MWI Trinity Argument

How can people draw different conclusions from the same data? Some of the arguments that Quentin makes uses data that is normally used for theism, the fine tuning argument about the coincidences in nature that created human life, and draws atheistic and naturalistic and etc. arguments about it and has good arguments for it, but the reason the arguments are good is because that same intuition or understanding there, but what exactly is it that makes people draw these different conclusions from the same data? Even in his life, the priorities and values you decide determine the course of your life, revaluation of all values, that’s what it comes down to, what is your value hierarchy and why is it in that order? Its all an argument about values, one way to describe it, but why do I think of god here, why not think that this means that god doesn’t exist, good arguments can be made for both sides. The many worlds interpretation, why was I thinking of that, oh yeah, modal realism, that’s what I was thinking about, so obviously, all conceivable and probably inconceivable worlds exist somehow, we can think of them and conceptualize them, but just because we haven’t done that, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist yet. We exist, ourselves existing is enough to prove that all of the above exists as well. JWhat is this wall that you defend? Oh oh ohohoh my undestanding of philosophy, too fucking dramatic, I need to listen to my mom, theirs a reason you have the parents in your life that you do, at least mine, two core lessons, don’ be so dramatic Jason, and life goes on, with and without you, always and forever as phyllis and my dad would say, basically, ok, all the ones before and after us existed, so that’s a shitload of possible worlds, possibly infinite for all we know, argument right there for mwi and Lewis modal realism, I won’t grant that to you, a shitload, but not infinite, add in all the ones we think about while we are in these shitload but not infinite states of being, that old language, sure, why not, states, whatever, were chillin, writing philosophy, arguing about this shit, thinking about even more shit, how many times, before, all of THAT, which could possibly be infinite, but whatever, what about all that will exist, that’s a much bigger leap, obviously, but if it’s conceivable in principle, and couldn’t possibly everything be conceivable in principle, then its potentiality to exist is there, but is the grand ol title of reality granted to us by us philosopher kings of our little human universe, to the potentiality, but not the instantiation, actualization, existence as we experience ition, so many names, LIFE, being, philosophy of mind, rambling, does it exist, should we crown our potentiality and conceivability as existing, or not. But I’m biased, I have mystic intuitions that indra’s net is how reality is structured at it’s most foundationalist primal fundamental core, so there is my fine tuning argument, religious data and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and Lewis’ modal realism are all arguments for the conceivably infinite, and possibility inconceivably infinite, plantinga’s argument is much better than anselms, just because he phrases it better, is it just the language though? Is that all it comes down to tedla, intutions and the decision to exist by them or extinguish them in the flames of non-existence, so cognitive deficienty huh, what else could it be, I don’t buy hta though, I can’t believe plantinga believes that atheists are cogntiviely deficient, I love his argument and his free will defense speaks for itself, but I think it can be subsumed under hick’s soulmaking, obviously, because freedom does mean freedom, the greatest gift the one could give us, so does that perfet possible world exist, yeah, of course it exists, but god couldn’t create it, freedom means freedom, so hands off, but we could’ve created it oiurself, we just didn’t in this one, but it’s the one we’ve got, and maybe that’s the lesson we need to learn, then we’ll be there, just a little bit late, a lot of ships, levaeing for this rivesr of existence in all of these worlds, three reasons for my mysticism, maybe two, oh god, I know what your doing sucka, whose wedding I’m going to this summer, another one bites the dust with Isaac too, damn, dropping like flies, I coulda been one of them, but not, I’ve stayed true, not by my own coure though, yes and no, see, that’s my problem, the many worlds interpretation causes me to be indecisive in my practical life, I think I’m going ot play my football game now, but I had fun today, even with the snow storm, so were not going over there, he’s got priorities, YEAH right, I won’t say your name sweetheart, but welcome back to quentin’s world, lol, but what do I know about any of this, absolutely nothing, the many worlds interpretation, so I can only imagine, you old dog you, is this the kind of person I want myself to learn about in this life Can’t argue for it tonight though, of course you know why, tonight is when I create the ideas, other nights either myself or others will argue for them, fuck you analytic philosophy, no I don’t mean that, well, I do and I don’t, but that’s just how I roll, well, it’s the balance between the reason and science h logic, and the intuition, which is your ugly older brother,

i just thought of this, so i thought i would put it on here, i think that everything possible and impossible never doesn't exist, nietzsche would say why don't we embrace the ontological fullness of what all of reality is and could be?
.