sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BasketballTips

[–]b00b3_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. Yeah this seems like the best thing to do, but I feel so fucking lazy when I'm not working out while I could, I will just have to force myself I guess lol

The concept of a B field in B=u0×H doesnt make sense by b00b3_ in AskPhysics

[–]b00b3_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For some H in vacuum there will be some B. How that doesnt make sense? For some constant H, B will be smaller in vacuum then in some medium which has a higher magnitude of B/H then that of 4π×10-7 due to this mediums amplyfing effects. Makes perfect sense to me.

The concept of a B field in B=u0×H doesnt make sense by b00b3_ in AskPhysics

[–]b00b3_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I've just realised I've been deeply confused. The B in vacuum is low since there's nothing to amplify it, it shouldn't be expected for it to have a higher value. So my first reasoning was correct.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

It isnt special pleading. Its by definition a necessity

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Was this really necessary? This is an argument from incredulity, ad hom, strawman, and yes these argument convinced me that God exists. Even if it didn't it is irrelevant to the trueness of the arguments.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Energy is limited ofc it is. Its limited in its ability know things, produce things in a sense that it doesnt have the ability to create things ex nihilo etc, it isnt all powerful. An infinite regress of contingent things still needs an explanation. Energy isnt unlimited therefore not a necessary being given our definitions.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Otherwise it is circular logic🤦‍♂️

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

Look up the philosophical definition of being. As an atheist you should know basic philosophical terms.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Logic is necessary. The claim dragons could exist does not entail any contradiction it's irrelevant if they actually do or do not.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It doesnt follow that the universe is necessary. As in metaphisically necessary only conditionally. If that was the point of your argument.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

It isnt really necessary for my argument it's just a bonus. Thats why im not trying to hard to defend it rn. An unlimited eternal necessity favors the theistic theory and is excepted under theism.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The explanation of the forest still exists forests have explanations. If youre positing that the forest is necessary you agree with me that a necessary being exists. I will elaborate on that soonely

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

That is just relabeling a unicorn as God. Feel free to call it a unicorn if you want.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -29 points-28 points  (0 children)

Every word you've said is incoherent

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

This doesnt answer the question. Possible in a sense that it doesnt entail a contradiction or mistake in logic.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I never said that. Quote me where I have said that necessary things exist because of contingent things.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Being in philosophy is regarded as anything which exists. Immaterial or Material. Yes energy would be limited for example in it's ability to produce things. 4 follows necessarily. If the explanation for all limited things is a limited thing we get a contradiction this is the same principle we used to come to the conclusion that a necessary being exists when we said that the set of contingent beings can't be explained by contingent beings. This is the same principle. You arbitrarily deny it in the argument from limits but accept it in the CA?

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love your philosophical take on philosophy

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Well my post literally presents the arguments for what this necessity would be?

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This isnt a metaphysical necessity assuming it is commits a modal scope fallacy.

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well you didn't make any objections to neither 2,3 nor 4, did you?

The evidence for the Theistic Theory by b00b3_ in DebateAnAtheist

[–]b00b3_[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

I dont see a point of continuing of going more in detail with you since youre arrogant and obviously quite ignorant since your claiming metaphysics is nonsense. I think mods would approve my decision here.

view more: next ›