Welcome to The Generalist Papers! I make illustrated educational videos covering a range of topics from history, philosophy and science! Hope you enjoy, and please subscribe.
He probably had cherry trees on his plantation, and with the fullness of time had to chop at least one of them down. Just, not as a child in a parable about honesty.
Because little boys can be randomly destructive. I lived at a house with a Tale of the Back Fence, which used to not be there but was put up when two 5-7 year old brothers went over into the next property and made a game of snapping Every Single Cornstalk planted on the quarter acre. Next month, fence.
Shiiiiiii, every kid in America was harboring under the impression that Christopher Columbus discovered America. So yeah... We all believed the cherry tree Washington story back then.
Thank you for this! You put a lot of work into this, I have been searching everywhere for something like this but there are so many writtings where they contradict each other that it can be frustrating. So thank you again 😊
Just want to warn any residents in Scotland against signing a contract with a company called *James Gibb Residential Factors* (or *James Gibb Property Factors).* This company has a long history of defrauding clients and dozens of homeowners have taken this company to _The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber,_ a kind of Magistrate's Court that deals with property or *factoring* disputes. (A *"factor"* is basically a property manager which manages a group of properties on behalf of landlords). *James Gibb Property Factors* charges clients for services they haven't provided and has no intention of providing. They even lie to their customers by claiming that they have *put out to tender* some work that needed to be done by third parties. When some homeowners asked *James Gibb Property Services* to provide documentary evidence that competitive tendering had taken place, the company refused to provide such evidence, saying only that they were not obliged to show proof. It then turned out that the company which had "won" the tendering process was NONE OTHER THAN A COMPANY THAT WAS 25% OWNED BY THE *WIFE* OF THE C.E.O. OF *JAMES GIBB PROPERTY FACTOR.* That is how corrupt this property factor is. uk.trustpilot.com/review/jamesgibb.co.uk
Beelzebub was once Yophiel, Asmodeus was once Asmodel, Belphegor was once Belfagel, & Leviathan was once named Flumenel. But I don't know Mammon's former Angelic Name.
Both me & my 13-year old daughter Isabella have this motto: “Bring Back Þorn!” which means that we both are activists for bringing back the letter þ (thorn).
The problems aren't very well presented here. 1a. Either (a) everything or (b) not everything has a cause. If A, an uncaused god cannot exist. If B, then we've torn out the heart of the cosmological argument (causality; things needing causes). 1b. Most cosmological arguments don't conclude with a god. (And guess what's required for an argument to be evidence of a god? *God needs to be the conclusion.* So that should be a huge red flag to anyone using these arguments.) 2a. That same mistake (failing to conclude with a god) afflicts Teleological Arguments. 2b. And of course evidence of the universe "appearing designed" is strangely absent from 2c. With the Watchmaker's Argument in particular, (a) it's reasonable to assume a human made a watch you found because of all the evidence you have of humans making similar things, yet (b) we don't have evidence of gods existing; let alone doing anything related to our universe (or anything else). 3. The Ontological Argument is a complete joke. Imagine the greatest possible anti-deity donut which prevented all gods. Now run the exact same "logic" of the ontological argument for the Donut, and you know why gods can't exist. (But not really, since the argument here isn't actually logical -- but if you think it logically proves god(s) do exist then I've just shown you conclusively, _by identical "logic",_ why gods can't exist.) 4. Saying things without evidence isn't a compelling argument. Yet that's all the moral argument does. It's two baseless assertions (claims without evidence): that (a) objective moral values exist, and (b) if they do, they're best explained by a god. Until evidence of both A and B surfaces, the Moral Argument should be dismissed as nonsense.
Great video but dude please lose the music, it's bad and makes watching the video really annoying in an environment that already has background music playing
