116. Biotheism and Intentional Evolution


anti-choice determinist

Chandler Klebs and George Ortega continue their talks about God and the Universe. In recent episodes, George has presented his case that God is the Universe. Chandler has a different idea than George based on the idea that life creates life through various means of reproduction. This relates to the infinite regress that Chandler talks about which relates to determinism and the idea that matter is not created nor destroyed. His theory is that there has always been some form of life in existence. Chandler views life as something that evolves intentionally as organisms learn to adapt to their environment.

https://archive.org/details/fwsr1024151

official podcast site: https://freewillscienceandreligion.wordpress.com/
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/freewillscienceandreligion

Free Will, Science and Religion subscription links:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/free-will-science-religion/id1001850850?mt=2
http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/chandler-klebs/free-will-science-and-religion?refid=stpr

Internet Archive collection:
https://archive.org/details/freewillsciencereligionpodcast

View original post

Advertisements

115. Part 2 of No Free Will, and a Proof for God’s Existence


anti-choice determinist

In part 2 of this series, George Ortega, Chandler Klebs and Jamie Soden explore a proof of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God based on the following commonly held attributes, which are listed on the Wiki page. They are presented here in descending order of salience; 1. Creator; 2. Ruler (Governor); 3. Omnipotence; 4. Omnipresence; 5. Omniscience; 6. Omnibenevolence; 7. Eternal Nature; 8. Personal Nature; 9. Source of Moral Obligation; 10. Incorporeality/Immateriality; 11. Divine Simplicity.

We generally agreed that the first five assigned attributes and Eternal Nature are logically and/or scientifically valid, Omnivebevolence is clearly mistaken, (but we note it is not asserted in the Bible) and the four remaining ones may or not be valid, depending upon the context within which they are understood.

Since we have not arrived at a full consensus regarding the existence of these attributes as proof of God’s existence, we’ll continue to explore the theme in future…

View original post 22 more words

Mini Series on God


anti-choice determinist

My friend George Ortega has been very adamant that he has the true understanding of God. Because of this, recent episodes of the Free Will, Science, and Religion podcast have had more to do with the Religion part.

Below is the episode from Sunday October 18. It was wild. There will be more episodes exploring this theme later on.

114. No Free Will, and a Proof for God’s Existence

Following from our lack of free will, George Ortega presents a logical-scientific proof for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God that is based on similarities between God’s commonly-held principle attributes and the fundamental properties of the physical universe. The argument is then explored further by co-hosts Chandler Klebs, ‘Trick Slattery, Mitch J. and Jamie Soden.

https://archive.org/details/fwsr1018151

View original post

FWSR Podcast Titles and Descriptions


anti-choice determinist

I’ve spent a lot of time listening to old episodes of our Free Will, Science, and Religion podcast so that I can write titles and descriptions. It takes a lot of work but I think it will be worth it because more people will listen if they are described well.

In the early days of recording the podcasts, I didn’t write titles or descriptions, so I still have to work on that for the rest of them. However, here are the titles and brief descriptions of the first 20 episodes.

1. Introduction to the podcast

This is the premier episode. George Ortega, Trick Slattery, and Chandler Klebs talk define some terms and talk about why free will is impossible and how they explain it in their books they published. There are many things from both science and religion that conflict with the belief in free will. It was this idea…

View original post 2,107 more words

PIV is always rape, ok?


I found this blog post extremely interesting. I tend to agree with this and I’m sure that’s no surprise to those who know me. I think sex is perhaps the most dangerous thing there can be. It also sounds gross. It’s like using a woman as a toilet. This explains a lot of why I’m a virgin.

radical wind

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants…

View original post 974 more words