|Online:||1 Month Ago||Name:||- Private -|
|Updated:||1 Year Ago||Gender:||Male|
|Joined:||3 Years Ago||Birthday:||- Private -|
|President:||Not Saying||Email:||- Private -|
|About Me:||I'm a philosopher by trait and a human by nature. To think well and to live well is to fulfill what I am supposed to be. And what I ultimately live for is to honor the God in whom my entire being is constantly dependent and properly directed to. Only one truth can direct me to the righteous path and only one truth I defend, the truth that sets me free in Christ.|
|Activities:||Internet Marketing, Web Design, Photoshop, Philosophizing, Debating, Existing, Video Editing, and Unhealthy Computer Consumption.|
|Beliefs:||Essentialism, Aristotelian Realism, A-Theory, Natural Law, Virtue Ethics, Christian Theism, Hylemorophic Dualism, Libertarian Free Will, Molinism, and Capitalism.|
|Movies:||Lord of the Rings, Inception, Black Knight, Narnia, Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Harry Potter.|
|Music:||Rock, Metal, Industrial, Trance and Techno.|
I will defend the proposition that the universe as an existing "whole" can be thought to more plausibly have an explanation for its existence than its negation. In other words, is it more plausible to think that there is an explanation for why the universe exists or should we think the universe to more plausibly have no explanation for its existence? This is not a debate on what that explanation is (e.g, the necessity of the universe, God, multiverses, etc) but on what is in principle more epi...
The issue of same-sex marriage is one which divides not only the United States, but much of the Western world. What is most remarkable about this matter is not the lack of agreement, but rather the lack of strong arguments against same-sex marriage. There are simply no compelling arguments (legal, political, or moral) against same-sex marriage. (While there may be religious arguments against it, I would prefer only to address arguments that do not assume a belief in the supernatural and/or th...
In the past to this point in time in history a great number of questions have been asked and answered by philosophers and scientists. However ever great those questions have been, no other question is more relevantly practical than the question being asked in the field of evolutionary ethics by scientists and philosophers. Namely, can evolutionary ethics amalgamate and synthesize the ever so distant gap between philosophy and the natural sciences. The main contention of this debate will be the m...
In this debate I will support the notion that "The Universe's Existence Is Explicable" -- in other words, it is more plausible to think that the universe has an explanation than its negation. What this explanation is is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of whether the universe can be plausibly thought to have an explanation at all. The opponent may either take the offensive position of disproving my arguments and/or provide reasons for why the universe is an exception to explicability thro...
I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. We'll be discussing whether the argument from meaning successfully justifies God's existence. My opponent will be arguing that it does not. He is someone I greatly respect as a fellow Christian philosopher and I am very pleased that he took the time to debate this issue with a second-rate philosopher such as myself. This argument has not been presented in any scholarly journal or book that I know of but was originally developed...
|Statistics based on completed debates.|
This list identifies where BruteApologia stands on popular issues. The choices are limited to the following:
- N/O - No Opinion
- N/S - Not Saying
- Und - Undecided
- Con - Against
- Pro - In Favor
You can also click each issue to find other members that agree with BruteApologia's position on the issue.
|||Global Warming Exists||N/S|
|||Medicaid & Medicare||N/S|
|||National Health Care||N/S|
|||National Retail Sales Tax||N/S|
|||War in Afghanistan||N/S|
|||War on Terror||N/S|