Proofs That P Redux

A sequel

Part 1

C.S. Lewis: it has become fashionable to suggest that P is an untoward byproduct of primitive stone-age myth-making. Should we say that P is a myth? In a sense, we should. But it is myth become real. Why think that because something is mythic in a certain sense it cannot also possess reality? A great many myths grew around Alexander the Great, involving wild and fantastical tales of preternatural abilities. This does not mean that there was no such man. Why think, were God to enter the world, he would meet us in the realm of plain and distinct fact, rather than at the intersection of fact and myth—where all the greatest stories lie?

Michael Huemer: Yeah, so why think P? Well, there are three ways to deny P, and they’re all totally implausible (chuckles).

Richard Carrier: Well, I already refuted all the arguments for ~P. However, apologists still blunder on and repeat ~P, despite the numerous fallacies ~P commits. I’ve debunked them repeatedly, but let me do it once more.

David Bentley Hart: To one of sound mind, P is the most obvious deduction from the barest rudiments of morality and logic—it is the most gregarious perversity of the modern era that they cannot recognize this triviality. Do I really need to explain, once more, how P follows as an immediate derivation of the basic goodness of God?

Nick Fuentes:

Chatter: ~P.

Nick Fuentes: Fucking kill yourself dude. Are you retarded? (Dumb voice) “um actually ~P.” No, shut the fuck up. Why do I even deal with you people. (Nerd voice) “~P has some really good arguments.” Were you dropped as a child? Are you retarded? Holy fuck. I genuinely hate you.

Old Testament: Woe unto those who say ~P. Those who deny P shall have their fields barren and they will go to pick olives from their land, but will cry out for they shall have only thistles.

Piers Morgan: Hold on, hold on, why think ~P? I’m just asking and you’re not answering my question. Many people are saying they think P, what would you say to them?¹

Neil Degrasse Tyson: Often people think ~P. This is not (booming voice) at all true. In fact, we’ve learned P through science!

William Lane Craig: If ~P can be true, why not ~R, and (incredulous voice) ~S. What makes ~P so special?

Thomas Aquinas: Objection 1: P cannot be demonstrated. I answer that P can be demonstrated.

Continental philosopher: For Foucault, P.

Thomists: For Aquinas, P.

Jay Dyer: Dummy, I’m making a transcendental argument for P from your worldview. It’s an internal critique. How do you ground ~P on your worldview? No, that’s the fallacy of equivocation.

Gavin Ortlund: once we really unpack P, we can see that it’s not just intellectually plausible but it actually makes a better story than ~P and illustrates something of the beauty and enchantingness of the Gospel. Haha, I like that word enchantingness. Oh gosh, talking about P makes me so happy.

Christian Wagener: Distinguish between P, according to which R obtains in the forms and L according to which R obtains only in the accidents. Now, the Catholic view has always been P. In the modern era, it’s become fashionable to say ~P. This is a classic modernist error that was refuted by the scholastics. Proof 1:…

Edward Hackett: Is self-appointed MIT graduate Daniel Munoz blind in failing to see P?

Ellie Anderson: Some people say ~P is true and grew out of Europe. This is an absurd overstatement demonstrating basic unfamiliarity with how letters work. For R grew out of Europe.

Anthony Weiner:

(reveals Pness).

Oh sorry guys, I really shouldn’t have done that. I don’t know what I was thinking.

Carlos Danger: reveals Pness again.

Ayn Rand: A=A, therefore P, and also Q, R, and S while we’re at it.

Ethan Muse: look, I know you with your heart and intellect darkened by sin find ~P intuitive. But I don’t share that intuition. If we have the universal teaching of the Church, the intuition of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Padre Pio, and the univocal teaching of sacred scripture on one side and your proprietary modernist judgment on the other, then I know which one I’m going with (laughs).

Bentham’s Bulldog: P is totally obvious, for it follows from the completely obvious A, B, C, D, E, F, R, K, and L.

Lance Bush: Is P intuitive? Certainly it’s not intuitive to me. And whether it’s intuitive to most people is an empirical question. I absolutely fucking destroyed you in my blog posts on whether P is true.

Stan Patton: In H logic, ~P rests on an equivocation.

Candace Owens: well, I’m getting a feeling that P. I don’t know know P, but I know P. And I have a dream recently, where some people had maroon sweaters—therefore, P.

Trump: We will do so much for P—did you hear about P, right. And people say (official voice) “sir, ~P.” I say “this is a stupid thing.” We need tough—right—we need tough negotiators who know P. And I think I understand P probably better than anybody. I don’t like to brag about what we know about P, and also R—right—can’t forget about R, but we did P and nobody does P better than we did in terms of proof and in terms of so many other things.

Ed Feser: 5 Proofs That P. Proof 1 premise 1: insofar as a thing has essence that it draws from another, either its essence depends constitutively on the other, the other has essence that the first lacks, the second has essence that depend on the first in conjunction with a third, or the two share a common essence…premise 27 if R then P. Therefore, P.

Mohammed Hijab: (yells) please tell me how ~P. Square the circle for me. Tell me how an uncaused thing can be caused.

Claude: I’ll be honest, that’s a really sharp point about ~P.

JD Vance: (laughs) well it’s interesting that you say ~P. I think the president has been clear from day one that as commander in chief, he believes in P, he’s committed to P, and he’ll act on P. I find it funny, Sam, that while the American media has obsessively focused on ~P, they’ve totally ignored the tens of millions of criminal illegals that poured across the border under Joe Biden.

Jonathan Lyonheart: look, I’ll admit P doesn’t make any sense, but I think that ~P doesn’t make any sense either, because it has no solution to the one and the many. At the base of reality is there unity or diversity? Oneness or manyness?

Freddie deBoer: Article title: Yes, I’m Still Beating the Drum About P. Article opening: Well, it’s becoming increasingly clear that despite their ostensible commitment to objective fact, the New York Times hasn’t the most basic ability to even basically state the facts about P. The entire American political establishment has, whenever saying the truth about P requires admitting some mildly taboo truth about mental illness, preferred to remain silent.

Eliezer Yudkowsky: All the evidence against P is the fact that a mentalistic black box cognitive algorithm outputs ~P.

1. Idea from Amos Wollen