War, what is it good for?

[CaptainFritz28]

What fallacy exactly?

You state that I assume that time is linear. I do believe that, but as I said it doesn't really matter.
If you define time as having a beginning, then the thing that originated time is outside of it, and therefore eternal. Thus, there is no reason God cannot be eternal. If you define time as being eternal, then there is no reason God cannot be eternal.

Either way, our universe had an origin. Whether time is constrained to our reality is irrelevant; whatever caused our universe is eternal.

[Jamiet99uk]

The fallacy that things cannot exist without being created, and therefore require a creator, who was not himself created.

I dispute your notion that time must have had a beginning.

[orathaic]

https://x.com/alijla2021/status/1736152240316899399

This distinction is reflected in the statistics: 37% of Gaza residents disagreed with the actions taken on 7th October. Yet, a majority—56%—believe that armed struggle is the only path to an independent Palestinian state and the end of the occupation,

[CaptainFritz28]

https://x.com/alijla2021/status/1736152240316899399

This distinction is reflected in the statistics: 37% of Gaza residents disagreed with the actions taken on 7th October. Yet, a majority—56%—believe that armed struggle is the only path to an independent Palestinian state and the end of the occupation,

What is the point of this? Are you responding to the quoted statistic?

If so, get a source.

[Octavious]

The words of Lord Cameron, recently appointed British Foreign Secretary who is pushing for the anglo-german vision of a sustainable long-term ceasefire, have particular resonance in this debate

https://youtu.be/d3Mrfut-FSw?si=lsj0BKeEmI15mOwZ

[orathaic]

https://www.lpj.org/posts/gaza-16th-december-2023.html?s_cat=1102

[orathaic]

https://x.com/alijla2021/status/1736152240316899399

This distinction is reflected in the statistics: 37% of Gaza residents disagreed with the actions taken on 7th October. Yet, a majority—56%—believe that armed struggle is the only path to an independent Palestinian state and the end of the occupation,

What is the point of this? Are you responding to the quoted statistic?

If so, get a source.

I twitter post is the source, you can feel free to investigate further if you wish.

The point is to get realistic information about how the conflict is going, how the people of Gaza feel about armed struggle before and after the Israel intervention

And to reiterate my point that Hamas can not be defeated by the current Israeli tactics.

But you can draw your own conclusions, and find better evidence for opinion on the ground in Gaza if you like.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

https://x.com/alijla2021/status/1736152240316899399

What is the point of this? Are you responding to the quoted statistic?

If so, get a source.

I twitter post is the source, you can feel free to investigate further if you wish.

The point is to get realistic information about how the conflict is going, how the people of Gaza feel about armed struggle before and after the Israel intervention

And to reiterate my point that Hamas can not be defeated by the current Israeli tactics.

But you can draw your own conclusions, and find better evidence for opinion on the ground in Gaza if you like.

Orathaic, people are rightly skeptical of your random X sources. This conflict is rife with misinformation and loads of accounts that just repeat anything that supports their preferred narrative. A random guy on X with 15k followers is a terrible source.

There is no way to fact check this tweet, which is the author's opinion about a poll that was not itself cited.

If your aim is to convince anyone of anything, you can't expect people to independently research unverifiable opinions proffered by no-name X accounts.

[CaptainFritz28]

https://www.lpj.org/posts/gaza-16th-december-2023.html?s_cat=1102

This seems a lot more credible. Thanks.
It is always terrible to hear of evil being returned for evil. That appears to be what is happening here. I expect the IDF had a reason to fire on these places, but regardless, the deaths of these people ought to be held to account.

Here is my stance, if I haven't made it clear:
I think Israel is justified in invading Gaza. I do NOT think that everything the IDF has done in that invasion is justified, and quite frankly more than a few people have been unjustly murdered. I think the U.S. government ought to cease providing aid to Israel (they don't need it at the moment for the invasion) until these war crimes are properly dealt with in courts.

I also believe that, as you say, while this invasion cripples Hamas' ability to attack anytime soon, it will and has turned a lot of civilian Palestinians even more against Israel. Whether their choice to invade was the best or not I think is debatable, but I think that no matter what the neutralization, at least temporary, of Hamas is necessary.

