All arguments in favour of abortion collapse into seeking permission to kill a child. #ProLife

I'm off to watch Sense and Sensibility with my wife. We'll cuddle in the back row, have a few sneaky kisses and I'll try to land a few cheeky gropes. See you all later ♥️ piped.video/watch?v=81gF5lJn…

Your moral framework is called "c*nt"? This is not a moral framework that I am familiar with. May I beg your good indulgence to ask if you can elaborate on it's epistemic and doxastic grounding, if you please?

God has always existed.

I'm a Christian. I don't claim to be good. I would never claim to be good. There is nobody good than God. So claiming that a Christian does not automatically equal good is like claiming a square does not automatically equal a circle. It's a redundant claim as Christians don't claim to be good, or that a square is a circle.

Certainly, belief with evidence is logical, and I also assert that believe without evidence is also logical, as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. An object exists prior to the act of perception, and it's existence is not contingent on it being perceived. Let us suppose that object A exists. Person B may have a priori reasons for believing that A exists, while person C may have a priori reasons for believing that A does not exist. That is: At time t1, object A exists. At time t2, person B reasons that A exists. At time t3, person C reasons that A does not exist. At time t4, object A still exists despite B and C. Neither B nor C has empirical evidence establishing the existence or non-existence of A. Nevertheless, both may have reasons for their beliefs that do not depend upon evidence for the existence of object A. 1. Person B can reason a priori in A's existence without evidence. 2. Person C can reason a priori in A's non-existence without evidence. So an epistemic state is not deemed logical based on evidence, but can be logical based on reason.

I did not claim that homosexuals don't predate the Bible. I claimed that we should not celebrate something just because people have always done it. And you actually gave me an example of something that we should not celebrate just because people have always done it. The Bible was compiled around 100 - 200 AD. The story of Sodom & Gomorrah is dated around 2,000 BC at the time of Abraham. That's some 2,200 years prior to the compilation of the Bible. So from that we know that sodomites predate the Bible. What's exactly is your point?

To your point, Catholicism isn't Christianity because it doesn't allow female priests. But the inference from the former to the latter is logically invalid, e.g: A = "Catholicism don't permit female Priests." B = "Catholicism isn't Christianity" A, B ⊨ ⊥ That is, both A and B being true entails a contradiction, as Catholicism is predicated on Christ. Therefore, it is the case that: A ⊨ ¬B Therefore, it is the case that: A = "Christianity is a religion predicated on Christ" B = "Catholicism is Christianity" A ⊨ B The entailment from A to B is logically valid: A ⊨ B iff ⊨ A -> B Hence, your claim is proven false. Reply to me when you are ready for that conversation.

No God? No problem: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I neither think that I'm clever nor assume that I sound clever. I know that I'm not clever and will be the first to admit it when asked. I've merely studied logic for many years and know how to apply it. But clever I am indeed not.

I don't see any Catholics in this video.

I may be a dumbf*ck. I may live in a country where abortion is legal. None of that negates the fact that you claimed human beings are born.

Apparently I'm a bot. Apparently the reason that I'm a bot is because I made some notes in my notebook, I then used those notes to formulate a rebuttal, but I did not provide a timestamp for those notes. Apparently!

I have explained why God is necessary, I have explained why the universe is contingent. Replacing one term with the other does not make it so, as God is not made up of parts but the universe is, e.g: the universe is made up of time, space and matter: Time T = ∑ [n = 1 to N] Δtₙ Space 𝐗 = ∑ [n = 1 to N] Δ𝐱ₙ Mass M = ∑ [n = 1 to N] Δmₙ The universe is the set of all three: U ≡ {t, x, m} Anything existing in U is contingent, i,.e., could fail to exist. God, however, exists outside of U: G ∉ U Therefore, God is not contingent, but U is contingent. Which is why it is fallacious to use the definition of God as the definition of the universe, as they are ontologically different things.

Me, every Friday night (Friday night is whiskey night as permitted by my wife). piped.video/shorts/7oC478dc3…

God is necessary because a Mind that is Infinite, has Omniscience, has Omnipower and is Unmaterialistic is needed to create the universe which the universe itself doesn't have any of and the universe is also subjected to the laws of thermodynamics, which God is not.

Your statement is a self refuting argument. It violates the law of identity: A = A By making A not A: A = B If God is contingent then the thing you call God is not God, as it means that thing could have failed to exist or could have existed differently.

Free Palestine from what? Palestinians? Free the Congo from what? The Congolese? Free Sudan from what? Sudanese? What exactly do they need freeing from given all of their problems are caused by themselves?

As a child I was taught to believe that God does not exist. As an adult I found evidence that God exists in the form of logic.

Murderers have always existed. That does not mean we should celebrate them because of it.