Is homosexuality natural or unnatural?

ebony

@Rawsei yea but im not judging its morality based on whether it's natural or not. i'm judging it as intrinsically disordered because God told us it is (objective morality)

ebony

@Shaprawy do you believe we can use our reproductive organs in a sexual way for a purpose besides reproduction? or are we limited to our natural end goal only?

Shaprawy

@ebony nigga wtf are you on? this is the most common sensibly obvious thing ever, yes dicks are made to be in pussies not men assholes, u cant reproduce with a male dumbass, and why do u view it as "limited"? wdym by limited btw? u think there is some sort of hidden thing that will happen when u try fucking men?

ebony

@Shaprawy calm yo ass down? obv jesus made our dicks for pussies and pussies for dicks. That's the entire point of reproduction. But I'm asking you if you think sex is only for reproduction, or if it can be used for other purposes. That's what I mean by "limited to reproduction." You're obv not gonna plant a baby in a guy's shit-hole

Rawsei

@ebony "God told us" is not objective morality lmao

ebony

@Rawsei yes it is, God's commandments are where I derive my morality from. It's not subjective

Rawsei

@ebony Could you please provide evidence for the existence of this "god"?

ebony

@Rawsei What evidence do you accept? if i use logic, you can say it's human convention. scripture, you can say it's man-made. experience, you can say it's subjective. what evidence do you accept and under which axioms?

Rawsei

@ebony I'm not one of those primaltards like goatis. You can try the kalam cosmological argument for an example.

ebony

@Rawsei yeah kalam is fine.

everything that exists has a cause
the universe began to exist
so --> the universe has a cause

that cause has to be:

timeless (it created time)
spaceless (it created space)
beyond existence (it created all of existence)

so I believe the cause is God, as He is beyond time, space, and existence.

ru

@Rawsei evolution doesn’t exist

Rawsei

@ebony

Before I get into attacking the premises, I'll give explain some definitions:

The Universe is: the total of that which exists. More specifically (as defined by Cosmologists), it is the totality of space, time, matter, and energy. It contains every entity, part, attribute, action, event, phenomena etc that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. Put simply, the Universe is everything.

Time: a measurement of motion. It defines a relationship between the motion and the entity under a standard that serves as a unit (motions are motions of entities; relationships are relations among entities). Since time applies to things (i.e. relationships between things) in the universe, the universe in of itself (i.e. as a total) is not affected by time.

Problems with 1st premise >
PSR states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The PSR operates under two forms: constitution & causation. A Reason is a teleological constituent. A Cause is a teleological presupposition (i.e. an external/temporal phenomena that operates in accordance with the entity that precedes it/causes it). The Universe (existence) may be subjugated to the constitutive version (a reason as to how) but not to the causal version (i.e. to phenomena/a cause as to why). Since causes presuppose preceding entities that trigger temporal phenomenal chains (based on the teleological constructs of the entities in action; on identity) and the universe is the total of that which exists, there is no referent to such an entity beyond the universe that would trigger a temporal and phenomenal chain. In simpler terms, causality pertains only to the actual entities within the universe. If the cause exists (I.e. the entity, whose teleology, triggers the temporal, causal chain), it is part of existence. The Universe is outside the range of temporal causation, since there is no time outside the universe, there is no cause of it.
I.e. premise one is committing the category error fallacy. Assigning the universe (which is the sum total of that which exists) a cause, but there is nothing outside the universe to act as a cause.

Attacking Premise 2 >
The universe is everything. As such, there can be no beginning of it. If there is a beginning (cause) of something, it exists within the universe, because it is also something.

A temporal regress of events implies that the regression is ordered in a linear sequence. There is no temporal regress of events at all because time is not linear (I.e. ordered by sequences under the same definite condition/timeline), it is relational. In other words, time (or a point in time) is not a universal, it is a particular. Time is not a transcendental boundary, there is no single adjacent timeline which rules over the entities in motion. Time has no primacy over these entities, the entities (and their motions) dictate the time. Since time is a relational concept, it is “local” (i.e. it is relative to the exact relationship being measured; the entity and its standard). For example, the rotation rate of Earth around the sun differs from that of Mars (Earth has 365 days; Mars has 687 days). As such, a person living for one year (in earth days: 365) may not be measured by the same standard on another planet (in mars days: 687). The entity dictates its motion (it lives) and the standard motion (another entity) measures it (it lived for this long). Therefore, there is no single, definite timeline that contains everything (i.e. every entity, every motion & every standard; THIS would be an actual infinite, and therefore impossible). In fact, the number of timelines is in relation to how many relationships (in the universe) there are.

Treating the Universe as Eternal
The Universe is eternal (I.e. not within time), not infinite. Observe that since time is a relational concept, the universe (as a whole) is in no relationship with anything else to derive a time. Time designates relationships between motions, which only exists in the universe. As such, the universe is eternal, which means that the universe is not contained within a single frame of reference or a boundary (I.e. it is within no time or place, those concepts are not applicable). Additionally, the eternality of the universe does not mean that the universe (in of itself) lacks identity (ontologically speaking), it states that there is nothing beyond the universe which restricts its being (space and time), it is everything. The only thing that standardises being is identity, which means it is not spatially nor temporally infinite (with what is within the universe). For example, say there was a man who is trapped within an inescapable cosmic void. Within this void, he can take however many steps within however much time as he likes. Essentially, he is free to wander around this void for all of eternity. This does not mean that he goes on forever (A does not become non-A), it only means that he has no boundaries, he is limitless (i.e. not in quantities nor qualities, but in reference).

