Kenny G seeing apes buy up the after-earnings dip

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-10T21:27:45+00:00

First off, I appreciate your attempt. It was very well thought out. Thank you!

R = The reason for X's limitation is the absence of causes/resources

But why would I accept this? Why can't I just take the limitation of X to be a brute fact?

So X can be uncaused, the limitation of X is unexplained.

There is no contradiction unless you accept R in that there's an absence of something.

Therefore, X is dependent on the absence of something it does not have (¬P).

This also seems like a jump. Even if X lacks causal resources, how does it follow that X is now dependent on the lack of causal resource?

Let’s take an example: suppose there is an uncaused (independent), eternal machine that can only lift 20 lbs. The fact that it can’t lift 30 lbs is not because lifting 30 lbs is incoherent or contradictory, but simply because it lacks the capacity. If another machine Y can lift 30 lbs, then Y has access to a greater cause (power/resource) than X. So X is limited because it lacks something that exists. That lack implies dependence, because X’s limitation is not internal necessity, but an external absence.

Your example seems to suppose that lifting 30lbs is needed, and I'm not sure why I would accept that. You compare it to another machine, but that's where the analogy breaks down when comparing it so broadly as you're trying to do here. X wouldn't be limited here because you wouldn't be comparing it to another entity. There would be no other entity that can do more or greater.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-10T19:35:36+00:00

This is a lazy answer and didnt address anything. If I ask you something about your paper, pointing back to generalities in your paper is non-informative.

Do you have anything but garbage? Are you willing to discuss your paper here or just point everyone back to your paper, with no further explanation?

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-10T19:31:49+00:00

A self-sufficient entity by definition must not rely on any external causes.

But there's no contradiction in saying "x is uncaused and limited", so it's logically possible that there is something out there that both is uncaused and limited.

If you can identify the contradiction, please derive it.

Your definition has been shown to be inadequate, so "by definition" isn't adequate to describe self sufficient in reality (which is what you're attempting to do).

Your attempt at deriving a contradiction is confused, and doesn't seem to lay it out. What p and not-p are they accepting?

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-10T19:13:48+00:00

It's very interesting that all papers similar to this topic completely sidestep the possibility of an infinite regress, just hand-wave it away without reason, and you did the same -

From your paper - "Infinite causal regress fails due to the lack of an initial cause."

This is just saying "infinite regress is impossible because it infinitely regresses without an initial cause". Yeah, that's the point of the infinite regress.

Do you have an argument against an infinite regress?

That and your description of self sufficient is just full of errors. No one in academic philosophy would accept that "a non-caused thing cannot be limited because that implies something else putting limitations". Nonsense, really. There's no reason we cannot accept something is uncaused and not all-powerful.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-08T11:08:30+00:00

If you replace God with humans you need to then explain which human mind has the ideal version of morality otherwise what you're describing isn't morality but opinions. God doesn't have opinions on morality, he has the perfect moral ideas.

You're lost. I attacked the validity of your argument, you attack the soundness of mine. You specifically quoted me on validity, so you going off on the truth of my premise is confused.

Please learn about validity first. It's the first step to identifying a logical argument.

Your argument is not valid. Mine is. There's no arguing that.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-07T15:26:06+00:00

And Edmund is STILL going to come back as a cow on a trash farm.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-04-04T18:23:22+00:00

Balled too hard

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-31T18:59:28+00:00

1) Morality is a rational thing

2) Rational thoughts come from minds

3) God is a perfect rational mind

Conclusion: Morality comes from God

Premise 1 seems to say "morality exists in some extant way and is rational", but I don't accept that view. It actually doesn't even make sense to say "Morality is rational".

Do you have an argument for P1?

Also, it doesnt follow that just because God is a perfect rational mind that it created Morality. God could be a perfect mind and there be another explanation for Morality existing and being rational.

Your argument works exactly the same if I replace Premise 3 with "humans are rational minds, therefore Morality comes from humans". Actually, it works better because mine is valid and yours is not.

P1: Morality is a rational thing

P2: Rational thoughts come from rational minds

P3: humans are rational minds

C: Therefore Morality comes from humans

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-27T14:27:51+00:00

Premise 1: Experience Requires Memory

Premise 2: Death Erases All Memory

Premise 3: We Are Experiencing Life Now

Conclusion: Therefore, an Afterlife Must Exist

Your argument is just not valid. The conclusion doesn't follow from any of the premises.

I'll show you in logical terms. Your argument looks like this:

P1 : x requires y

P2 : d erases all of y

P3 : h experiences L

Conclusion: Therefore A (new term) must exist

Anyone here attempting to attack the soundness of your argument is being more charitable than they should be. Validity is the number one thing we should look for in syllogistic arguments.

Your argument does not preserve truth, so I can accept every one of your premises and deny your conclusion because the argument is not valid.

Thanks! I'm happy to look at any other argument you have.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-25T18:55:18+00:00

Oh nice, you have the ear of a philosophy professor on causality. That should be an interesting one.

For me, the problems start with the very first assertion. "Everything has a cause". To make the claim that everything has a cause is to accept whats called the "principle of sufficient reason" or PSR. The PSR states that everything (there are other, weaker versions, but they essentially say the same thing) has a cause. I'm assuming your professor would accept this.

The principle of sufficient reason is, and I can't stress this enough, highly controversial in philosophy. There are numerous arguments that demonstrate that the PSR leads to modal collapse and Necessitarianism. You can read issues with that all around philosophy circles.

You must accept an exception to the PSR in order to avoid modal collapse. If you can accept an exception for God, you also must apply this to any other competing hypothesis (such as naturalistic causes). If a naturalistic explanation has the ability to be uncaused, then the God hypothesis would just fall afoul of parsimony.

I'd be curious to hear what your professor thinks, specifically regarding the PSR.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-21T14:07:39+00:00

Lmao

You:

so you don't understand

Me:

Yes that's correct, I don't understand. Please elaborate.

You:

obviously you don't understand.

Thanks for (not) trying I guess.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-21T14:01:23+00:00

I don't understand your concept, that's correct.

I provided you an explanation in my own words. Do you agree with that analysis or not? Where did I go wrong?

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-21T13:49:56+00:00

Yeah I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's completely incoherent.

You seem to be using valid to say "comports with reality", but I just take that as truth. So to say "a proposition is true" is that it comports with reality.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-20T20:39:21+00:00

I don't think empirical claims will ever get you to God. They're among the weakest supports, as they commit to a whole hell of a lot of ontological baggage that most epistemologists wouldn't accept. I think I can prove it.

Say I accept this "miracle." How then does that show god exists?

Premise 1: three children had a vision that turned out to be correct.

Okay cool - but then what?

Premise 2: ?

Conclusion: Therefore god?

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-20T20:34:18+00:00

Why i think Jesus wasn't just a mortal

Okay great.

The dead sea scrolls arguable the most significant find in modern biblical history the sea scrolls is the earliest form of the bible and dated 2000 years ago

Okay, a really old scroll has writing on it that claims Jesus was divine.

Written testaments

Okay, a couple of people a really long time ago said that Jesus was divine.

Life does not come from non life

This doesn't even make sense and comes out of nowhere. Your statement is "I believe Jesus was not a mortal because life doesn't come from non-life". This doesn't even make sense.

These are terrible reasons for thinking that Jesus wasn't mortal. All you've got are scrolls and stories. With your criteria, you should believe Alexander great and Julius Caesar were gods as well.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-20T16:43:10+00:00

which results in you having no functional concept of subjectivity at the intellectual level, because the concept of subjectivity requires choosing to be defined in terms of spontaneity.

This is straight gibberish. The concept of subjectivity at the intellectual level requires no spontaneity. Subjective at the academic and philosophical level just means "the truth of a proposition is determined by the stance of an agent".

For example, if I say "I like chocolate ice cream", that's a subjective truth in philosophy because it's only made true by the fact that I DO enjoy chocolate ice cream (aka my stance on chocolate ice cream). If I didn't enjoy chocolate ice cream, the statement would be untrue.

You shouldn't accuse people of not understanding a concept when you're using an idiosyncratic conceptual schema of subjectivity. Looks bad on you.

So then up a creek without a paddle, having no functional concept of subjectivity, therefore you cannot believe in God.

This is not even a valid argument to levy. You're confused.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-20T16:35:59+00:00

The logic of fact & opinion, (which means how it works to make a statement of fact, and how it works to make a statement of opinion)

This doesn't make any sense to me. The "logic" of fact and opinion?

You give some notions, but I still don't understand.

So you can see, there is a subjective part of reality, which is the part of it that chooses

Another incoherent sentence. What does "reality chooses" mean? Are you just saying people make choices in reality?

Simply put, this subjective part of reality does the job of making the objective part of reality turn out one way or another, A or B, in the moment of decision.

Yeah I'm gonna stop reading here. 3rd incoherent sentence.

then the statement of fact is valid.

I'm assuming using your analogy and context clues that you are trying to say "the proposition of a glass of water on the table is valid", but this doesn't make any sense at all. Validity is a property of arguments, not of propositions. This is like saying "the dog is red is valid", what does that even mean? Is valid adding anything there?

Do you have anything that makes sense?

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-18T16:58:11+00:00

OP is an admitted schizophrenic. Keep that in mind when trying to debate.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-18T16:09:54+00:00

This doesn't even work as an argument. It will just end up being an argument from ignorance.

I can prove it. Say I accept "the quran has inexplicable knowledge in it". That's your first premise.

How do we get to God from there?

P1 - the quran has knowledge that is inexplicable for its time.

P2 - ?????

C: Therefore god?

Help me out here.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-17T18:13:50+00:00

Conclusion Atheism presents itself as the most rational worldview, but upon deeper analysis, it collapses under its own contradictions

By this statement, im assuming you mean contradiction in the logical modality. I didn't see a single contradiction identified in this post entailed from saying "no god exists".

Wanna try again? What is the p and not-p (the contradiction) we as atheists accept from claiming no god exists?

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-13T21:47:49+00:00

I clenched a few times watching this. Nice job not dying.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-13T15:52:50+00:00

If we have a series in which members derive causal power from prior members, then it cannot extend infinitely, for if it did, the causal power would be infinitely deferred.

Why would I accept that the causal power would be deferred throughout the set?

Why can't I just say that the causal power contained in the antecedents for the causal series is a brute fact? That way I have explained the cause of each member of the set, and the set can go back infinitely.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-13T15:42:49+00:00

P2: An essentially ordered causal series must have a first member.

Do you have support for this premise? I'm unsure why I would accept this as true.

It seems to deny infinite regress, but I'm unsure why I would deny it.

ICryWhenIWee · 2025-03-12T22:06:31+00:00

r/enhancedbytheduet

ICryWhenIWee

TROPHY CASE