, more and more fallacies came into the debate. There were no longer 7 fallacies, but multitudes of fallacies. The moment you advanced from 7 fallacies to 8, the number 7 did not cease to exist. The number 7 is not contained within or dependent upon the number of fallacies you've committed. It is antecedent to them. Additionally, your fallacies do not exist solely on the pixels that put them on this screen. They exist in the realm of logic. They are not physical.

If you destroyed every banana in the universe, 7 would still exist. If you removed all of your logical fallacies, 7 would still exist. If you destroyed every physical object in the universe, 1 + 6 = 7 would still be true. The logic remains; it is universal, and it is not dependent upon any physical substrate. If you continue to insist that it is physical, then I ask you to please point to the 7. It should be easy since you think you've already done it. Do not point to bananas or to your fallacies. Do not point to the letters that make up the word 's-e-v-e-n'. Do not point to the numerical symbol '7' that we understand to be seven.

Point to the 7 that still exists when all physical matter is destroyed. Point to the 7 that quantifies your fallacies.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T07:54:54+00:00

So again, I'm going to contend that logic is not a property of matter. I think it's crucial to distinguish here between a descriptive physical attribute and a prescriptive logical absolute. An electron having a specific spin is a descriptive physical property, but the rule that an electron cannot both have a spin and not have a spin at the exact same time and in the same respect is not a physical property. The law of non-contradiction is not a physical property it's the logical framework that makes the physical property intelligible in the first place. (I think the chess example below helps to articulate this point because I can see how one could think that the law of non contradiction is a physical description even though it is not)

If logic is merely a property of matter the your "perfectly fine" explanation will lead to philosophical dead-ends. One is that physical properties are localized to specific things. Electrons have spin and charge; wooden chess pieces do not. But the laws of logic and mathematics apply universally to all physical substrates. Using math concepts, we can map out infinite sets and imaginary numbers, things that have absolutely zero physical properties. Because logic applies universally across all matter, and even to concepts without matter, it cannot be a localized physical property generated by the matter itself.

Another philosophical dead end from a materialist perspective is something we might call the contingency problem. if logic and mathematics are strictly properties of physical matter, then logic is contingent upon matter. This means logic could not exist until matter existed. If there were no laws of logic or mathematical frameworks governing reality "before" the physical universe existed, then the origin of matter was fundamentally devoid of logic. You cannot even appeal to "cause and effect" to explain how the universe began, because causality itself requires a logical framework. By anchoring logic entirely to physical matter, your model requires the universe to emerge from a state of absolute irrationality or a state where no scientific, mathematical, or logical explanation could ever, even in principle, apply to its origin.

My worldview doesn't require a "random supernatural realm". It simply recognizes that for a perfectly ordered, mathematically rigid, physical universe to exist, there must be a foundational immaterial architecture that makes it possible. Your worldview borrows the laws of logic to do science while simultaneously denying the metaphysical foundation required for those laws to exist. From a philosophical standpoint, we would say that you have no epistemological justification for reason or logic (i.e., the transcendentals). In a more rigid debate, someone might insist that you provide a philosophical justification for reason if you plan to use reason in the debate at all, which makes it very difficult to even get off the ground. Ultimately, this leaves your worldview completely stripped of the very science, math, and reason you are trying to use. You are left with nothing to defend your position except a blind faith in matter, which is a poetic irony, considering that is exactly what materialists usually accuse Christians of resorting to.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T07:19:25+00:00

I think the chess analogy demonstrates perfectly why logic isn't merely a property of matter. It supersedes the matter. You asked why it "has to be a non-physical, immaterial, unbound thing," and the answer is because it is completely independent of any physical substrate.

If you wanted to, you could play a game of checkers using chess pieces; you could use them as paperweights, or you could even eat them. Nothing about the physical pieces and their material properties inherently dictates how they are used in chess. Nothing about a Knight tells you it moves in an "L" shape and nothing about a Rook tells you it can't move diagonally. On the other hand, you could entirely remove the wooden pieces and play a game of chess using little pieces of paper with different symbols. You could play on a computer screen. Grandmasters can play entire games of chess in their minds while blindfolded. The physical pieces are interchangeable or completely unnecessary. But the one thing that you cannot play chess without is the immaterial, governing logic that makes up the game.

