Cover photo
Thomas Bridgewater
Attended Coventry University
Lives in England
197 followers|195,437 views


Can anyone explain categorical imperatives to me? To me, they just seem like assertions of what you should do with no justification or reason of why you should do it, beyond "just because". How are they not this, but actually meaningful and useful, and then how do we determine what are the things we ought do?
dfpolis's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
"Your claim was ""You cannot tell things about object X by observing object Y.""
Read further and don't take quotes out of context, and you'll see that I specifically mentioned inference and thus your objection to a single statement I made when the very next statement was a clarification is pointless.

"I showed that not all actions require time."
No, you didn't.

"You wanted a syllogistic presentation.  I gave you one"
Then why is there not a single syllogism given by you in this entire thread? Like I said in my last comment, copy and paste it so it is clear to see, rather than just assert you have made one. If you think your argument is valid and sound, you wouldn't be so resistant to actually presenting it in the clearest and least ambiguous way possible, and yet...

"If you insist that I have made the composition fallacy, show me the premise where that occurs."
Show me the premises, and I might be able to...

"I have shown, not assumed, that concurrent causality applies to the actualization of every potency."
Where was your demonstration? Again, make this as clear as possible. Present your argument as clearly as possible.

"Thank you for the fine example of petitio principii"
Everything which exists can not exist, as the only way for something to necessarily exist is to have existence in the definition. You can't simply add "and it exists" to the definition of a thing and have it exist and so everything can not exist because it is logically possible for it to not exist.

"Specifically what?"
I said:
"God never had the potential to perform a new action. If God never had that, then the universe always existed."
Then you said:
"Quite true."

"I gave an example of a concurrent cause earlier -- the operation of the laws of nature, which are useless if they to not hold at the time and place of the event being considered."
How are they concurrent? Gravity acts at the speed of light for example. What are you even saying?

"Here is another: My intention to go to the store does not move me to the store if ceases before the time being considered."
That sentence doesn't even make sense. If what ceases to do what?

"The foundation of science is that everything that happens, happens for a reason."
A assumption of science is that happens for a reason, but this doesn't mean everything does. You also forget to mention that we do repeated tests in science so that we can rule out random chance of something happening for no reason due to low probability. There is a difference between assuming something so you can investigate reality and making absolute knowledge claims. Science is doing the first and you are doing the second.

"Being the end of the line of concurrent explanation does not imply that a Being has no explanation, but that it is self-explaining."
You can't explain yourself. That is essentially doing what I just said that you can't do and just saying that God exists by definition. The cookie in my mouth necessarily exists because the essence of the cookie in my mouth includes to exist. Now realise why that is a stupid argument and apply it to your own.
Add a comment...
I was wondering if there was any list of theistic arguments and refutations for them that is easily available? Many refutations you can find online only go over one or maybe two things wrong with the argument, but there are often many more, and the one thing it does go over isn't done very well quite often.
I was then wondering if perhaps we should just make one. It may not always be appropriate to use as a reply as linking to a big list of refutations doesn't work as well as going over it with the person point by point, but i might be a good place to go so that you have all the refutations on hand so you don't get lost. I might start writing some up if I can be bothered and if I have time, but I'm not sure
What do you think?
יהוה I Am יהוה's profile photoEllif D'Wulfe's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photoEvan James's profile photo
+robert stonecipher Better yet, explain gravity or why Kirk changed the rules to win the game and why some scientists change the math and posit supergravity exists while even newer math posits fractional dimensions that are not verifiable.
Add a comment...
What does it mean for a belief to be rational? Does it mean that the belief is backed up by more evidence than any other explanation, or does it mean that the position that the belief is about is possible?

"If another explanation is supported by more evidence than X is, then believing X is irrational" is the first position.

"Believing X is never irrational if X is possible." is the second position.

This is for a discussion I am having with +TheServantofiam  about epistemology and rational beliefs. I actually suggest people check it out too, as it is eye-opening as to what is considered a rational or reasonable belief by a theist.
23 votes  -  votes visible to Public
Thomas Bridgewater's profile photoThree Monkeys's profile photoNancy Provost's profile photo
Keep seeking Doubting Thomas...
Add a comment...
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?
Travis 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 photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photoDre'as Sanchez's profile photo
Does fine tuning prove intelligence? 
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...
Well here is an interesting video. It aims to demonstrate that YOU don't really believe that a heaven exists, despite you thinking that you do. At the very least, it is an argument worth thinking about.
Dave Zhang's profile photo
Well damn. That is something to think about. At least the Vikings got it right
Add a comment...
+Phoenix Apologetics 
So in the opening of your post here, you said:
"While I maintain the unbeliever can't account for logical thought while staying within their 'life stance'".

Well assuming you are implying the TAG argument here (a fairly safe assumption I think), I thought a rebuttal was in order, and a pointing out that you can't account for this either.
Firstly, we need to be clear here. Logic is the way that we think about reality. Logic is a description of how reality behaves. In order to account for that then, we need to just account for a basic understanding of reality, which isn't exactly hard. We have brains which can model reality. Whilst you don't accept evolution, that is how these brains developed.
What you actually mean in the argument though is why reality behaves the way it behaves. Well, I'll just point out that you haven't accounted for it either and see your response. As the video explains, there are always just going to be facts about reality that are the foundation. You have just added God to the way reality behaves. Now, you might think that God created reality, but that is just admitting then that God isn't part of reality, and therefore not real. You also then can apply similar questions to God.
1. Why does God exist instead of not existing?
2. Why does God have the nature and characteristics that he has, instead of a different nature and different characteristics?
3. Why is God's will effective instead of ineffective or partially effective?

You cannot account for these, and by saying that God accounts for logic, you aren't accounting for logic at all, as trying to account for something with something unaccounted for is not accounting for anything at all.
Ozpin “Chibi” Cane's profile photoPhoenix Apologetics's profile photoJulian Gold's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
+Phoenix Apologetics
So what is the extra thing? You haven't said? There is the way reality behaves and there is the way we describe that? What else is there?

"The laws of logic can't be derived from a description of matter alone. I get how you could discover the law of identity from this. You look at a rock and say, It's a rock. But take the law of non-contradiction. How do you move from the law of identity to "it's a rock and can't be a not rock at the same time?"
Why not? That's literally the example I went over. I even said that I can't even imagine what it would mean for the law to be wrong.

"Also, if the physical world were to disappear, would the laws of logic stop existing? In a possible world, could something be true and false at the same time? Could that possible world exist and not exist at the same time?"
The descriptions of the way reality behaves absolutely would disappear, yes, because there would be nobody around to describe it. The description disappearing doesn't mean the way reality behaves would change though.

"You can't know that they can be both true because it's never been observed. This conclusion came from a mental concept independent from the physical world and cannot exist in the physical world."
My brain is part of the physical world, and I was arguing that they can't both be true, and that it doesn't even make sense to say they are both true. It's like a square circle. It isn't a thing that can be true.

"you do not have to account for the full nature of the thing to understand it's existence."
Then why are you so adamant to get atheists to account for logic? If you don't have to account for God, then no atheist has to account for logic. 

"For example, do you know how the universe began? If not, then you can't say the universe exists."
Irrelevant. We aren't talking about accounting for the cause of something, but the reason for something. If you want to say that God has always existed, then you would be saying that God has no cause, but you would also be saying that God existing is random.

"If you want to say "if you can't answer why does God exist instead of not existing, then God doesn't exist", then fine."
I don't. It's just that you saying that you don't have to account for God but everyone else has to account for logic when you haven't even accounted for that is hypocritical.
Add a comment...
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.
Thomas Bridgewater's profile photoTravis Wakeman's profile photo
I agree.
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?
69 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...
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...
  • Student
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
  • Coventry University
    Mathematics & Statistics, 2012 - 2015
  • Edgecliff
Basic Information