🙏 ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS DEBUNKED 🙏

[Harold O'brien]

Spectacular. You've confused mathematical notation with actual comprehension. The Schrödinger equation is one equation : try explaining what it MEANS in two sentences. I'll wait. Wave-particle duality? Quantum entanglement? The measurement problem? But hey, you can count the symbols, so you must understand it, right?


Hiding behind Wittgenstein's language games while completely missing his point is so fucking mind-boggling to me. He argued against private language and for meaning through use . He didn't argue that popular usage determines metaphysical reality. You're using him as a philosophical security blanket while missing the deeper implications


This is the kind of circular reasoning that passes for profundity in undergraduate philosophy classes. Of course human consciousness has human characteristics . That's a TAUTOLOGY. The question is whether reality itself is limited to human perspectives.

You're essentially arguing:

1. Humans can only think in human terms
2. Therefore reality can only be what humans conventionally think it is
3. Therefore conventional definitions determine truth

This is so philosophically naive it's actually almost precious. You know this is like "Dogs can only perceive in dog terms, therefore reality is limited to what dogs can perceive."...right?

Your whole entire argument has collapsed into radical subjectivism:
If language use determines reality, then truth becomes impossible and your own argument defeats itself. You can't even claim your position is true without contradicting your premise.

I genuinely think our next discussion should be how counting equations on your fingers isn't quite the same as understanding quantum mechanics.

Because if we're playing the Wittgenstein card, we should probably discuss his views on the mystical and transcendent. Or would that require too many sentences?

1. are you jbslayer?

2. getting as much meaning through in as little 'space' as possible is always ideal. summarizing complex things like quantum mechanics is difficult but a sign of geniine understanding and intelligence

3. language is used because of popuarity and mutual understanding, arguing this is a fallacy makes zero sense.

4. im a nihilist so the rest of what you wrote checks out, tbh. but you can't make and prove a different position without contradicting yourself so it is what it is

 

[bennet]

Yawn, excuses. Stop backpedaling, monkey.

Bro's 2v1ing. Another one bites the dutes

 

[bennet]

Bro's 2v1ing. Another one bites the dutes

dust*

 

[vanillaicecream]

Ok I'll respond, if you think you'll get away with this weak pile of verbal diarrhea you're very mistaken, I'm the most well versed user on this subject

1- "Muh, if God exists, why do bad things happen?"

Here you already began with a kind of strawman by presenting "God" as inherently contradictory with the concept of bad things that happen in the world, when the argument from the atheistic perspective is that the existence of a specifically BENEVOLENT god can be difficult to be reconciled with a world where evil and suffering is apparent. Try again by presenting the argument with a correct representation of it. You talked about how a god in general (without delving into specifics) can still exist if bad things happen in the world, I agree, there's no contradiction. The claim is that a benevolent god who cares and has infinite power cannot exist in a world where bad things happen and he does nothing to stop them because this entails a direct contradiction. God allows these things to happen because of "spiritual growth"? Can't God as an all powerful being create a world where people don't experience suffering and can still go through challenges and growth? That's strange, it seems like this god purposefully set things up in a way that would cause suffering and misery when he could have done otherwise while still allowing for "spiritual growth" just so he could be the pseudo hero that people run to.

2- "Science explains everything!"

Another pathetic strawman and it's not even an atheistic argument. This is a random self-sufficient claim independent of theism or atheism that has no bearing on the question at hand. So what is your point? Science does not explain everything therefore god? Also saying "science will eventually figure something out" is inductive reasoning, not faith, it's based on the fact that we have observed the fact that science has provided answers to things we didn't know in the past, so there's a precedent there that validates the claim. Faith is when something is not based on any precedent or empirical experience of the past whatsoever, so learn terms and words before you say stupid things like this.

3. THE "WHO CREATED GOD?" COMEBACK

Wow you're so intelligent. Do you know that when you say things that "God is the uncaused cause" or the "necessary being" all you're doing is defining something into existence and playing with internal definitions? What you're saying has internal validity but there is no reason based on evidence of the external world that something like a god could exist without a cause. If you say god can exist as an uncaused or necessary entity I can just as well argue the same for the universe itself, except I'm not multiplying entities by positing a complicated and multi-faceted being. There is no escape from the fact you are committing special pleading. Plus, there are cosmological models that propose theories for the cosmos (not our own presentation of it that followed from from big bang, but rather the whole of existence) being necessary rather than contingent. How did you rule those out? How did you rule out the theory that the universe is a mathematical structure that had no option but to come into existence?

"If God exists, why doesn't he just appear on CNN?"

Another strawman in a pathetic attempt to present the argument your own way so as to make it sound dumber. Do not conflate God not making himself known in any way that we could detect indistinguishably from delusions and mistaken perceptions with him "appearing on CNN". The fact of the matter is that your god has never manifested himself as a separate entity that exists independently of our own thoughts. This is proven by the very fact that people have been attempting to argue him into existence since the dawn of time. This would not be the case if he were self-evident. The very idea that a god, let alone one who cares about us, would need to be argue into existence with word games is laughable. If you're trying to defend the existence of your god with words then it follows that he has never manifested himself clearly or distinguishably and the problem of divine hiddednness is an objective fact by virtue of you trying to verbally prove him.

5. Evolution explains everything about life!"

Wow this was the biggest strawman of them all. No one who understands evolution would say it's even supposed to explain life itself and the origins of it, it only explains the biodiversity on earth and how the species came to to what they are.

I'll respond to the rest later. So far you haven't even shown that you're capable of representing the arguments you're trying to debunk in a accurate way. You're painting things your own way and beating a strawman, on top of raising questions that are not even supposed to be a refutation to the existence of any god.

 

[Awan]

Shit.

How can u say that when u believe that God has a son,he can be killed and he eats and shits just like us?
Islam is infinite times more believe then whatever u believe in

 

[Harold O'brien]

Ok I'll respond, if you think you'll get away with this weak pile of verbal diarrhea you're very mistaken, I'm the most well versed user on this subject

1- "Muh, if God exists, why do bad things happen?"

Here you already began with a kind of strawman by presenting "God" as inherently contradictory with the concept of bad things that happen in the world, when the argument from the atheistic perspective is that the existence of a specifically BENEVOLENT god can be difficult to be reconciled with a world where evil and suffering is apparent. Try again by presenting the argument with a correct representation of it. You talked about how a god in general (without delving into specifics) can still exist if bad things happen in the world, I agree, there's no contradiction. The claim is that a benevolent god who cares and has infinite power cannot exist in a world where bad things happen and he does nothing to stop them because this entails a direct contradiction. God allows these things to happen because of "spiritual growth"? Can't God as an all powerful being create a world where people don't experience suffering and can still go through challenges and growth? That's strange, it seems like this god purposefully set things up in a way that would cause suffering and misery when he could have done otherwise while still allowing for "spiritual growth" just so he could be the pseudo hero that people run to.

2- "Science explains everything!"

Another pathetic strawman and it's not even an atheistic argument. This is a random self-sufficient claim independent of theism or atheism that has no bearing on the question at hand. So what is your point? Science does not explain everything therefore god? Also saying "science will eventually figure something out" is inductive reasoning, not faith, it's based on the fact that we have observed the fact that science has provided answers to things we didn't know in the past, so there's a precedent there that validates the claim. Faith is when something is not based on any precedent or empirical experience of the past whatsoever, so learn terms and words before you say stupid things like this.

3. THE "WHO CREATED GOD?" COMEBACK

Wow you're so intelligent. Do you know that when you say things that "God is the uncaused cause" or the "necessary being" all you're doing is defining something into existence and playing with internal definitions? What you're saying has internal validity but there is no reason based on evidence of the external world that something like a god could exist without a cause. If you say god can exist as an uncaused or necessary entity I can just as well argue the same for the universe itself, except I'm not multiplying entities by positing a complicated and multi-faceted being. There is no escape from the fact you are committing special pleading. Plus, there are cosmological models that propose theories for the cosmos (not our own presentation of it that followed from from big bang, but rather the whole of existence) being necessary rather than contingent. How did you rule those out? How did you rule out the theory that the universe is a mathematical structure that had no option but to come into existence?

"If God exists, why doesn't he just appear on CNN?"

Another strawman in a pathetic attempt to present the argument your own way so as to make it sound dumber. Do not conflate God not making himself known in any way that we could detect indistinguishably from delusions and mistaken perceptions with him "appearing on CNN". The fact of the matter is that your god has never manifested himself as a separate entity that exists independently of our own thoughts. This is proven by the very fact that people have been attempting to argue him into existence since the dawn of time. This would not be the case if he were self-evident. The very idea that a god, let alone one who cares about us, would need to be argue into existence with word games is laughable. If you're trying to defend the existence of your god with words then it follows that he has never manifested himself clearly or distinguishably and the problem of divine hiddednness is an objective fact by virtue of you trying to verbally prove him.

5. Evolution explains everything about life!"

Wow this was the biggest strawman of them all. No one who understands evolution would say it's even supposed to explain life itself and the origins of it, it only explains the biodiversity on earth and how the species came to to what they are.

I'll respond to the rest later. So far you haven't even shown that you're capable of representing the arguments you're trying to debunk in a accurate way. You're painting things your own way and beating a strawman, on top of raising questions that are not even supposed to be a refutation to the existence of any god.

why dont you post on bookism

 

[Freakbob]

You discredit yourself by posting self congratulatory bullshit in the conclusion lol, "modern atheism isn't an intellectual position". I like how you include the caveat of "modern" in that sentence so it doesn't seem like you're talking down on the historical philosopical giants who were atheist even though you pretty much are.

Much better threads from religious perspectives on this site

 

[magicfucktard22]

How can u say that when u believe that God has a son,he can be killed and he eats and shits just like us?
Islam is infinite times more believe then whatever u believe in

I'm not going to lie to you, you should have flushed that argument you just shat out instead of giving it to me.

Here you already began with a kind of strawman by presenting "God" as inherently contradictory with the concept of bad things that happen in the world, when the argument from the atheistic perspective is that the existence of a specifically BENEVOLENT god can be difficult to be reconciled with a world where evil and suffering is apparent. Try again by presenting the argument with a correct representation of it. You talked about how a god in general (without delving into specifics) can still exist if bad things happen in the world, I agree, there's no contradiction. The claim is that a benevolent god who cares and has infinite power cannot exist in a world where bad things happen and he does nothing to stop them because this entails a direct contradiction. God allows these things to happen because of "spiritual growth"? Can't God as an all powerful being create a world where people don't experience suffering and can still go through challenges and growth? That's strange, it seems like this god purposefully set things up in a way that would cause suffering and misery when he could have done otherwise while still allowing for "spiritual growth" just so he could be the pseudo hero that people run to.

You're accusing me of strawmanning while COMPLETELY missing the philosophical depth of the argument I made. Yes, I'm well aware of the specific formulation regarding a benevolent deity. I was cutting through the pretense to expose the emotional core of the argument (Which was so obvious.)

But since you want to play philosophy professor, let's do it: Your "contradiction" between benevolence and suffering is based on several fatally flawed assumptions.

First, you're assuming that you, with your limited human perspective, can accurately judge what constitutes "unnecessary" suffering in a universe of cosmic scale and complexity. Do you realize how breathtakingly arrogant that shit sounds?

Second, you're making the philosophically naive assumption that the elimination of all suffering is actually compatible with higher goods like free will, moral development, and genuine love. Your suggestion that God could create a world with "challenges" but no suffering is literally incoherent which is similar to asking for a square circle. Real challenge BY DEFINITION involves the possibility of failure and pain. What you're actually asking for is a cosmic playground with fake obstacles that can never actually hurt anyone. In other words, a meaningless simulation.

Another pathetic strawman and it's not even an atheistic argument. This is a random self-sufficient claim independent of theism or atheism that has no bearing on the question at hand. So what is your point? Science does not explain everything therefore god? Also saying "science will eventually figure something out" is inductive reasoning, not faith, it's based on the fact that we have observed the fact that science has provided answers to things we didn't know in the past, so there's a precedent there that validates the claim. Faith is when something is not based on any precedent or empirical experience of the past whatsoever, so learn terms and words before you say stupid things like this.

Oh, this is so rich. You accuse me of strawmanning while... completely misrepresenting my argument I never ONCE said "science doesn't explain everything therefore God". I was pointing out the philosophical bankruptcy of scientific materialism as a complete worldview. And you trying to equate scientific induction with religious faith is sophomore-level philosophy at fucking best. The fundamental difference is that scientific induction works within an already-established framework of natural law and regularity, precisely the thing that materialism cannot ultimately explain. The fact that science has explained many things tells us nothing about its ability to explain the existence of a rational, law-governed universe in the first place. This is basic philosophy of science stuff, but I guess that's too nuanced for someone who thinks "science will figure it out" is a meaningful response to fundamental metaphysical questions.

Wow you're so intelligent. Do you know that when you say things that "God is the uncaused cause" or the "necessary being" all you're doing is defining something into existence and playing with internal definitions? What you're saying has internal validity but there is no reason based on evidence of the external world that something like a god could exist without a cause. If you say god can exist as an uncaused or necessary entity I can just as well argue the same for the universe itself, except I'm not multiplying entities by positing a complicated and multi-faceted being. There is no escape from the fact you are committing special pleading. Plus, there are cosmological models that propose theories for the cosmos (not our own presentation of it that followed from from big bang, but rather the whole of existence) being necessary rather than contingent. How did you rule those out? How did you rule out the theory that the universe is a mathematical structure that had no option but to come into existence?

Your reply here is actually so painful to read. You're confusing logical necessity with mere assertion, and just showing me a profound misunderstanding of classical theistic metaphysics. When we speak of God as the necessary being, we're not "defining something into existence", we're following the logical implications of contingency to their necessary conclusion. The universe cannot serve as the necessary being because it demonstrates contingency in its very nature. It's composed of parts, undergoes change, and exhibits potentiality rather than pure actuality. You trying to equate this with "mathematical structures" shows you're not even operating in the same philosophical framework, you're trying to reduce necessary existence to abstract objects, which themselves require grounding in actual being. This is what happens when you try to critique Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics without actually understanding it.

Another strawman in a pathetic attempt to present the argument your own way so as to make it sound dumber. Do not conflate God not making himself known in any way that we could detect indistinguishably from delusions and mistaken perceptions with him "appearing on CNN". The fact of the matter is that your god has never manifested himself as a separate entity that exists independently of our own thoughts. This is proven by the very fact that people have been attempting to argue him into existence since the dawn of time. This would not be the case if he were self-evident. The very idea that a god, let alone one who cares about us, would need to be argue into existence with word games is laughable. If you're trying to defend the existence of your god with words then it follows that he has never manifested himself clearly or distinguishably and the problem of divine hiddednness is an objective fact by virtue of you trying to verbally prove him.

This response is so fucking weak. You're essentially arguing that because people debate God's existence, He must not have revealed Himself adequately. This is philosophically juvenile. The fact that something requires rational demonstration doesn't mean it isn't real or evident. We argue about consciousness, free will, and the external world too. Are those not "self-evident" enough for you? The whole point about divine hiddenness is that it serves a NECESSARY purpose in allowing for genuine free will and authentic relationship. Your demand for God to manifest Himself "indistinguishably from delusions" shows you haven't thought through what that would actually mean for human freedom and moral development.

Wow this was the biggest strawman of them all. No one who understands evolution would say it's even supposed to explain life itself and the origins of it, it only explains the biodiversity on earth and how the species came to to what they are.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Evolution DOESN'T explain everything about life, yet it's constantly used by atheists as if it does.

You're calling this a strawman... yet agreeing with my actual argument??? Are you slow? The whole point was that evolution, while true within its proper domain, leaves the most fundamental questions about life and consciousness completely untouched.

I'll respond to the rest later. So far you haven't even shown that you're capable of representing the arguments you're trying to debunk in a accurate way. You're painting things your own way and beating a strawman, on top of raising questions that are not even supposed to be a refutation to the existence of any god.

What's particularly amusing about all these shitty responses is that they perfectly demonstrate the intellectual superficiality I was critiquing in the first place. Instead of engaging with the deep philosophical issues at stake, you're playing "spot the fallacy" while committing plenty of your own. You're so eager to cry "strawman" that you're missing the substantive arguments entirely. You're so intellectually dishonest that it's not even funny.

But, please, continue telling me how I'm not representing arguments accurately while you reduce complex metaphysical positions to caricatures and mistake semantic quibbles for philosophical refutation. This is exactly why serious philosophical theism remains unscathed by these kinds of surface-level objections.

 

[magicfucktard22]

You discredit yourself by posting self congratulatory bullshit in the conclusion lol, "modern atheism isn't an intellectual position". I like how you include the caveat of "modern" in that sentence so it doesn't seem like you're talking down on the historical philosopical giants who were atheist even though you pretty much are.

I know this might be difficult for you to grasp, but: I included "modern" because there's a stark difference between historical philosophical atheism and the embarrassingly superficial version that dominates contemporary discourse. The philosophical giants you're attempting to invoke would be mortified by today's "Reddit atheism" that thinks watching a few YouTube videos and memorizing a list of logical fallacies constitutes philosophical depth.

Those historical atheist philosophers, despite their ultimate incorrectness, at least grappled seriously with the metaphysical implications of their position. They understood the weight of the questions they were addressing. They didn't resort to scientism as a philosophical crutch or hide behind methodological naturalism while pretending it answered metaphysical questions. They didn't confuse Internet gotchas for serious philosophical argumentation.

What's particularly amusing about your response is that it perfectly demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of engaging with any of the ACTUAL arguments, you're fixating on tone and perceived arrogance, as if philosophical truth somehow depends on how nicely it's packaged. It's not, you dumbass. This is precisely the kind of intellectual superficiality that characterizes modern atheism: more concerned with style than substance, more interested in scoring rhetorical points than pursuing truth.

And yes, I'll say it plainly: Modern atheism, as commonly presented and defended, is not a serious intellectual position. It's a hodgepodge of category errors, scientistic overreach, and philosophical confusion, typically held together by an emotional opposition to religion rather than careful metaphysical reasoning. The fact that you're more bothered by my "self-congratulatory" tone than the actual philosophical arguments speaks volumes about the intellectual depth – or rather, lack thereof – in your position.

But please, continue to be offended by my tone while avoiding the actual substance of the arguments. It only further proves my point about the state of modern atheistic discourse.

Much better threads from religious perspectives on this site

I swear I don't give a shit.

 

[noodlelover]

@magicfucktard22

Hey. Please respond to me. Did you see my other post?

 

[bennet]

My goat is getting assaulted

 

[magicfucktard22]

My goat is getting assaulted

Never that.

 

[bennet]

Never that.

You

 

[magicfucktard22]

I really appreciate the effort and thought that went into this post.

Would you like to debate the existence of god with me?

My stance is that it's highly unlikely that a god created every else in existence.


My claim is not that god would have to be "more complex than the universe" but that it's more oddly specific and therefore less likely than other explanations.


Saying something is not physical is another way of saying it's not real. That it doesn't really exist.

Because once you're forced to define what god actually "is", you realize this thing you're imagining just magically exists for no reason at all is extremely complex and specific.

I don't want to strawman you, so in order to figure out how complex what you define as "god" we should start by figuring out what properties, abilities, and preferences what you imagine to be "god" is.

As far as you define god:

Does it have preferences about reality?
If so what are it's preferences?
Is it able to manipulate reality towards those preferences?

What I'm driving at here is the necessary complexity to represent both it's cognition (thinking abilities) and preferences (values/morals/goals).

You're making the exact philosophical error I was addressing, but let's dissect this thoroughly since you at least appear genuinely interested in dialogue.

Your fundamental mistake is attempting to analyze God through the lens of physical complexity and probability, as if we're discussing some entity within the universe that we can assign likelihood scores to. This completely misses the metaphysical nature of the argument.

When you say "saying something is not physical is another way of saying it's not real," you're literally asserting philosophical materialism as if it were self-evident. This is exactly the kind of question-begging that plagues modern atheistic thought. Mathematics isn't physical - are you claiming mathematics isn't real? Logic isn't physical - is logic not real? Consciousness itself can't be reduced to purely physical description – is consciousness not real? You're smuggling in an entire metaphysical worldview while pretending you're just making obvious statements.