As for Infinity >
“Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. The Law of Identity prohibits this."

Attacking the properties >
The notion of a spaceless and/or timeless existence is still absurd to defend. What does it mean to be spaceless/timeless? It means to exist in no specific place and to exist at no specific time. To be everywhere means to be nowhere, and to be at every time means to be in no time. And as I mentioned before, such a notion contradicts identity. Existence is identity, a thing is what it is, and to be is to be particular.

“Space and Time are within the universe, but the universe is only material. God is immaterial”

It is important to stress that space and time, unlike matter, are not boundaries that existents abide by, they are the existents. So even if an existent is immaterial (immateriality is a property, never an entity), the concept(s) would still apply to it, as they apply to all existents, whether material or immaterial, they designate our epistemic frames of reference (i.e it exists at this place at this time). Now, it is true that we cannot perceive the immaterial, and we do not need to see to believe (if we’re referring to immaterial/introspective properties in their true meaning). However, the existence of immaterial/introspective properties are necessarily contingent on a material boundary and baseline. More specifically, the concept “Soul” or “Spirit” (an immaterial property) designates an aspect of the mind, (which also designates the “Self”), an emergent property contingent on other physical/neurological properties which interact with each other (this is known as: Emergentism). If “immaterial” is meant to be taken as a valid concept, it must always be in reference to an attribute (of an entity) under a material base.

Moving back to Space-time, since the existence of immaterial properties necessitates material interaction, the concepts “Space” and “Time” can also refer to them (immateriality is an attribute of an entity). However, the concept “God” designates an entity, not a property, therefore (according to the theist), space and time cannot apply to this type of immaterial existent. Immateriality is not being used to refer to attributes, it is used to justify independent existence (Stolen Concept Fallacy), and attributes cannot exist by themselves.

To clarify, this does not mean space and time only refer to whole substances (entities). As with any concept, “space” and “time” designate the (distinguishing) characteristics between concretes, the characteristics (in this case) being ones involving relationships between each other, a motion in relation to another uniform regular motion that acts as a standard (Time), a location in relation to its boundary (Space). In other words, since concepts mean abstractions (in the widest sense), it is the abstractions of “motion” and “location” from their given concretes that make the concepts “Space” and “Time” possible.

Rawsei

@ru
I do not blindly accept Darwin's theory of evolution, but evolution is very much a real thing. Earth, which has a large gradient, given enough time and the right constraints, can carry out evolution. This happens through self-organizing, self-maintaining, gradient-consuming structures that are physically selected wherever they arise. Evolution is the only valid explanation of life we have, and it perfectly describes the thermodynamic trajectory of a living planet.

I'd like to see the alternative to evolution.

ebony

@Rawsei Yeah so time-as-measured-motion is not the same as time-as-sequential-existence. Even withour a "clock" pre-Big bang, the universe:
a. either began
b. or didn't
Physics says it did. Like, it's universally, scientifically accepted that the universe is 13.8B years old (CMB, entropy, BGV theorem... I can go in detail if you want). "No time outside" ≠ "no beginning."

Also, you misapply rand. If were arguing from classical infinity, it means "without limitation," not "infinite quantity." But u yourself use "limitless" for the man in the void. You're employing the logic you reject. self-refutation. And idk what "spaceless existence" is about, you assume all existence must be physical/bounded. "To exist is to be particular" is ur own assertion, not proof. As a theist, I can say God is particular in nature but not in relation to space (space is created, not a container). Oh, and saying "immaterial properties need material bases" assumes physicalism (the very point at issus). That's circular

for Kantian frames, u turn "space/time are conditions of perception" into "conditions of all existence." Can u js provide justification? Or else it could be category confusion. And u misapplied "stolen concept"... we infer God as a ground of matter, not an attribute borrowed from materialism. this fallacy only works if u assume materialism first (which i dont think i did).

Basically from everything i read, ur case only holds if we assume physicalism upfront, but that's what the Kalam argument completely challenges. You didnt rly refute anything; just restated ur worldview. To refute, show either:

the universe didn't begin (contradicts physics)
or 2. something can begin without a cause (contradicts reason)
Sooo, from ur side, did the universe begin? If so, why?

Rawsei

@ebony

What is sequential existence without any entities in motion, without any before and after grounded in actual change? There is no "change over time", as that implies the empty container view of Newton, where time is an omnipresent coordinate space that exists regardless of anything actually happening.
There are no changeless things or thingless changes. That is what time and space are. Things, their mutual sequencing and mutual nestings.
Your Newtonian view of time is just a reification of abstracting from certain regularly repeating events and giving that abstraction some primary reality over particulars.
Time without any relational content, motion, change or entities is nothing at all.

