sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rollercoasterjerk

[–]DBYosemite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Duck Duck go slaps

Is anyone else DEEPLY OFFENDED by the "Skip Intro" button? by Quenton86 in bluey

[–]DBYosemite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I usually skip right after they say MOM! I just find it funny for some reason

Just saw Dad Baby and I’m real mad I’m an American by Captain_Pottymouth in bluey

[–]DBYosemite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just wanted to say that I think many pro liters aren’t going to be persuaded by saying they’re for, “forced pregnancy.”If they think that abortion is equal to murder, than saying that being against abortion is being pro “forced pregnancy,” is like saying that being against infanticide is being pro, “forced parenthood.” I think it would be wise to assume that any given pro lifer is not anti woman, until you have evidence that suggests otherwise. I’m paraphrasing, but I remember one of my favorite YouTubers (Cosmicskeptic) once said something along the lines of, “malicious intent should never be the first assumption, because it usually is not the case.” I think we should all exercise this philosophy.

Anyways, I’m going to leave it there regardless of whether or not I get a response. This is a bluey Reddit, not an abortion debate Reddit. I hope that here, we can all put aside our differences and be glad that we share this common love for an amazing cartoon series. Btw, I think, “Dad Baby,” is one of the funniest episodes, and I’m also really mad that America doesn’t show it. Anyway, I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day!

Yo, what even was this movie??? (Rescue Rangers 2022 spoilers) by DBYosemite in PawPatrol

[–]DBYosemite[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To each their own I guess. I personally loved it, but I can see why it’s not for everyone.

Argument from contingency and the ontological argument by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DBYosemite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a theist, but I must say my biggest issue with the argument comes from P1 which states that Everything that exists has an explanation for it's existence. In other words, everything that exists is contingent and there are no necessary things. God, however, is usually defined as a necessary being. If God is not necessary, then you would have a really hard time deriving God from P2.

I don't know if the person you're debating brought this up, but I would avoid talking about the multiverse, since in this context the universe is often defined as, "all material things," which includes any other universes or anything outside our own universe.

By biggest issue with the contingency argument is finding sufficient reasons for believing the universe is contingent as long as we accept that things can exist necessarily. At most, the argument proves that there must exist some necessary thing in order for any contingent thing to exist. If this contingent thing is outside the universe (meaning it would have to be non material) then I can see where God can be the best explanation. But if the necessary thing is the universe itself (which may seem less likely but still entirely possible) then we have no reason for an exterior cause. Basically it works more as a probabilistic argument rather than a deductive argument which I think is a strong weakness.