Cover photo
Thomas Bridgewater
Attends Coventry University
Lives in England
158 followers|94,098 views


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?
MS An Thrope's profile photoJim Wyss's profile photoTravis Wakeman's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
+Travis Wakeman
"I explained how Christianity splits the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma"
Except you haven't. The way I rephrased the Euthyphro dilemma made it a true dichotomy. Quoting myself: "Is something good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?", then I am basically saying "Is good defined as that which god commands, or as something else?""
You went with the second option, which is fine, and then we go onto what you thought the definition was, with your two different definitions (the first being "that which is moral is that which you ought to do", and the second being "that which is moral is that which reflects God's nature"), and then onto God's nature being necessary from there. You didn't split the horns, but simply went with the second option.

"You brought together what you thought was some sort of rebuttal to my response"
Again, nope. The only actual objection I have made so far to the moral argument is that with the definition "that which is moral is that which reflects God's nature", the moral argument is begging the question. This is an objection you have not addressed by the way.
What you are referring to is actually just my questioning of your position. I was asking the hypothetical about a dishonest God to ensure that you were being completely consistent, as many theists are not. They say God's nature, but then say that dishonesty could never be moral. This is a contradiction, and leads to the conclusion that it is actually a specific set of qualities that the god they believe in happens to have, being the actual standard of morality.
You are therefore actually just misunderstanding what I have been saying. Of course, if you had actually been replying to what I have been saying, rather than just complaining, we might have made some progress.

"I explained why the necessary nature of God makes your objection irrelivant"
Which objection?

"and then backed up how it is we know that Gods nature is necessary with Aquinas' formulation of the cosmological argument."
Except you haven't. You've simply said that the argument does this, but then refused over and over to actually present the argument. Even when I showed that the argument you are referring to wasn't clear. I even showed that when googled, google simply found the five ways, and I refuted the only relevant ones of those. No other special argument was found, and so if you are referring to the five ways, I have already addressed your objection. If you were not referring to the five ways, then perhaps you could tell google to prioritise its search better, or just provide the argument yourself, or even just provide a link to a website that does provide the argument.

"You apparently aren't familiar with that (though that doesn't stop you from declaring it all bunk anyhow)"
How could I be familiar with that when you won't present it, present a link to it, and even google can't find it. It could have course be that you actually do mean Aquinas's five ways when you say Aquinas's Cosmological argument, in which case I would ask why you are using such a bad name for it when his five ways are five arguments, rather than just one.

"It isn't my problem that you don't understand the argument, I've already explained to you how it supports what I'm telling you."
And yet haven't presented it, or a link to it, or even a way to find it.

"you have yet to lobby any sort of rebuttal- only demands for an explanation I've already given to you."
Except I've already demonstrated that you haven't. Repeatedly. All you have said is that God is X, but this is just a definition and does nothing to support God's existence. Like I have said, you cannot just add existence to something's definition to make it real.

"I would explain Aquinas' argument in detail with you if I thought you were sincerely interested in understanding it. as it stands you seem merely interested in finding a problem to have with it (and even if no problem exists you'll make up a problem to have anyway). I think you've already decided that the argument has to fail and thus you are committed to the conclusion that it does, even if it doesn't"
And there it is. An admission that you aren't actually interested in a discussion. You don't have to go into detail and type a lot like I do. If this is really such a good argument, then surely there must be an explanation of it online, or at least have the syllogism somewhere. A syllogism isn't even very much to type. You've typed much more than that in the comment I am replying to now. You could have saved us both a lot of trouble by just presenting the argument hours ago. Instead, you just do this.

If you were actually interested in a discussion, or being intellectually honest, or even trying to educate me, then you would simply present this argument. You would actually explain what you meant. You would explain the consequences of your claims, and you would provide the evidence for these claims. You have done none of this, and so I can only assume that you are intellectually dishonest, or unable to actually present the argument. When you are either too lazy or too arrogant to actually have a conversation just because the other person isn't arguing exactly what you want them to argue, then I am not really sure I want to have a discussion with you. This could change if you actually PRESENT THE ARGUMENT  in your next comment, but at this point, it's doubtful that you will.

We could even just ignore all of this extra stuff that has come up and just focus on my only actual response to the moral argument if you wanted, which is that the argument is begging the question, although I doubt you'll do that either given your record of avoiding every point I have made.

"He already knows that you must be wrong and thus to him all he thinks he has to do is find the flaw that he knows must inevitably be present in the argument."
How can I find the flaw in the argument if you don't present the argument...
Also, I have already said that I am more than happy to be proven wrong, but this is not going to happen when you don't PRESENT THE ARGUMENT.

"What really gets me is when someone who is not a Christian presumes to tell me that I am not right about my own religion"
+Jim Wyss  "that grinds my gears as well, being told what I believe."
Lucky then, that I haven't done this...
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.
Jay Newman's profile photoBruno 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...

Thomas Bridgewater

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
1. IPhone
2. Android Controller
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
158 people
Aaron Macey's profile photo
SIB Coventry's profile photo
Lane Greer's profile photo
Dorian Mattar's profile photo
Michael Lysiak's profile photo
Will Johnson's profile photo
Bobbi Brettell's profile photo
Shivam Chugh's profile photo
July's profile photo

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?
67 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...
You should implement a small keyboard like swype does for tablets. About a third of the screen across that could be moved. That would be a great addition and is really the only reason I don't use fleksy on my tablet.
Dimitris Verdelis's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photoMatthew Dye's profile photo
+Thomas Bridgewater I totally agree. I very much like the design and layout of Fleksy on my phone. But a phone layout on a tablet is just not usable.

This is just my opinion, but I think the best option would be to provide a full-screen landscape keyboard whose layout is not unlike that of a desktop, and the ability to toggle a split keyboard and a small floating keyboard with the phone layout. This way you could touch type when it's on a surface, type with your thumbs when its in both hands, or type one-handed, all activities I do frequently with my tablet but for which Fleksy is woefully inadequate. 
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
158 people
Aaron Macey's profile photo
SIB Coventry's profile photo
Lane Greer's profile photo
Dorian Mattar's profile photo
Michael Lysiak's profile photo
Will Johnson's profile photo
Bobbi Brettell's profile photo
Shivam Chugh's profile photo
July's profile photo
  • Coventry University
    Mathematics & Statistics, 2012 - present
  • Edgecliff
Basic Information
  • Student
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived