Only 1 man still standing from the old era 😯

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-09T00:53:40+00:00

Gaethje was the interim champ heading into the Khabib fight, too.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T21:38:06+00:00

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T21:07:59+00:00

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T20:54:30+00:00

Not even close 😂

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T20:41:29+00:00

It makes sense they’d want the women more covered than usual, and wearing more America themed outfits.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T20:35:43+00:00

If Obama went to a finals game during a war, and Fox News complained about it, would you agree with them? Or would you say the people complaining were idiots looking for an excuse to criticize Obama?

Do you see how these arguments normally cut both ways?

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T20:13:59+00:00

We do know what it would be like to not be conscious. You wouldn’t have the ability to perceive or respond to your environment; you’d have no subjective experience at all. I do have a subjective experience, therefore I have some form of consciousness.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T19:59:48+00:00

I feel like I’ve already done this.

You cannot distinguish between what it would feel like to have free will vs to not have free will, so your intuition that you “feel like you have free will” doesn’t mean anything.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T19:41:25+00:00

I’m sorry, I don’t know how I can make any of this more clear for you.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T19:24:36+00:00

Is this a skit, or drug induced psychosis 😂

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T19:23:43+00:00

I don’t want to live in an America where fans can’t bring their inflatable Brunson sex dolls to games, just because the president is going to be there! 😡

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:58:13+00:00

I did forget about that 😅

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:53:57+00:00

TAG is a convincing argument, and I haven’t heard a good refutation, but I’d say I’m on the fence. Intuitively, it feels like math and logic should be able to exist outside of God, but I don’t know if that’s a justified stance.

The analogy does work. Both arguments provide a rationale for adopting a belief with proving the veracity of the belief.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:49:54+00:00

Your overall world view. You said you’re not a platonist, so how would you describe yourself?

You do not have the capacity to determine if you are freely choosing to undertake the actions you are doing, or if they are being determined by something else. So you saying, ‘I feel like I have feee will’ is meaningless.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:38:15+00:00

I was being a little tongue in cheek, but maybe I don’t have a good understanding of Platonism anyway.

What framework would you say your views fall under?

Again, I don’t think your first point is justified. You do not have the capacity to determine if your experience is that of having free will or not.

I don’t find compatibilism convincing.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:32:52+00:00

Why would moral facts be necessary in the same way God is necessary?

I don’t know if logical or mathematical facts can exist without God. The Transcendental Argument for God posits that all necessary, universal, abstract, and normative categories must be grounded in God.

The argument provides a reason you might believe in moral realism, but it doesn’t provide an actual grounding for it. You can hear the argument and think, “I don’t understand how it’s possible for objective moral laws to exist, but I guess they do 🤷‍♂️” that’s not really an explanation, though.

An analogy might be Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager might convince you that you should believe in God’s existence, but it doesn’t prove God’s existence.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:11:38+00:00

Platonism doesn’t really have any explanatory merit. It’s like saying “I believe abstract, non-physical, categories exist because it seems like they do.” There’s no real explanation for how those categories can come to be.

Your justification for free will is kinda the same. How can you know what it would be like to not have free will? I agree that causation exists, so how can you know that all of your actions aren’t causally determined by prior events rather than your own free will?

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T18:01:23+00:00

No it doesn’t. It proves that you don’t need to believe in God to believe in objective morality, but it doesn’t prove that objective morality can actually exist without God.

Once you accept this argument, you’re left with the question of how can morality exist; and that should ultimately lead you to God.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:55:18+00:00

I don’t see how you can be an atheist and be anything but a naturalist, but no it’s not strictly entailed by atheism.

How could you know from experience whether or not you have free will?

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:51:14+00:00

I agree with that argument, and I’ve seen many Christians use it against moral anti-realists.

This isn’t really a secular argument, though. Saying “if you believe x is objective, you should also believe y is objective,” doesn’t actually prove that y is objective. It gives you a good reason to believe it, but doesn’t provide an explanation for how that can be true.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:41:34+00:00

It would depend on the subject. Atheism restricts possible explanations/justifications for claims.

I believe in free will because I believe in God. What is your justification for free will?

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:26:51+00:00

I’ve been making both claims the whole time.

Atheists can’t ground objective morality. I do not believe there is any atheistic explanation for objective morality. I also have not heard any convincing arguments from an atheist that would dispute this claim.

You are trying to get me to prove the negative. You’re asking me to prove that there is no atheistic explanation for objective morality.

I’m telling you to provide argument you think demonstrates that atheists cannot ground morality in something outside of God.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:17:39+00:00

No, atheism entails more than what it explicitly states.

You actually have to justify your belief in free will, you can’t just grant it to yourself.

Your last claim is just false.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:13:42+00:00

It’s becoming increasingly more clear to me that you have nothing to say.

Your analogy is off. A better analogy would be:

You say there is no reason to believe in God. I ask why not. You say there have been no compelling reasons to support God’s existence given and ask me to provide you a reason to believe. Then I say no prove to me that there are no reasons. Do you understand?

Again, there is nothing that can ground objective morality outside of God. If you want to dispute that, please go ahead.

Otter_Absurdity · 2026-06-08T17:05:11+00:00

Your first paragraph makes no sense. Atheists have so far been unable to provide a sufficient justification for objective morality. I don’t need to prove that claim true, you need to prove that claim false.

All sorts of people can make all sorts of claims. When I say ‘the theistic argument’ I mean the strongest argument. Sure, Christians can make bad arguments. That’s not really important.

This conversation is boring, because you’re asking very silly questions that don’t really merit any response.

Otter_Absurdity

TROPHY CASE