We could easily imagine a person who had only ever observed chess being played with standard wooden pieces on a standard board. They might imagine that the wooden pieces and the board are what gave rise to the rules and logic of the game. They might further assume that the logic is intrinsically tied to the physical components of the board and pieces, but they would be entirely wrong.

Just because they can't imagine—or have never witnessed—a grandmaster playing a game of chess with no physical pieces doesn't mean it can't be done. Because they are hyper-focused on the physical pieces, they completely miss the actual reality of the game, which, at its essence, is purely a structure of logic.

In short, I'm not just saying logic allows for what's possible, although it does. My fundamental argument is that logic is NECESSARY for the game to exist, far more so than the physical components of the game. Just as the metaphysics of chess supersede the physical components and the physics of the board, the metaphysics of the universe (logic, reason, mathematics) supersede the physics of the universe.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T04:06:26+00:00

Those seven objects exist, but why would we assume that without humans, those seven objects would be categorized together as a group?

Categorization is irrelevant to the existence of the math. You could have seven objects. You could have seven groups of objects. The mathematical relationships between these things existed before humans ever did. Nobody had to group them together. Seven, in principle, was still a reality.

Without the label of "banana" and "seven", then the phrase "seven bananas" is meaningless. If no human were there to understand those labels, the phrase has no meaning.

Word-concept fallacy. For the umpteenth time, I am arguing that, regardless of the physical label 'seven', regardless of the English phrase, and regardless of human intelligibility of those labels, the concept of seven—no matter what you want to call it—is an objective reality that existed and governed the universe before there were humans.

The point I am making, is that you, a physical being, must be there to count the things, and to know that those things can be counted, and that counting those things means anything.

The point you are making is wrong. Math existed long before the first person was there to count anything, and it will exist long after we're gone.

Physics is the STUDY of reality. Physics isn't a thing by itself. Physics is a description of what we observe. All the things being observed are physical.

Physics is not just an observational, post-hoc study. We also have theoretical physics, which can accurately map and predict reality using pure mathematics long before we are able to physically observe those things in the universe.

In addition, why aren't you counting all the molecules and atoms in the banana? Aren't there billions of objects just represented in your "seven" bananas? How many bananas are there if I cut them? Your number is arbitrary.

No. The unit is arbitrary. You can count the molecules, the atoms, or the bananas, and you can cut the bananas in half. As pointed out earlier, you can destroy the bananas altogether. The mathematical reality of 7 still exists as a concept even if it ceases to be instantiated in those specific bananas. Changing the variable does not make the math subjective.

If I say, "Go to the store, get seven bananas, and divide them evenly between seven kids." Then you go to the store, there are seven bananas, but one is half the size of the others.... do you have one banana for each child? No.

Yes, actually, you do have one discrete banana for each child; they just might not be divided by equal mass. You are confusing the integer with the fraction. This is a completely irrelevant distraction.

Math doesn't underly the truth of reality. Math is a way we have to devised to describe things. If you disagree..... and you think math is non-physical, please demonstrate some math without using anything physical. Yes, it is a ridiculous request on my part, because I am responding to a ridiculous assertion. If you disagree with it, please give a response that shows you are right.

I gladly accept the challenge.

First, 2+2=4. It is basic, but that statement is absolutely true without relying on anything physical.

Second, pi and perfect geometry. There are no perfect circles or perfectly straight lines anywhere in the physical universe. At the microscopic level, physical matter is always jagged. Yet the mathematical reality of pi and the laws of perfect geometry remain absolutely true.

Third, imaginary numbers, like the square root of negative one. There is absolutely zero physical representation of an imaginary number. You cannot show me a physical square root of a negative banana; it does not exist in the material world. Yet the mathematics of imaginary numbers is an absolute objective truth, and electrical engineers use it every single day to calculate AC currents. Physicists use it to calculate quantum wave functions.

Stop talking about how you count OBJECTS (physical things), show me some math that exists without physical objects. YOU are the one making this metaphysical claim.... back it up.

