He's right, debating such things is a "ridiculous" challenge.
I like challenges.
Replying to @worldviewdesign
Utterly ridiculous. You won’t agree on what “perfect” means - and you have no way to agree on what perfect means. Add to that, we don’t even know what time is!
Thanks to feedback and further reflections, updates are coming to this (see my final note):
worldviewdesign.substack.com…
The Argument from Change:
1. Death of your body marks a change in spatial arrangement of matter.
2. You don't depend on any spatial arrangement of matter (by reason and experience).
3. Therefore, you don't depend on whether your body is dead.
4. If you don't depend on whether your body is dead, then there is life after death.
5. Therefore, there is life after death.
Alexander Pruss and I are having a live and "heated" DEBATE over whether a perfect being must be timeless.
Tomorrow (10/10) at Baylor.
societyofchristianphilosophe…
Alexander Pruss and I are having a live and "heated" DEBATE over whether a perfect being must be timeless.
Tomorrow (10/10) at Baylor.
societyofchristianphilosophe…
They told me this couldn't be done.
worldviewdesign.substack.com…
Do brains make minds, or do minds make brains?
Hypothesis: your brain *represents* and *depends* on prior mental powers.
Could this be explained via selection-effect? Many cases, some go into remission for unknown reasons, some of them coincide with prayer.
youtube.com/watch?v=G6Zu0iAh…
Joshua Rasmussen retweeted
Here I draw on the work of my friends Josh Rasmussen (@worldviewdesign) and Andrew Bailey (@resistancemoney ) to suggest that there may be an in-principle construction problem when it comes to creating artificial minds. 🔗⬇️











