Exploring the Principle of Sufficient Reason and its implications for metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, and logic.
Joined February 2026
- Tweets 11,794
- Following 503
- Followers 400
- Likes 12,138
1,689 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
Feb 22
Please read before engaging with me. Thank you.
12
3
41
6,363
10h
Apparently there is no such thing as an atheist prolifer.
So do fetuses go to heaven or hell after abortion....since your pro life it means your Christian...if the summation of your life actions determines where you end up what about a fetus.......does fetus have a soul that God can judge, can a fetus sin..doe it have free will 🤦♂️🤦♂️
1
14
346
Martin retweeted
Exactly.
If a newborn is a ‘baby’ the moment it takes its first breath, then what was it the day before? A ‘non-person’? A ‘clump of cells with a heartbeat, fingerprints, and brain waves’?
Science doesn’t flip a switch at birth. Humanity doesn’t either.
The only thing that changes is location and our willingness to pretend otherwise.
1
1
3
37
16h
Moral worth is not determined by the ability to suffer, as suffering refers to a dispositional property, but not it's ontological existence.
Having the ontological existence of human being gives humans moral weight.
Jun 12
'Whatness' only carries moral weight if you've already assumed essence confers status, which is the entire thing in dispute. Rocks have a whatness. Corpses have a whatness. What they lack is the capacity to be harmed. Moral worth tracks who can suffer, not what kind a thing is.
2
5
190
Martin retweeted
There exists a Supreme Normative Sovereign that we must perceive in order to perceive the world. That sovereign can either end at the boundary of our selves, or it can transcend that. If it transcends the boundary of selves, then it is a transcendent personal metaphysical being.
1
1
2
65
18h
I love this.
Jun 12
Proof of an Infinite and Eternal Mind.
1. If numbers are distinct from the universe, then numbers govern the form and shape of the universe.
2. Numbers are distinct from the universe.
3. Therefore, numbers govern the form and shape of the universe. (Modus Ponens)
4. Numbers exist either as abstract entities or as thoughts in a mind.
5. If numbers are abstract entities, they cannot govern the universe.
6. Numbers do govern the universe.
7. Therefore, numbers are not abstract entities. (Modus Tollens)
8. Therefore, numbers are thoughts in a mind. (Disjunctive Syllogism from 4 and 7)
9. Infinite mathematical truths exist.
10. Any mind containing all infinite mathematical truths must be infinite and eternal.
11. Numbers are thoughts in a mind.
Therefore, numbers exist as ideas within an infinite and eternal mind. (From 9, 10, and 11)
4
1
4
620
19h
The former is ontological, the latter is theological.
A theological opinion on X does not negate an ontological opinion on Y, they are completely different categories, with different premises and conclusions.
You're simply engaging in argumentum ad hominem to dismiss contrary opinions.
Jun 12
4
19
350
Martin retweeted
Jun 12
Yes, Christians are brainwashed.
Because Jesus cleanses the mind from sin.
Thank goodness!
4
2
15
424
Jun 12
"abolitionists should chime out when it comes to slavery"
- proabort logic.
Men should chime out when it comes to a woman’s body.
2
10
182
Jun 12
Yes, I want women to be allowed to kill their unborn children. Especially their single-celled children. Single-celled perfect angel baby human beings are fully on the block. Take em out ladies.
2
1
32
486
Jun 12
The law already controls men and women's bodies., e.g., legislation governs what we can and cannot do with our bodies.
Your premise is redundant.
Jun 12
If your philosophy is to try and control women's bodies, then you are evil.
3
9
224
Jun 12
I like this guy.
Engagig with a philosopher regarding the metaphysics of ontology, as ontologists invariably debate within this specific framework. Your failing to conduct due diligence regarding one's interlocutor does not constitute a logical fallacy.
1
64
Jun 12
Pr.2 begs the question, as you are assuming the conclusion of the premise, e.g., it's true because it's true.
You are making a positive claim about reality, i.e., an assertion that could be true or false: that nothing exists externally to the universe.
You first need to prove your claim, but you cannot prove it a posteriori, so you need to prove it a priori.
Jun 12
Isn't "external" a spatial concept? Doesn't "the universe" contain spacetime?
Why not?
1. Whatever lacks anything external to it does not have a cause.
2. Nothing is external to the universe - it is everything that is the case.
3. Ergo, the universe does not have a cause.
2
1
411
Jun 12
I always stated that both are ontologically the same thing, because they are, e.g., both are human beings.
The hyle (substance) of both is human, and the morph (form) of both is an individual of the species homo sapiens, i.e., both are human beings.
1
4
254