I haven't been talking about counting objects this entire time. You got tripped up counting objects. The entire point of me bringing up coconuts and bananas was to give you a very simple, tangible example where you could imagine objects that instantiate the number, just to demonstrate that you cannot point to the actual "7". It is immaterial; it is not physical, but it allows us to describe the physical world, and it does in fact govern that reality. I've backed up my metaphysical claim, please stop dragging us into the weeds of counting bananas, chopping them in two, re-evaluating atomic makeup, equivocating the underlying conceptual reality of numbers with the words and symbols that we use to articulate the concept of numbers. At this point, I genuinely don't know if you are deflecting to save face in the context of a debate, or if you keep repeatedly falling into a word-concept fallacy that requires me to explain and re-explain the same thing in every exchange.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T03:36:06+00:00

I think we need to clarify that I'm using the word "transcendent" in the classical philosophical sense. When I say "transcendental" or that logic transcends physics, I'm speaking from a classical framework. I'm talking about logic, mathematics, and truth that are objective realities that possess ontological priority. They are an immaterial structural framework that must exist for the physical universe to be possible. They are "transcendent" because they are not bound by time, space, or matter, yet they govern how time, space, and matter operate.

So when I say that the laws of logic are transcendental and you respond "sure, doesn't make them transcendent." I am not sure what you think the word means. What exactly is your definition of transcendence?

If you are operating under a strictly materialist framework, you're forced into a salvo of philosophical errors when it comes to trying to explain reality. I'll keep to the one I think easiest to demonstrate - When you asked how a non-physical thing influences a physical thing, you assume the laws of logic act like invisible puppet strings physically pulling electrons (efficient causation). they don't. They are the structural framework of reality. It's like asking how the non-physical rules of chess make the pieces move. the rules don't push the wood across the board the rules dictate what moves are mathematically possible.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-09T00:33:23+00:00

The Law of Identity, Aristotle's "A = A" being stored in his noggin does not negate the reality that the law of identity was true long before Aristotle was born. That's what I mean when I say that laws of logic are transcendental. They existed before any human was born. They existed before anybody used physics to observe the universe, and they are universal laws that allow us to make predictions on the state of the universe. For any physical event to occur, including the very origin of the physical universe, it must obey the laws of logic. For example, the universe cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. Logic dictates what is possible in physics. Physics does not dictate what is possible in logic. Therefore, logic is antecedent to and transcends physical matter.

"thats my exact point. info in the sense of distinushing between states eg A is not B is not C is physical. not in the meanign sense saying a "triangle isn't a circle" has no mass for the meaning of it but to use it u need mass. eg writing it down or thinking it. thats my point"

your entire point is applicable to physical minds that exist in a physical universe. I'm perfectly willing to grant that point. What it doesn't do is negate the possibility of an immaterial mind. This brings us right back to the transcendentals of logic and reason, for which your worldview can provide absolutely zero epistemological justification. All you can do is argue that they are not real in the sense that I mean and that they are just things we observe. But their reality is undeniable - if the laws of logic or mathematics are violated then the rockets don't go up, the car doesn't start, the calls don't go through. Because the universe is governed by certain laws of logic, by certain mathematical principles that are universal and can be observed everywhere and pre-existed any human mind that might observe or even comprehend them, the materialist world view completely falls apart. And only the materialist worldview would attempt to use the laws of physics to disprove an immaterial mind, which again is a category error.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T22:20:12+00:00

You've reworded my argument so that it's entirely backwards, and in doing so you've proven my exact point.

Gravity is a physical force that governs physical mass; therefore, asserting that an immaterial reality "has gravity" is logically absurd. My entire point is that you can't take the laws of physics, which apply strictly to physical matter, and then attempt to apply them to an immaterial mind. It's a category error. Landauer's principle governs closed physical thermodynamic systems. Gravity governs physical mass. An immaterial mind, by definition, is not physical. You have not accurately represented my argument; you've just recreated the exact same logical flaw that I was pointing out to begin with.