"The universe either began, or it didn't"

"Began" is a temporal concept. To say that the universe began is to say there was a time before which it didn't exist and after which it did. But if time is constituted by relations among entities in motion, then "before the universe" is not a time at all. Just a pseudo temporal location with no content. "The universe began" means something within a temporal framework the universe itself constitutes, in which case it's incoherent to ask what caused it from outside.
Any description of the universe as "beginning" is a description within a formal model. The question of whether that model captures something real about the universe at its boundary or whether the boundary is itself an artifact of applying the model beyond its domain is precisely what the model can not answer from within itself.

The BGV-theorem is a result about geodesic incompleteness in classical spacetime. VIlenkin himself notes it does not describe the quantum gravity regime at the boundary. You are using a result that applies within a model as if it described what lies beyond the model's domain. The BGV does not apply.

"Misapplying Rand"
The man in the void is limitless in reference. There is nothing outside him imposing a boundary, but he remains finite in identity. He is this man, with these attributes, taking these steps. His limitlessness is relational, there is no external constraint. He doesn't become infinitely tall or fast; he remains as he is.
Rand's point about infinity concerns quantitative infinity. A quantity larger than any specific quantity, which means a quantity without identity. The man in the void has identity, he simply has no external boundary. These are not the same thing, and you have conflated them. The universe is analogous: eternal meaning outside of temporal relations, not quantitatively infinite in its attributes or contents. The universe has identity. It is everything that exists, without being bounded by something outside itself, because there is nothing outside itself.

Regarding Physicalism >
My axioms are the axiom of existence (ExEx) and the axiom of identity (A is A). These are not physicalist claims. I'm not saying existence is material. Existence exists, and everything that exists has identity - it is something specific, with determinate attributes. These axioms apply to anything that exists, material or immaterial.
My argument is not "God can not exist because everything is physical", rather "whatever exists, including God if (God exists), must have identity (must be something specific, somewhere, with determinate attributes)
And you can not escape this by calling God immaterial, because immaterial is a property, not a license to violate identity. An immaterial thing that exists is still something specific, it has whatever immaterial nature it has, determinate and particular. (This argument isn't even touching the impossible standards of a supposed God, which, if it were, would make the existence of a god even less likely.)

"To exist is to be particular is your own assertion, not proof"
This is the axiom of identity, and axiomatic claims have a specific logical status: they are not proven by more fundamental premises because there are no fundamental premises. They are demonstrated by the reaffirmation through denial structure. To deny existence has identity - to say that something exists without being anything in particular - yet you're using concepts which presuppose identity. There is no escaping the law of identity. It is an irreducible primary.

And u misapplied "stolen concept"..."
The stolen concept fallacy is not about materialism specifically. It's about existence and identity. To say God exists but is not subject to the concept of existence in the way existents are, is to say: God has being but no location, no time, no particular nature. It is to use the concept of "existence" whole denying the corollaries of it. That is a stolen concept. You can't borrow "exists" while rejecting what existence entails.

So, did the universe begin? If so, why?
The universe is finite and eternal. Eternal, as in no beginning or end.
This can be reframed as: "did existence as a whole come into being from non-existence?" - this is a rather incoherent question. Non-existence is nothing. Nothing has no properties, no causal power, no temporal location. "Before existence" is not a time or a place. Existence is the precondition of all questions, including this one. The question, cause, and answer all presuppose existence.

The question of "what caused it to begin" misses that the universe is a process, not a thing, and its "beginning" is the crossing of a threshold in the underlying dynamics, not a creation event.

Now, for my final argument.

Existence exists. < This is not a hypothesis, but the precondition of every statement, argument or observation.

The claim "existence began", is self-defeating because "beginning" already presupposes existence.

As such does the claim "Nothing created something" contains a contradiction.
Nothing has: no properties, no identity, no potential, no causal powers.
If nothing truly existed, nothing could ever happen.

Therefore: Existence itself cannot begin.

"Why does our universe (universe, as in our present cosmological epoch, NOT all of existence)"
General relativity, cosmic microwave background, etc all indicate that our observable universe evolved from an extremely hot, dense, low-entropy state approx. 13.8 billion years ago.

This is the beginning of our cosmic history.
It is NOT evidence that reality emerged from absolute nothingness.
Physics observes the earliest state that our current theories can describe.
It does not observe "nothing"

"Why did this beginning occur?"
R. Penrose's CCC proposes that what we call the Big Bang is actually the conformally transformed future of an earlier universe.
Previous aeon > Heat Death > Conformal Transition > Big Bang > Our aeon
Instead of creation, there is transformation. For nothing comes from nothing. One physical state evolves into another.
CCC therefore explains the Big Bang without requiring an absolute beginning of existence.

"Why is there irreversible evolution?"
The universe is fundamentally thermodynamic.

Every single process obeys conservation of energy and increasing entropy.
Reality is fundamentally a process, not a static substance. The universe continually generates new forms of organisation while remaining governed by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore, the Big Bang represents the beginning of our present thermodynamic evolution, not the beginning of reality itself.