[Octavious]

I'm going to join the ranks of random Twitter posters for a moment, but this is interesting enough to look at if it turns out to be true

https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1736850661185053119?t=RWtKvzV_FBQ47yvK2O97kQ&s=19

I'm keeping my eyes peeled for confirmation from sources I'm comfortable with

[CaptainFritz28]

Curious - I think Iran's role in the conflict has been overlooked throughout this thread. Perhaps a CIA/Mossad plot?

Not that I want to make the mistake of the USS Maine disaster and start pointing fingers, but it seems a bit coincidental...

[Octavious]

I've yet to see any obvious confirmation of this attack, but there are various reports of other attacks on Iran that haven't caught my attention before. And the naval actions are getting, if not hot, then distinctly warm.

The overall impression I'm getting is that the pressure in the wider region is dangerously high

[CaptainFritz28]

Perhaps y'all have heard of the conflict emerging in the Bab-el-Mandeb? Houthi-controlled Yemen has fired missiles at over a dozen civilian cargo ships exiting the Red Sea, under the claim of targeting Israel-bound vessels, when only one has actually been connected with Israel.

[learnedSloth]

1. Everything that exists must have a first cause.
2. The universe exists, therefore something or someone must have caused it.
3. That cause is God.
4. God is special and does not have a first cause.

Pillar #4 of this argument destroys pillar #1, so the entire argument is invalid.

I know that proponents of the cosmological argument would usually respond that you have misunderstood it, but to me disputing that objection seems unnecessary.

Causalities can be thought of as arrows of a directed graph. Then the points with outgoing arrows are causes, and causes without incoming arrows are first causes.

The only way to make first causes unnecessary is to permit cycles. Then there are groups of causes where any cause causes every cause in the group. Therefore causes in such a group are all or none, which permits lumping them together.

However, rendering such a group as a point would be misleading, because then only the outbound arrows would be visible. It would be indistinguishable from a first cause when all outbound arrows are outgoing. The internal arrows must be denoted somehow. I think a loop would be a quite natural way to mark it without introducing novel syntax. So the group is rendered as a cause that causes itself directly, reflecting that the causes in the group cause themselves at least indirectly. Calling the name of this construct self-cause seems natural enough.

Now the role of self-causes without incoming outbound arrows is similar to that of first causes. I think we can speak of first self-causes. There must be at least one. If I can wrap my head around it I might later explain why God of the Bible fits the bill.

Do you believe that the existence of God is a form of the cycle you describe?

I can only hypothesize about the internal structure of the first self-cause, but any proposal for such should actually cause the effects we observe.

The Bible reveals that God is love. Creating something that can love and be loved seems to follow. This is what I think the eternal life will be, for God created man in his image and likeness.

Something must be done to ensure that sin won't ruin the eternity. The original sin makes forgiveness necessary, which makes repentance necessary.

Scarcely any would repent without seeing where his way leads to. This life shows it to all that are willing to see it.

I'm afraid that going to more detail would delay this reply further, so I post this now.

[Jamiet99uk]

Why do I need to repent for Adam's sin?

I am not Adam.

[learnedSloth]

Why do I need to repent for Adam's sin?

I am not Adam.

The doctrine of original sin is basically that the sinful nature propagates through mankind. For how would a sinful man beget sons that are unaffected?

[Jamiet99uk]

Why do I need to repent for Adam's sin?

I am not Adam.

The doctrine of original sin is basically that the sinful nature propagates through mankind. For how would a sinful man beget sons that are unaffected?

Do you think this is a just doctrine?

I think it is manifestly unjust.

If my father used his free will to eat from the Forbidden Tree before I was born, how am I responsible for that choice? I was not conceived. I committed no sin.

[Jamiet99uk]

For me the doctrine of Original Sin is one of the keystones of the concept of an unjust God. God doesn't exist, but if he did, he's a capricious charlatan.

[Jamiet99uk]

Babies that die of leukemia apparently do so because 2,000 years prior, Adam ate an apple.

What decision did the baby make, in that context?

Fuck all.

If you think babies are born sinful and deserve pain, fuck you, you monster.

[Jamiet99uk]

Plus, who created that tree? GOD.

Who created the snake that spoke to Adam and Eve? GOD.

GOD did all of this. Even if you believe it. God is responsible for original sin.