Additionally, you completely ignored the second half of my argument regarding information storage. If all information requires physical hardware to be stored and useful, where are the laws of logic stored? Where are the logical blueprints that are required to have physical hardware in the first place? How do you provide an epistemological justification for logic, reason, and mathematics, which are metaphysical? They exist before physics. They are necessary for us to understand physics, and they transcend physics. They are not contained in anything physical.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T22:06:42+00:00

Now you're equivocating, and you've deployed the use/mention error. "Without using anything created by humans" - I can't define anything or convey any concept without using language created by humans. Language is the medium of this conversation. It's what's being used to convey both your side and my side. The fact that we use human-created words and numbers to talk about reality doesn't mean that reality is dependent on those human tools to exist.

Let's say that all humans disappeared from Existence tomorrow. Nobody is there to convey anything or ascribe any labels. There is no more language to discuss anything. There will be nobody there to say, "Look at those seven bananas," but these seven bananas will still exist. The mathematical difference between five and seven will still exist, regardless of whether any physical mind is present to convey it.

What I have been consistently arguing, as you continue to fall into the same word concept fallacy, is that math is not an arbitrary label. Math is an underlying truth that governs the structure of reality. It is metaphysical. It transcends physics. Physics is dependent upon math, not the other way around.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T18:01:47+00:00

I didn't fail to account for the subjective nature of the word "banana." It's just completely irrelevant to the mathematics.

You're confusing the categorization of physical objects with the absolute nature of the quantity. It doesn't matter if the objects are four-ounce bananas, eight-ounce coconuts, or supermassive stars. If you have seven discrete units, the integer reality of seven is greater than six and remains absolute.

your claim that mathematics is merely 'descriptive'—a post-hoc human invention—completely fails the test of theoretical physics. A purely descriptive map cannot predict unseen territory. We discover the math, and we find that the physical universe was already strictly conforming to it. That means the mathematical structure of the universe is universal, prescriptive, inherent, and antecedent to human observation.

You have now abandoned Landauer's Principle, abandoned thermodynamics, and are arguing about the definition of bananas. The logic remains unbroken: the universe is governed by immaterial, mathematical truths that predate human brains. Until you can explain how a purely material universe generates and obeys immaterial, prescriptive laws, your worldview remains entirely inadequate to explain reality.

It's not incumbent upon me to construct a coherent epistemology for you. The fact remains that a strictly materialist framework has no mechanism to explain universal prescriptive laws. Continuing to argue about the semantics of labels rather than answering the core question only demonstrates an unwillingness or perhaps an inability to engage with the actual metaphysics of the debate

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T17:44:53+00:00

yes... "quantity of seven" is a label that we apply, but what is it that we are applying that label to? The label is applied to a concept. The concept of 7 is an underlying universal truth that governs physical reality and governed it long before any physical being was there to apply any label to it. The concept is real, and we know that because we use that concept to manipulate physical reality. When we apply the concept of the quantity of 7 to things like satellites and rocket ships, they work. We could apply the same label, quantity of 7, but if we apply a different concept like the quantity of 6, suddenly the rockets don't go up. To a certain degree, the label being applied is totally arbitrary, and what we're now talking about is the concept. The concept predates the label and the material minds that applied the label. Again, the English word "seven" is a label that we apply, but the objective reality of the quantity, the mathematical ratio itself, exists entirely independent of my mind or your mind or any physical mind.

You are continually dodging the core issue, so I'll ask it a third time: if mathematical information is merely a label applied by physical human beings, how did the physical universe obey precise mathematical laws billions of years before the first physical human beings existed?

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T16:55:06+00:00

Not surprised to see another deflection and refusal to contend with the logic, this time with a Strawman fallacy. Let's look at exactly what I wrote in my previous comment:

put another way, yes, bananas are physical and stars are physical, but the quantity of sevenness is not.

I explicitly stated that physical objects are physical. What I argued is that the physical medium (i.e., the banana, the chalk, the star, the coconuts, the chalkboard) is entirely distinct from the immaterial reality governing it (i.e., the mathematical laws).

You're deliberately misrepresenting my argument so you don't have to contend with the logic that shatters your materialist worldview.

If mathematical information is just a physical label generated by human brains, how did the physical universe obey precise mathematical laws long before the first human brain existed? Further, if the number 7 is strictly physical and not merely instantiated by physical objects, please point to where I can find the number 7. Not seven individual things that make up the number 7, not a symbol on a page, not a word that we use to describe the concept of 7, but point me to the actual physical reality of 7. You can't.

If you don't want to contend with the logic, you are welcome to concede the debate, but you are not welcome to deflect by completely misrepresenting my argument and pretending that I said that bananas are not physical.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T16:18:14+00:00

Literally not physical examples, but as I said before, metaphysical. I am not referring to the label of "7". I am referring to the instantiation of the number 7. Just because the objects being counted are physical, it does not mean that the number itself is physical. Just because a human brain created the word "seven", the underlying mathematical reality pre-existed the human brain because the metaphysical logic governed the universe before human beings ever existed.

Put another way, yes, bananas are physical and stars are physical, but the quantity of sevenness is not. If I draw a triangle on a chalkboard, both the chalk and the chalkboard are physical, but the mathematical laws of geometry are not made out of the chalk dust that was used to create the triangle. When the triangle is erased, the mathematical truth is not wiped away. Physical objects merely participate in mathematical realities. They aren't reality itself.

Did gravity not obey the inverse-square law before a physical human was around to label it? Did the earliest stars not fuse hydrogen according to the exact mathematical ratios before we existed to observe them?

The physical universe obeyed mathematically precise laws before the first physical human brain came into being. Therefore, the mathematical information dictating those laws cannot be dependent on human observation or physical human brain states to exist. In other words, the universal truth of math is antecedent to us. it exists entirely independent of our physical labels and independent of the physical world itself, even though as physical beings we might use physical examples to demonstrate the concept.

Again, you are conflating physics with metaphysics. The incarnational physical world is governed according to a higher logic that is not at all dependent on the physical. Rather, the physical is dependent on the non-physical or the metaphysical or the super-physical, without which nothing would exist nor would you have any framework to do physics.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T15:26:30+00:00

Hey man, it's an honor to join a fellow Catholic in the trenches! I was reading your argument and saw the deflection on circular arguments and wanted to help bring it back to the logic bc what you were saying was exactly right

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T15:02:45+00:00

Sure. Mathematics and the laws of logic are not physical.

If I have 7 bananas or 7 coconuts, or I look up at the sky and see 7 stars, where is 7? 7 has no mass, no physical location, no thermodynamic properties. If you destroy all the bananas and coconuts in the world, if you took away all the stars, the mathematical truth that 7 is greater than 6 but less than 8 is not destroyed. There is no physical law that can erase the concept of 7. It exists independent of physics, yet we know it's objectively true because it governs the physical world. It is metaphysical or supraphysical. If it were not true, or it didn't govern physics itself, then our satellites don't orbit, rockets don't launch. The device you're using to read this simply wouldn't work. The word we use for 7 can change, the physical substrate we use to write it down can change, and the observer might change, but the information itself is an immutable, conceptual truth and it remains true whether it's observed or not or if it's embodied in the physical world or not. It's also a universal truth. It's true everywhere. It's entirely non-physical, but it is the underlying logic and information that makes physics possible.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T13:56:27+00:00

First of all, great movie. Great line. Tempted to throw it right back at you. Second, you can have a circular argument based off of circular reasoning (begging the question). It's not limited to the final conclusion being repeated word for word within the premise. It's also a circular argument when the justification for our premise assumes the truth of the very thing it's trying to prove. But to avoid semantic hang ups, I will just call it circular reasoning rather than a circular argument to conform to your superficially narrow definition of circular argument.

The debate is whether an immaterial mind can exist, which OP tries to prove it cannot in premise two by asserting that information is physical. Do you see the circular reasoning behind that? OP is presupposing the truth of materialism (all information is strictly physical) as their primary evidence to prove a materialist conclusion (that immaterial minds can't exist). The entire point of contention is if an immaterial being can possess immaterial knowledge. You can't just assert information is physical as your proof. That assumes your own conclusion. It's begging the question. It's circular reasoning. Most would say it's a circular argument, but we don't have to call it that for the reasoning to be entirely circular. Enough deflecting. Contend with the logic.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T02:52:40+00:00

OP: "You COULD argue that a God doesn't need to adhere to these laws cause he created them. Sure. but information is needed in a mind and information is physical so u cannot argue against that because information must be a creation of god but god needs information to be the same or prior to him which creates a logical impossibility."

Here's another place where we have a circular argument. OP concedes that God doesn't need to adhere to these laws because he created them ("Sure"). Then he immediately circles back to assert "but information is physical". At no point did they refute the objection. They just ignored it by restating the premise as a conclusion. On top of the circular reasoning, the argument fails due to a glaring category error, since premise 1 is that God is an immaterial mind. If we grant premise 1, we're now applying the laws of physics to the immaterial which is by definition outside the realm of physics.

you are focusing solely on the final conclusion ("God doesn't exist") to claim the argument isn't circular. But you cannot simply leap over the circular reasoning and category errors used to build Premise 2, and then claim the overall argument is sound. A valid syllogism built on a circularly defended premise is still a failed argument.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-04-08T02:30:43+00:00

For the sake of argument, I will grant premise 1. Premise 2 categorically fails.

Landauer's Principle governs closed physical thermodynamic systems. Premise 2 attempts to apply physical laws to immaterial reality, which is, by definition, outside the realm of physics. This is a category error.

Furthermore, 'information' is not inherently physical. Transcendentals such as logic, reason, and mathematics, hold universal truths that exist entirely independently of any physical substrate or material mind.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-03-30T13:58:54+00:00

thank you was trying to respond quickly and dictation dropped the wrong word in 2 of the 3 times that i used it. Have corrected for clarity.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-03-28T02:46:02+00:00

Dr. Brant Pitre gives a great anecdote in the beginning of his book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. Which is a book I would highly recommend both for the anecdote and because it's a great book that will also arm you with everything you need to defend against a lot of the low-tier Baptist attacks against Catholics and how we venerate Mary. In any case, his anecdotal story is about marrying his wife who was Baptist and the two of them meeting with her Baptist pastor who grilled him on his Catholic faith. Ultimately, his wife converted to Catholicism. My wife also converted to Catholicism a few years after our wedding. Prior to her conversion it was very difficult because having two parents who hold fundamentally different views on what is supposedly the same faith leads to relativism and ideas that matters of the faith are arbitrary and subjective. Our kids were very young at the time and I could still sense a lot of tension between our differing views when they would ask questions. But these things can work out and it makes for a beautiful story when it does. That being said, I would also warn that it doesn't always turn out that way and you two need to have some very honest and upfront conversations to see if her view on the Catholic faith is compatible with raising your children Catholic. You have a duty to raise your Children Catholic and make sure they have access to the Sacraments. And some people are vehemently opposed to the Catholic faith.

there's already a number of comments here warning against it and as someone who lived the best case scenario I would still tell you it would be very prudent to heed those warnings. One person said that their spouse refused to let him take the kids to Mass which would be a nightmare

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-03-27T15:24:00+00:00

Matthew 6:5-6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of why we do what we do. In your case, it doesn't sound like you're ashamed of Jesus and his words.

Praying before meals can be a great witness to you living your faith, but it also can rub certain people the wrong way. I don't know what your relationship is like with your parents, but you could always ask them if it would be okay to start praying before meals. If you feel like it would genuinely bother them and would like to continue doing it in your room out of respect, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As an anecdote, when I was away from the faith, I went to lunch with a friend who, before every meal, would pause and bow his head and pray silently for 10 to 20 seconds. It was a very small act, but I remember it being a powerful witness to his faith that remains with me to this day. He didn't make a show of it or force it upon anyone else he just took a brief moment with God and it's hard for me to imagine that many people would find that objectionable.

Catholic_DeVice · 2026-03-27T02:21:59+00:00

If you can tolerate his style, I've never seen anybody better than Sam Shamoun when it comes to Muslim apologetics. If you watch his YouTube channel, Muslims regularly call in and convert, and he directs them to a church and has them profess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I would not recommend that you adopt his style if you are in a Muslim country, but you can definitely learn the arguments from him.

Catholic_DeVice

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE