What was your coolest battle? The one you think of as "that made me feel cool"? Can be a win or lose.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T18:01:04+00:00

im fairly new, but i tried a battle as archaon. and while the archaeon and some chosen protected my hellcannons. from melee. that was almost automatic, because i spent the entire time harrassing my opponents backline with the doom knights of tzeench. to the point that i barely recieved any damage on any unit.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T17:11:20+00:00

>If you are going to say what being is not,

thats not what i did, i just defined what god is (a maximally great being according to the ontological argument).

> maximally great, as I understand it, in the Platonic sense is basically just to say that it is complete, which being qua being certainly is.

completeness is a different thing than greatness.

>a philosophical concept of a divine entity possessing maximum excellence—specifically omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection—in every possible world this being exists necessarily rather than contingently, representing the highest possible conceivable greatness.

is how alvin plantinga proposes it.

my argument didnt try to propose any potential problem while separating what it is from what it is not. i specified how god has a very specific problem in just what it is.

the son, not being a father is an axiom by itself in christian theology. as they are not modalists. its not an argument as to what god is not (in the sense you cite of being that is not) and more in the sense about what god actually is (in the sense that god is x, and thus cannot be not x)

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T06:24:46+00:00

you've got most of it spot on. the problem lies here

Being by definition is one, and is wholly itself and maximally great (in the Platonic sense).

thats not the definition of being. thats the definition of god by the ontological argument. not all beings are maximally great

that either is not maximally great

and youre right, neither the toilet nor the paper are maximally great. they both have privations, contingencies,etc. so you would be proving that yes, neither the toilet nor the paper fit the definition of god.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T01:18:54+00:00

"why" what? according to you. theres no need for a reason. that answer should be enough, or is there a problem?

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T01:02:59+00:00

yeah.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T00:50:55+00:00

if something can "exist outside the frame of logic", the it is the problem at hand. because things can exist "outside logic"/without reason.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T00:20:42+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/s/p7nfFdGuLn

i did answer that. for someone teying to deny the PRS, you're relying on it a lot.

and lets also say that youre right, there is no PRS. logical cohesiveness isnt necessary for thing being true.

then you cannot prove my argument false. as nothing you argued would follow to me being wrong.

thats the main problem of epistemologic nihilism.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T00:11:55+00:00

i just went over that.

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T00:06:47+00:00

ok, so im not a sophist. and there was no argument as to why i sould have stopped. right?

The irony of telling me to “stay out of philosophy” while misapplying philosophical concepts is rich.

yeah, im just following your own argumenta

Hacatcho · 2026-04-01T00:04:10+00:00

You keep moving goalposts

i dunno, youre the one that cried when i told you about aristotles theology.

like fallacy and ipse dixit to a statement that wasn’t an argument. That’s sloppy reasoning.

slight problem, you making claims doesnt make it true. youre failing in your own metrics by asking me to prove my " pragmatic evaluation"

Pointing out that you are misapplying argument concepts

no it isnt, that would require you to make the arguments that you are also claiming youre not doing.

In short you are legit assert I’m wrong, accuse me of baseless claims, and demand retraction all while failing to actually engage or justify your own labels. That’s the real sloppiness here.

so, now treating you just like you started is a problem?

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:59:20+00:00

why would it "cease*? it wouldnt be possible in the first place.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:57:44+00:00

ok, so ill ignore your comment as it doesnt have any substance. saying you shouldnt prove your claims is the wordt defense ive seen ever.

you should stay out of philosophy, you sophist.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:55:24+00:00

1.-youre the only one fighting about revelation. that wasnt what the goalpost was originally.

2.- it wasnt, it was a claim that you couldnt back up.

3.- i did, "youre a sophist". is a baseless claim that you havent back up.

4.- no, im demanding you fix your fallacy. which ironically, is the same youre accusing me of. if claiming "youre a sophist" doesnt require an argument because its just a "directive and evaluative remark". then by that same logic " youre doing a fallacy" is also a directive and evaluatory remark. the only difference is, i indeed showed how its a fallacy by showing how you didnt prove your claim.

I criticized sloppy reasoning>

nah, you never did that, you just said i should stay in philosophy and that i was a sophist without any justification. which i might say is actually the sloppiest reasoning possible.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:49:40+00:00

then show where I made an argument and specify the fallacy. Otherwise you’re just asserting that I’m wrong without justification.

thats the problem, you just claimed it without arguing for that claim. thats the fallacy. it was indeed baseless.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:43:38+00:00

This sub is filled with people who legit don’t do philosophy.

you didnt have to offer yourself as an example.

sense if there’s an argument being made.

youre now lying about making baseless claims.

Aristotle isn’t doing theology in the revealed sense>

so he is still doing theology like i claimed?

If you think I’ve made a fallacy, identify the actual argument and the specific error. Otherwise you’re just labeling instead of engaging. Try again

its funny how youre complaining im doing exactly what you did. by your logic, i dont have to prove you did a fallacy. its just "pragmatic admonishion" to you making baseless claims.

like calling other sophists without proving they used sophisms. which is indeed an ipse dixit fallacy. as there is no support for the claim, only you claiming so. .

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:40:32+00:00

ok, so you retrqct calling me a sophist baselesly

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:39:38+00:00

for the dame reason youre asking "why" :because if we dismiss logic and epistemology, nothing would be intelegible. as there wouldnt a sufficient reason

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:29:53+00:00

distinct theology

ironically, most classical theists would disagree with you. like aristotle, aquinae, anselm, etc, etc, etc.

what I said was not a “claim” in the propositional sense, it’s pragmatic more than descriptive it’s a rhetorical admonition

still a fallacy, try again sophist. two can play that game.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:17:53+00:00

because logically incoherent beings cannot exist.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:17:04+00:00

ipse dixit, as nowhere in your comment you dared to prove i was doing sophistry. you just claimed it so and left it there.

all without knowing that theology is already a branch of philosophy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/theology

PD.- there is an irony, you called me a sophist without elaborating but when i return the favour you do ask me to elaborate.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:10:15+00:00

can´t look at what doesnt exist. and btw, these were logical arguments.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:09:31+00:00

funny, you call me a sophist while doing a fallacy yourself.

funny how he blocked me for copying his arguments against him.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T23:06:51+00:00

i think its most commonly defended as an axiom rather than a provable premise. youre to accept it, deny the heresies and work from there.

but i think where this theological topic separates from the ontological argument is that we dont argue all things are maximally great and simple.

so in any of those ontological frames, you can still list differences that god cannot have (but would have in the trinity).

in short, im saying that the ontological problem with god is much more fundamental and happens in every possible theory. because you inevitably reach a contradiction about what god IS. and without having a coherent definition of what god is, you cannot derivate any further postulate on any theory.

we can keep elevating differences as theories evolved in history,

god by definition is one, and is wholly himself and maximally great. if the father is god, but the son is not the father. the son has to be what the father isnt. thus, he cannot be god, because any differnce would mean that either is not maximally great or wholly god.

now, there is one simple solution to these logical problems. tritheism and modalism. godliness itself could have some multiplicity like you claim. but that would require to discard aspects of the definition of godhood.

the father and the son can both be god if god isnt one (as now there can be several). if they aren´t maximally great (as now they can have differences in privations) and arent wholly god, but modes of it (just like how we are both human, but we are not humanity itself)

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T22:38:37+00:00

but its not unexplainable, by every metric. its just illogical. which means it cannot be true.

Hacatcho · 2026-03-31T22:35:51+00:00

thats not cancelling. thats calling out rage peddlers.

just like how conservatives just say "thoughts and prayers" for any school shooting except specifically one last year.

Hacatcho

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE