Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins

Anselm is right not because inconceivability is itself a great-making property, but because, in any possible world, excellence that surpasses our comprehension is surely greater than any excellence merely within it, and God is supposed to be “that than which no greater can be conceived.”

Lord, not only are You that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but You are also something greater than can be conceived. For since it is possible to think that there is such a one, then, if You are not this same being something greater than You could be conceived.

#Anselm

Suppose Anselm is right that maximal greatness entails that God’s excellence necessarily surpasses all finite human conception. Theists cannot coherently claim that:

(1) God exists.
(2) God is comprehensible—we can conceive of God’s nature.
(3) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

Since miracle reports are spread across many religions, with no single tradition exceeding all others in miracle reports, it follows that most religious miracle testimonies are false. Hence, the false positive rate for religious miracle testimony is not low but middling to high.

Given that traditional religions are mutually exclusive, at most only one can be true. The point of miracle testimony has historically been to establish the truth of the religion it supports, so if that religion is not true, then its miracle testimony is false.

When faced with miracles we readily dismiss; we recognize them as the result of credulity, piety, and love of wonder—their falsehood is no greater a natural impossibility. But the Gospels differ only in degree, not in kind. It’s easier to see the mote in thy brother’s eye than the beam in thine own.

Can’t take it with you I am in hospice care and reflecting a lot on what a good life is.

Latest post. Don’t know how many I have still in me

helendecruz.substack.com/p/cant-take-...

There are big “if you don’t struggle, it will hurt less” vibes radiating from this.

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

Had a great time celebrating this lovely lady’s birthday.

We could have had less wealth inequality, leadership on the world stage, and democratic norms and institutions, but instead we got trade wars, oligarchary, and Putin’s useful idiots. We are so cooked.

Who wore it better? Rubio or Stańczyk?

Fun Fact: Lucretius’ “On The Nature of Things” is “Metal.” 🤘🏻

Happy Valentine’s Day to the woman of my dreams and the mother of our children. 😘

“Is the world considered in general, and as it appears to us in this life, different from what a man or such a limited being would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent Deity? It must be strange prejudice to assert the contrary.” (DNR, 11.4)

The question is not whether or not you love your wife. You surely do. Nor is the question whether or not you are limited in power. You surely are. Rather, the question is one best articulated by David Hume:

A mighty God could stop it, could ease their agony, yet it moves on in blood and silence without end, swallowed by the indifferent sky. And so, the truth settles in, as cold and unyielding as stone: there is no God. There never was.

#RealAtheology

The world is a place where pain lingers, untended. A loving God would end such suffering, but it persists—babies wail with hunger, animals are torn apart in the wild, and the sick die in their solitude. The earth is full of grief that has no cause, no justice.

Reading an advance copy of William Boyle’s killer crime novel, SAINT OF THE NARROWS STREET. So friggin good: the prose, the characters, the dialogue. Truly first-rate. Out February 4th.

The album is a masterpiece

I’m here for this discussion!

🍿

(A) Minds lack spatial location.
(B) Bodies have spatial location.
(C) Minds and bodies causally interact.
(D) What lacks spatial location cannot causally interact with what has spatial location.

All x4 claims cannot be true. We must give up at least one. But which one? I say give up (A).

A framed picture of a woman in a short skirt sitting with her legs apart in a suggestive pose while smoking. The text around the image says "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant"

I have this artwork in my house and I'm not even sorry

I am past scorching; not easily can’st thou scorch a scar.

—Captain Ahab

Wonderful picture!

#barbie #swwlds ☆

I remember this one. Great discussion!

YouTube video by NonzeroClips Ontology and materialism | Daniel Kaufman & Massimo Pigliucci [Sophia]

From back in the old podcast days: a conversation with Massimo Pigliucci about ontology and materialism.

#philsky

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfFW...

Haters gonna hate