You trying to analyze God's "complexity" through preferences, abilities, and cognition again shows a profound misunderstanding of classical theism. You're anthropomorphizing the ground of being itself. It's like trying to analyze how many muscles the number 7 has. It's a category error of cosmic proportions. God isn't a being with preferences and cognition in the way humans have them. God is Being itself, from which all particular beings derive their existence. The divine intellect isn't a complex system of thoughts and preferences, but the simple act of self-understanding from which all truth and intelligibility derive.

When we say God is simple, we're not making some ad hoc assertion to escape your complexity argument. We're pointing to the necessary metaphysical nature of what must ground all of existence. Any complexity implies parts, potentiality, and contingency, precisely the things that require explanation in the first place. The ground of all being must be simple, because complexity itself needs grounding in simplicity.

Your approach of trying to calculate probabilities for God's existence shows a deeper misunderstanding. Probability calculations only make sense within an already-existing framework of natural law and regularities. You can't meaningfully assign probabilities to the very ground of existence itself. It's like trying to calculate the probability that logic exists , whcih is the very act of calculation presupposes what you're trying to analyze.

What's particularly telling is your phrase "this thing you're imagining just magically exists for no reason at all." This shows you're still thinking of God as some kind of super-being floating around in pre-existing space and time. That's not what classical theism argues for AT ALL. God isn't a thing that "just exists". God is existence itself, the necessary foundation that makes the existence of anything else possible at all.

If you want to have a serious debate about God's existence, you need to engage with what theistic philosophers are actually arguing, not this crude caricature of a complex supernatural being whose existence we can treat as a scientific hypothesis. The question isn't about probabilities and complexities but about what must necessarily exist for there to be anything at all.

But I suspect you'll continue trying to force this discussion into a framework of physical complexity and probability, because engaging with the actual metaphysical arguments would require abandoning the comfortable assumptions of scientific materialism.

 

[Freakbob]

I know this might be difficult for you to grasp, but: I included "modern" because there's a stark difference between historical philosophical atheism and the embarrassingly superficial version that dominates contemporary discourse. The philosophical giants you're attempting to invoke would be mortified by today's "Reddit atheism" that thinks watching a few YouTube videos and memorizing a list of logical fallacies constitutes philosophical depth.

Those historical atheist philosophers, despite their ultimate incorrectness, at least grappled seriously with the metaphysical implications of their position. They understood the weight of the questions they were addressing. They didn't resort to scientism as a philosophical crutch or hide behind methodological naturalism while pretending it answered metaphysical questions. They didn't confuse Internet gotchas for serious philosophical argumentation.

What's particularly amusing about your response is that it perfectly demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of engaging with any of the ACTUAL arguments, you're fixating on tone and perceived arrogance, as if philosophical truth somehow depends on how nicely it's packaged. It's not, you dumbass. This is precisely the kind of intellectual superficiality that characterizes modern atheism: more concerned with style than substance, more interested in scoring rhetorical points than pursuing truth.

And yes, I'll say it plainly: Modern atheism, as commonly presented and defended, is not a serious intellectual position. It's a hodgepodge of category errors, scientistic overreach, and philosophical confusion, typically held together by an emotional opposition to religion rather than careful metaphysical reasoning. The fact that you're more bothered by my "self-congratulatory" tone than the actual philosophical arguments speaks volumes about the intellectual depth – or rather, lack thereof – in your position.

But please, continue to be offended by my tone while avoiding the actual substance of the arguments. It only further proves my point about the state of modern atheistic discourse.



I swear I don't give a shit.

Wait I'm literally talking to some ESL AI retard Never mind, I was going to take you seriously for a second

 

[magicfucktard22]

AI

You know I can easily just dismantle that. Just sit in the corner like a good little boy and watch the players play like the good fan you are.

 

[ProBono]

How did you discern the Christian presentation of god as the most likely? Why not that of Islam or Judaism?

 

[Freakbob]

You know I can easily just dismantle that. Just sit in the corner like a good little boy and watch the players play like the good fan you are.

Dismantle it ESL buddy. Your entire speech pattern is 1:1 AI

You have a good prompt though, share it with us

 

[magicfucktard22]

How did you discern the Christian presentation of god as the most likely? Why not that of Islam or Judaism?

I actually appreciate this question. The core philosophical arguments I've presented point to a monotheistic God, which narrows our options significantly. From there, Christianity uniquely offers:

1. A God who enters human suffering rather than remaining aloof, which addresses the problem of evil in a way no other religion does.
2. A historical foundation with extraordinary evidence (empty tomb, early church growth, transformed disciples willing to die).
3. A coherent explanation for both human nobility and human depravity.
4. The most comprehensive integration of divine justice AND mercy through atonement.
5. A worldview that birthed modern science through its emphasis on a rational, ordered universe created by a rational God.

Yes, I respect elements of truth in other traditions, but Christianity's unique claims about God becoming human to solve the human condition from within, while maintaining philosophical sophistication, make it uniquely compelling as a complete worldview.

Unlike Islam, it doesn't rely primarily on private revelation. Unlike Judaism, it offers a universal solution to human alienation from God. It answers the deepest questions of existence while remaining historically grounded.

 

[aryan mogger]

looks high iq

 

[magicfucktard22]

Dismantle it ESL buddy. Your entire speech pattern is 1:1 AI

You have a good prompt though, share it with us

"May include parts generated by AI/GPT" OH NOOO! I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT USING AI BY A DETECTOR ALGORITHM THAT RELY ON ALGORITHMIC PATTERNS THAT EASILY MISTAKE POLISHED HUMAN TEXT FOR MACHINE-GENERATED CONTENT! HOW COULD I!!!

 

[magicfucktard22]

You have a good prompt though, share it with us

I mean, you asked for it:

 

[vanillaicecream]

You're accusing me of strawmanning while COMPLETELY missing the philosophical depth of the argument I made. Yes, I'm well aware of the specific formulation regarding a benevolent deity. I was cutting through the pretense to expose the emotional core of the argument (Which was so obvious.)

But since you want to play philosophy professor, let's do it: Your "contradiction" between benevolence and suffering is based on several fatally flawed assumptions.

First, you're assuming that you, with your limited human perspective, can accurately judge what constitutes "unnecessary" suffering in a universe of cosmic scale and complexity. Do you realize how breathtakingly arrogant that shit sounds?

Second, you're making the philosophically naive assumption that the elimination of all suffering is actually compatible with higher goods like free will, moral development, and genuine love. Your suggestion that God could create a world with "challenges" but no suffering is literally incoherent which is similar to asking for a square circle. Real challenge BY DEFINITION involves the possibility of failure and pain. What you're actually asking for is a cosmic playground with fake obstacles that can never actually hurt anyone. In other words, a meaningless simulation.



Oh, this is so rich. You accuse me of strawmanning while... completely misrepresenting my argument I never ONCE said "science doesn't explain everything therefore God". I was pointing out the philosophical bankruptcy of scientific materialism as a complete worldview. And you trying to equate scientific induction with religious faith is sophomore-level philosophy at fucking best. The fundamental difference is that scientific induction works within an already-established framework of natural law and regularity, precisely the thing that materialism cannot ultimately explain. The fact that science has explained many things tells us nothing about its ability to explain the existence of a rational, law-governed universe in the first place. This is basic philosophy of science stuff, but I guess that's too nuanced for someone who thinks "science will figure it out" is a meaningful response to fundamental metaphysical questions.



Your reply here is actually so painful to read. You're confusing logical necessity with mere assertion, and just showing me a profound misunderstanding of classical theistic metaphysics. When we speak of God as the necessary being, we're not "defining something into existence", we're following the logical implications of contingency to their necessary conclusion. The universe cannot serve as the necessary being because it demonstrates contingency in its very nature. It's composed of parts, undergoes change, and exhibits potentiality rather than pure actuality. You trying to equate this with "mathematical structures" shows you're not even operating in the same philosophical framework, you're trying to reduce necessary existence to abstract objects, which themselves require grounding in actual being. This is what happens when you try to critique Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics without actually understanding it.



This response is so fucking weak. You're essentially arguing that because people debate God's existence, He must not have revealed Himself adequately. This is philosophically juvenile. The fact that something requires rational demonstration doesn't mean it isn't real or evident. We argue about consciousness, free will, and the external world too. Are those not "self-evident" enough for you? The whole point about divine hiddenness is that it serves a NECESSARY purpose in allowing for genuine free will and authentic relationship. Your demand for God to manifest Himself "indistinguishably from delusions" shows you haven't thought through what that would actually mean for human freedom and moral development.


Yes, that's exactly my point. Evolution DOESN'T explain everything about life, yet it's constantly used by atheists as if it does.

You're calling this a strawman... yet agreeing with my actual argument??? Are you slow? The whole point was that evolution, while true within its proper domain, leaves the most fundamental questions about life and consciousness completely untouched.


What's particularly amusing about all these shitty responses is that they perfectly demonstrate the intellectual superficiality I was critiquing in the first place. Instead of engaging with the deep philosophical issues at stake, you're playing "spot the fallacy" while committing plenty of your own. You're so eager to cry "strawman" that you're missing the substantive arguments entirely. You're so intellectually dishonest that it's not even funny.

But, please, continue telling me how I'm not representing arguments accurately while you reduce complex metaphysical positions to caricatures and mistake semantic quibbles for philosophical refutation. This is exactly why serious philosophical theism remains unscathed by these kinds of surface-level objections.

Ok, more pile of garbage

>First, you're assuming that you, with your limited human perspective, can accurately judge what constitutes "unnecessary" suffering in a universe of cosmic scale and complexity. Do you realize how breathtakingly arrogant that shit sounds?

Suffering is defined by our own subjective experience. It doenst matter how it relates to the grand scheme of things, if we experience suffering subjectively it means it's a very real experience of pain that we have no option but to respond to in a negative way and suffer negative consequences from it. Are you trying to undermine the subjective experience of suffering of individuals because it doesn't matter to the external universe?

>Second, you're making the philosophically naive assumption that the elimination of all suffering is actually compatible with higher goods like free will, moral development, and genuine love.

Buddy, this is very simple. The model of reality that you're proposing has an all powerful god that should be capable of creating all kinds of worlds as a result. There is no contradiction or incoherence between "challenges" and "suffering", what a bizarre claim. I can think of many examples of challenges you can go through that help you grow that don't involve suffering.

>Oh, this is so rich. You accuse me of strawmanning while... completely misrepresenting my argument I never ONCE said "science doesn't explain everything therefore God".

Um, no, I specifically asked "what's your point?" before saying that to better understand what you're driving at. There's no strawman in unassuming questions.

>And you trying to equate scientific induction with religious faith is sophomore-level philosophy at fucking best.

Equate? Equate? I was doing the literal opposite which was to point out how we can infer from inductive reasoning that science will find answers to things we don't know and how that's different from faith which is blind belief based on no precedents or parallels observed in reality. The rest of what you said in this paragraph is useless due to this misunderstanding.

>You're confusing logical necessity with mere assertion, and just showing me a profound misunderstanding of classical theistic metaphysics.

No buddy, the specific version of what constitutes as this logical necessity is the mere assertion, not the fact that we would need an uncaused cause to avoid falling into an infinite regress pit which is itself debatable.

>When we speak of God as the necessary being, we're not "defining something into existence", we're following the logical implications of contingency to their necessary conclusion.

Nothing about the contingency/necessity argument gets you to a conscious intelligent being that can read my thoughts. Nothing. You're making a leap and presenting a specific version of something that should be the necessary uncaused cause. Demonstrate how God is the necessary uncaused cause and not quantum fields. I'll wait.

>This response is so fucking weak. You're essentially arguing that because people debate God's existence, He must not have revealed Himself adequately.

Oh really? How so? Are there syllogisms to demonstrate the existence of self-evident things like the sun? I don't think there are and it's because there's no need. On the other hand for the thing that you're trying to argue for you have people butting heads and clashing over an infinite number of definitions and descriptions as to how God works. What does that tell you? You don't simply have "people debating God's existence" buddy. That's ALL you have.

>The whole point about divine hiddenness is that it serves a NECESSARY purpose in allowing for genuine free will and authentic relationship.

Empty mantra that your ilk likes to throw around without substantiating it further. The claim that God revealing himself clearly would impact people's autonomy and free will is so retarded that I can't even begin to take it seriously. Even if I concede this it also goes back to God's inability to create a world where certain concepts can co-exist, which contradicts his very nature of omnipotence. But apparently God needs to remain hidden because he likes to reward gullible people.

>Yes, that's exactly my point. Evolution DOESN'T explain everything about life, yet it's constantly used by atheists as if it does.

It doesn't matter, if they believe this they are mistaken and you should only try to debunk arguments that actually align with reality in some sense. Why are you only capable of presenting caricatures of arguments to make things easier for you?

 

[noodlelover]

You're making the exact philosophical error I was addressing, but let's dissect this thoroughly since you at least appear genuinely interested in dialogue.

Yes. I will try to remain respectful, and keep the dialogue focused on the arguments, because I enjoy these debates with people.

Your fundamental mistake is attempting to analyze God through the lens of physical complexity and probability, as if we're discussing some entity within the universe that we can assign likelihood scores to. This completely misses the metaphysical nature of the argument.

It sounds like your concept of "metaphysics" is a hand wavy way to say your religious beliefs are "beyond" reason and logic, and therefore can't be scrutinized with logic or reason.

I just as easily could say I an invisible pink cat created the universe, and it's moral value is that every one meow like a cat while rubbing their belly, and if you do that five times a day everyday you get into heaven.

And if some one asks, what are the chances of that, you just say "No it's metaphysics. Logic and probability doesn't apply. Clearly the invisible pink cat created the universe".

I'm taking things to the point of absurdity to demonstrate a point. The concept of metaphysics in your mind is a concept that protects your belief that a god exists from logical scrutiny.

All religions and cult beliefs have concepts such as this to protect their beliefs. Sometimes it's as simple as believing their belief will get them into heaven.

With your concept of "metaphysics" you've created the conceptual space in your mind for things to exist that are not real.

When you say "saying something is not physical is another way of saying it's not real," you're literally asserting philosophical materialism as if it were self-evident. This is exactly the kind of question-begging that plagues modern atheistic thought. Mathematics isn't physical - are you claiming mathematics isn't real?

Mathematics is a language to describe things that are physical, it's not the physical thing itself.

Logic isn't physical - is logic not real?

Logic is a language to describe things as well, not the real things themselves.

but language and logic do exist in the real world as well, such ink on paper when written down, or neurons firing when represented in a brain.

Everything that is real exists and is describable using language and math.

Consciousness itself can't be reduced to purely physical description

I believe it can.

– is consciousness not real? You're smuggling in an entire metaphysical worldview while pretending you're just making obvious statements.

You're claim is that things exist outside of existence.

You trying to analyze God's "complexity" through preferences, abilities, and cognition again shows a profound misunderstanding of classical theism. You're anthropomorphizing the ground of being itself. It's like trying to analyze how many muscles the number 7 has. It's a category error of cosmic proportions. God isn't a being with preferences and cognition in the way humans have them.

God is Being itself, from which all particular beings derive their existence. The divine intellect isn't a complex system of thoughts and preferences, but the simple act of self-understanding from which all truth and intelligibility derive.

When we say God is simple, we're not making some ad hoc assertion to escape your complexity argument. We're pointing to the necessary metaphysical nature of what must ground all of existence. Any complexity implies parts, potentiality, and contingency, precisely the things that require explanation in the first place. The ground of all being must be simple, because complexity itself needs grounding in simplicity.

Your approach of trying to calculate probabilities for God's existence shows a deeper misunderstanding. Probability calculations only make sense within an already-existing framework of natural law and regularities. You can't meaningfully assign probabilities to the very ground of existence itself. It's like trying to calculate the probability that logic exists , whcih is the very act of calculation presupposes what you're trying to analyze.

What's particularly telling is your phrase "this thing you're imagining just magically exists for no reason at all." This shows you're still thinking of God as some kind of super-being floating around in pre-existing space and time. That's not what classical theism argues for AT ALL. God isn't a thing that "just exists". God is existence itself, the necessary foundation that makes the existence of anything else possible at all.

If god is "the necessary foundation that makes the existence of anything possible at all" then you're defining god as non existent.

Because things don't need a "foundation for them to exist".

You're also defining god in a non-Christian and non-Muslim way, just to clarify. They would say god is an intelligent being that has preferences, and talks to people, and performs "miracles".

If you want to have a serious debate about God's existence, you need to engage with what theistic philosophers are actually arguing, not this crude caricature of a complex supernatural being whose existence we can treat as a scientific hypothesis. The question isn't about probabilities and complexities but about what must necessarily exist for there to be anything at all.

You're using logic, saying something "must necessarily exist for there to be anything at all" where it doesn't apply.

There doesn't need to be a reason for anything to exist. Causation is a pattern which we have observed for how matter and energy transform along the dimension of time.

You can't take that pattern we've found and apply it anywhere else other than along the dimension of time. That is the only place we have found that it applies.

 

[ihatereddit]

Why did god create niggers?

 

[Onewithmoss]

I'm sorry, but this is such a painfully superficial argument.

First, off-rip, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what Einstein and Spinoza meant by "God."

They weren't talking about some fucking vague cosmic force. They were talking about the ground of rational existence itself. The source of:

- Mathematical order
- Natural laws
- Logical necessity
- Being itself

But let's expose why this argument collapses:

1. Just because something is impersonal doesn't mean it's nonexistent or meaningless. The laws of mathematics are impersonal - are you saying they don't exist or don't matter? The laws of physics are impersonal - do they not fundamentally shape reality?

2. An impersonal God as the ground of being explains:

- Why the universe follows rational laws
- Why mathematics describes reality
- Why consciousness emerged
- Why the universe is comprehensible
- Why there's something rather than nothing

Your argument is like saying "An impersonal foundation under a house is exactly the same as having no foundation." It's logically absurd. The foundation shapes EVERYTHING above it, whether it's personal or not.

The real problem here isn't the argument but the childish notion that something has to DIRECTLY interact with you personally to be real or meaningful. That's not philosophy. That's emotional neediness hiding as 'reasoning'.

High iq individual, you're wasting your time in this cesspool of retards too comfortable in their cognitive dissonance to entertain the thought of considering anything you say let alone reading it.

 

[noodlelover]

High iq individual, you're wasting your time in this cesspool of retards too comfortable in their cognitive dissonance to entertain the thought of considering anything you say let alone reading it.

I can't speak for Awan and Vanilla Ice cream, as I haven't read all of their posts.

But I read all of @magicfucktard22 's original post, and I'm pointing out the main logical flaw in his belief.

 

[distance decay]

- How life originated from non-life (abiogenesis)

How is this not explained

 

[noodlelover]

How is this not explained

There's a lot of good theories for all of the different stages of abiogenesis. But I now take it for granted that religious people are going to be ignorant of a lot of science, and try not to focus my arguments on those areas, Because it's too slow to explain everything.

Ultimately it's better to focus on the flaws in the religious thinking of "existence needs a cause".

Causality is a pattern of how matter and energy change along the dimension of time. There's no proof it applies to anything else. This can be a hard concept for people to get.



@magicfucktard22

 

[distance decay]

If god is so great why did so many of his creations become extinct?

Before Palaeontology was a field the view on this was that extinction wasnt possible

 

[bennet]

Why did god create niggers?

Good question

 

[Defeatist]

N

No. Turn to Christ.

Shill tryna to keep me contained so I don’t ruin his perfect soYciety

I SWEAR
I WILL TOPPLE ATOP YOUR POWER
I WILL BE TRIUMPHANT OVER ALL
GOD SHALL NOT LIMIT ME

I’m kidding don’t kill me jews you’re too powerful I submit

 

[longjohnmong]

why we still got monkeys?

 

[bennet]

Why did god create niggers?

@magicfucktard22 You should make a thread on this too

 

[Bars]

What god should i believe in?