Cover photo
Thomas Bridgewater
Attends Coventry University
Lives in England
171 followers|105,097 views


I was just thinking about how swype makes it so easy to select text and was thinking that the edit bar could be used for this. Perhaps tap on the drag barto start selection mode, then swipe across it to start selecting the text you want, before hitting copy or cut or whatever. Having a way to select text like this would be a pretty cool feather I think. 
Maximilian Ertl (Sirs0ri)'s profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
Any chance of this +Fleksy ?
Add a comment...

Thomas Bridgewater

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
New post continuing from the post about Euthyphro's dilemma. +Travis Wakeman 

"Secondly, the locus of the good is grounded in God's necessary nature as I explained above"
In this part, I will just debate the "necessary" part. When you say "God's necessary nature", it seems to me as though you mean God couldn't be any other way. This would mean that you think that a being that created the universe must be honest, must care about people, etc, must be this way out of logically necessity. A dishonest god would be a logical impossibility according to this. I think it may have been you and somebody else that I was having this discussion with last time, but I never got a good explanation. How is a dishonest god a logical impossibility? I would like an argument for this, if this is your position, or a clarification if it is not.
If you are going to argue that a god is honest by definition, then I will simply ask what you mean by god. If you mean simply a conscious being that created the universe, then why must this being be honest with the life that arises within it? If you mean something else, then I would ask what you would call a conscious being that created the universe that didn't meet this definition of yours.

"So something is good insofar as it resembles God. God could no more command that lying be morally good than he could create a square circle."
Well I would argue that this has a few problems. Firstly, it isn't what you said "good" meant in your comment on the last post, unless you are arguing that "that which you ought to do" is synonymous with "that which reflects god's nature", in which case I would argue that this might be true in certain circumstances, but is not definitionally true, which it would need to be for what you have said so far to be consistent. Of course, you might disagree and say that what you ought to do is always what reflects god's nature, in which case I would like an argument for that.
Secondly though, I have already pointed out that this doesn't work as a definition. The moral argument has a premise which essentially says that some things are objectively moral. If by "moral", it means that things "reflect god's nature", then in that premise, it is assuming the conclusion that a god exists. The premise becomes "some things reflect god's nature", which would obviously mean the moral argument is begging the question.

"You're still conceiving of morality dualistically, and God as a contingent being"
What exactly do you mean by dualistic morality here, and how am I assuming that morality is dualistic? I don't see it as particularly relevant to anything I have said so far, although maybe I am missing something. 
As for god being a contingent or necessary being, I understand that you think that God is necessary, but I would both disagree with anything being necessary, but also that god having a particular nature is necessary, even if a god was. Why couldn't there be a possible world where absolutely nothing existed? Why couldn't there be a possible world where a being exactly like your god except one that lied existed?
Armoured Christian's profile photoTravis Wakeman's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
+Travis Wakeman
1. Are acts that reflect God's nature moral by definition?
2. Does the existence of acts that reflect God's nature logically necessitate that God's nature exists?
3. Does the existence of God's nature logically necessitate that God exists?
4. If an assertion of X in a premise logically necessitates Y, then if the conclusion is that Y exists, is the argument circular?

"In the structural premise "If A, then B" the relationship between both A and B is such that they do logically imply one another.

Thus you are saying that all syllogisms with the structure:

If A, then B
Therefore B

Are circular, which we know to be false."
Wow. Let's see if you can understand this. If I am arguing that X exists, by arguing that X's car exists, then because X's car existing means that X must exist, then to say that X's car exists is to say that X exists with that same premise.

"You can repeat whatever you wish as long as you wish, Unless you want to redress the issues I've pointed out the conversation is insofar as I am concerned over"
And there it is. Your entire arguing tactic made clear. Ignore the questions you don't like, and just try to force the other person to answer yours. When they don't, say they are being unreasonable and rage quit. Congratulations on your level of intellectual dishonesty.
Add a comment...

Thomas Bridgewater

Problems of Belief Systems  - 
I'm not quite sure where to post this, so here is as good a place as any.
I was wondering what everybody's least favourite argument is?
What is the argument that you can't believe is still being used?

For me, it is the ontological argument. This is because all it does it try to define God into existence, and I find it weird that some people can't see that it doesn't work that way. 
Forrest Curo's profile photoEric Piteau's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photoDre'as Sanchez's profile photo
Does fine tuning prove intelligence? 
Add a comment...
Is it possible to have more than one extension that affects the top row, like having both editor and the numbers row active?
I feel that, especially with the smaller keyboard sizes, there is room for both.

Also, why only 3 extensions at a time? I'd like to have shortcuts, editor, numbers, invisible, and gif keyboard active all at once. Is it for the memory footprint?

Finally, I was wondering if an extra feature could be added to the editor. It would be handy to be able to tap a button and then drag along the big bar to have it select from where the cursor was to where the cursor ends up. It would be faster than using the native android long-press and drag.
Bruno Oliveira's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
+Bruno Oliveira That's what I was thinking. I think the last point is available in swiftkey or touchpal? I've used it before at least, and it's a really handy feature. 
Paid option is alright I guess.
Add a comment...
Pseudo SudoNim's profile photo
Add a comment...

Thomas Bridgewater

Help Requests  - 
Is there a way to set it so that if you get a text from anybody except a specific number, something happens?
Christopher Dean's profile photoKyle Brown's profile photo
Set up a profile for a text received from that number and then check the invert box to indicate all but that number.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
171 people
HULK's profile photo
Terakuz Kup's profile photo
Np Nirala's profile photo
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
George Reid's profile photo
Laura Claire's profile photo
Homer Oston's profile photo
Comfort Dennis's profile photo
Stephen Bridgewater's profile photo
Putting the moral argument for the existence of God to bed:

Surprisingly, this argument has been around for really long, and there have been tonnes of debates over it, but the argument itself is laughably easy to refute.

The problem with the debates about morality are essentially just because of the equivocation of the christian apologist from when they are using the word "moral" in the argument, and when they are trying to convince you that things are moral in support of the second premise. When they support it, they say that everyone recognises that murder is immoral, so things are clearly immoral. Unfortunately, everybody actually means that murder is immoral because it hurts people. However, they then use this to support the fact that there are things which are moral and immoral in the argument, even though the argument uses the definition "that which reflects God's nature" for the word "moral". That is that saving a life isn't moral because it helps prevent suffering or anything like that, but because God has a nature that would mean that he would save a life in that circumstance. Hopefully, this equivocation is clear now. This isn't even the biggest problem with the argument though, but just necessary to talk about how they get you to miss the next fallacy; begging the question.

The moral argument begs the question.
Seeing as when it says an act is moral, it means that the act reflects God's nature, we can substitute this in:
1. If God does not exist, then acts that reflect God's nature do not exist.
2. Acts that reflect God's nature do exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.

From here, it should be obvious, but I'll carry on even further. Seeing as acts that reflect God's nature can only exist if God's nature exists, we can rewrite it again to become:
1. If God does not exist, God's nature does not exist.
2. God's nature does exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.

Finally, seeing as God's nature can only exist if God exists, then we can rewrite the moral argument yet again, to become:
1. If God does not exist, then God does not exist.
2. God does exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.

At this point, it is simply stated in premise 2 that God exists, making it abundantly clear that the argument is flawed. Ta-Dah. Moral argument refuted.
Travis Wakeman's profile photoJeremy Kroutz's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photoPLANET229HALLELUJAH vIncEnT's profile photo
+Travis Wakeman
"What I find funny is that Thomas thinks that he can play with the terms in a syllogism, equivocating to his hearts content, and only THEN does he find his fallacy after he has rendered the syllogism into gibberish. "
Or, you know, rewritten it by using the logical necessity of one thing by another which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
For some reason though, you won't acknowledge the difference between physical necessity and logical necessity which would immediately ender any objection you have made so far completely useless. I wonder why you won't recognise this well known difference.

+Jeremy Kroutz 
"And my point was that there was NOTHING in the said conjecture that proved the fallacies as a true refutation"
Then you should have said that. Where exactly is it unclear? When christians say that something is objectively moral, they mean that it objectively reflects God's nature. This is presupposing the existence of God's nature and therefore also the existence of a god to have that nature. Therefore, within the premise that things are objectively moral is contained the assumption of a god existing. This is therefore begging the question.

What part do you not understand, so that I can make it clearer.

"there was no address of the nature of the source of Morality"
There doesn't need to be. You do not need to demonstrate where something does come from to prove an argument incorrect.

"you attempted to refute God (Moral Objectivity/Absolutism) without even building a solid case for Subjective Morality"
Who said I held the view of subjective morality? I did not try to refute moral objectivity, but simply the view that the moral argument is a proof of God.
Add a comment...

Thomas Bridgewater

Problems of Belief Systems  - 
I wasn't exactly sure where to put this, but here we go anyway:

So recently, I've come across a few people that support the view of direct doxastic voluntarism; that is the view that we can control what we believe at will. This would mean that you could walk in to a church and be a christian one day, and walk into a mosque and be a muslim the next, all without hearing any arguments or evidence for either. It means you could become a muslim because you tripped on a piece of bacon. Want to suddenly believe that Nickelback is a good band? You can do that.
I find this impossible, and yet you'll hear people telling you that they chose to believe this or that, or that you should just believe it and you'll understand. I want to know what everyone thinks about this view, and if everyone finds it as crazy as I do?
70 votes  -  votes visible to Public
We can choose our beliefs
We cannot choose our beliefs
Richard Gillaspie's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photohermenutic's profile photoZym Soljourn's profile photo
Free Will is not metaphysical.

So plz I would like to understand the connection you are attempting to make
Add a comment...
Doesn't the electric universe theory predict that there would be no neutrinos from the sun? Then why are there neutrinos detected? 
Thomas Bridgewater's profile photoP.J. Talbot's profile photoElectric Universe's profile photoMichael Gmirkin's profile photo
Papers are probably scattered a bit across a few journals like IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science and a few other "friendly" journals. Though there aren't tons, unfortunately, that I'm aware of... I know Don Scott has had a few published here & there... And he has posted a few to his personal website:

I'd also suggest looking up papers by CER Bruce, Hannes Alfvén, Anthony Peratt. Not Electric Universe, per se, but certainly predecessorial and/or Plasma Cosmology (authors of which don't, necessarily, care to identify with the Electric Universe). (Peratt's site, there are a few sections on his published papers there. Though he's distanced himself from the group over the last decade, partly for personal reasons, partly for professional reasons.)
Add a comment...

Thomas Bridgewater

Problems of Belief Systems  - 
So I was wondering how any of you believers got around the problem of non-belief? For any that dont know, the problem of non-belief is the problem that arises from having a loving, omnipotent, omniscient god and there being people who don't believe in it. To be saved from hell or go to heaven, you must at least believe in him. If god is loving, he would want us all to be saved. If god is omniscient, he would know how to convince us. If god is omnipotent, he would be able to save us. The fact then that there are people who do not believe contradicts this god.
harry arora's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photolesliedale Hicks's profile photoE Bryan's profile photo
you must repent and be born again.
He does want all saved.
He knows how.
He is able.
no contradiction, but a missing parameter. He allows us to decide, without violating our free will. just because you can, does not mandate that you should.
sincerely, get some help with scripture and most of your silly statements will disappear. 
Add a comment...

Thomas Bridgewater

General Discussion  - 
Has anybody got a profile to work on android L when it uses an app being open as a trigger?
Ryoen Deprouw (Broesie)'s profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
+Ryoen Deprouw I know. It seems not able enough for me, but this one bug is basically the most annoying. I can live with clicking the quick toggle though I suppose.
Add a comment...
So I have paid for Fleksy already. This was on my tablet.
When I use it on my phone, it says that the trial will expire soon.
If I go to settings however, whilst it shows the trial ending on the 24th, when I tap it, it does not do anything.

There are several bugs here:

The main one being that I have already paid (possibly twice as I can't remember) and it is still displaying it as a trial. This is most likely due to it being on a different device.

The other being that tapping upgrade in settings does not do anything whereas it should take me to a page to pay. 
Ralf Villar's profile photoFleksy's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
+Fleksy I've tried that. No luck.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
171 people
HULK's profile photo
Terakuz Kup's profile photo
Np Nirala's profile photo
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
George Reid's profile photo
Laura Claire's profile photo
Homer Oston's profile photo
Comfort Dennis's profile photo
Stephen Bridgewater's profile photo
  • Coventry University
    Mathematics & Statistics, 2012 - present
  • Edgecliff
Basic Information
Apps with Google+ Sign-in
  • Injustice:Gods Among Us
  • Duet
  • Leo's Fortune
  • Student
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived