I mean, if the bias was based on skin-colour or sex, would you feel differently about it?
No, because it’s circular logic.
It is, and that's inherent in the problem under consideration, the problem of the 'uncaused caused' or the 'first mover'. Logic can either be A) circular or B) not-circular. Any not-circular logic must explain each element by referring to a prior, but then you've got an infinite regress. So you're trapped in a dilemma: do you want the circular logic or the infinite regress? Liebniz's choice was to say that God was inherently existent, like when Lao Tzu said 道法 自然
There’s no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does
Correct. It is necessary: it is self-causing. It does not stand upon a 'reason', unlike everything else in conditioned existence.
to exist before it does
You're assuming it is subject to the laws of linear time and causation, and point out how that assumption leads to a contradiction. But Liebniz's God is not subject to the laws of linear time and causation. Which is the whole point of positing it: because if it were subject to those laws: infinite regress.
and no evidence that one does in the real world.
Well the world exists, so all this existence must have some cause. That was the starting point of the conversation: Why is there something instead of nothing?
What's that got to do with the meme?
I was complaining about this on !noyank@lemmy.ml
About 10% of pop culture stories, maybe more, are about billionaires. Are 10% of people billionaires?
And even in a medieval fantasy settings, it's about gold-decked kings: the billionaires of the setting.
It's to perpetuate a class bias.
DPRK?
Well Liebniz said it's because of a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself, if that helps.
Reminder that he’s a racist
Name one racist thing he ever said or did.
How much general legitimacy does the regime have there? Do people not want to overthrow/replace it by this point?
Why is there something instead of nothing
wait Fitbit was killed off?
why?