(BRUTAL) Ahmed88 cares more about internet points then defending his religion

[Sage]

 

[brielarsonbf]

View attachment 5363481

God is real idc

 

[Tenres]

I'm not ruining my post-rep on you faggot

 

[Framemaxxx]

valid tbh
I value my piss more than the opinions of randoms on here

 

[hypergonadal]

allah will take one of his 12 year old virgin pussys away from him when he gets to heaven

 

[Sage]

God is real idc

Still waiting on proof, 5 people and none had it.

 

[Sage]

valid tbh
I value my piss more than the opinions of randoms on here

It's not even an opinion these muslimtards genuinely do nothing but deflect and call you a "kaffir"

 

[mangotimer]

muslims rape kids and have oral sex but muh it was a diffrent time peroid

 

[Tenres]

Still waiting on proof, 5 people and none had it.

What's your response to cosmological fine tuning?

 

[brielarsonbf]

Still waiting on proof, 5 people and none had it.

 

[Mr. Squarepants]

Theological debates are fundamentally dumb and made by the evil to ruind friendships

 

[Sage]

What's your response to cosmological fine tuning?

Fine-tuning doesn't prove Allah or religion is real. could be natural, but could also not. much different from "designed" and "islam is true"

No argument sad, this is what all brainwashed muslimtards do.

 

[brielarsonbf]

"I FUCKING LOVE SOYSCIENCE!!!!!!1!! I FUCKING LOVE CARL SAGAN!!11!!1!!!1!"

 

[brielarsonbf]

Fine-tuning doesn't prove Allah or religion is real. could be natural, but could also not. much different from "designed" and "islam is true"

No argument sad, this is what all brainwashed muslimtards do.

IM NOT MUSLIM NIGGA

 

[Sage]

IM NOT MUSLIM NIGGA

Okay, whatever religion you are, prove it.

 

[lenvoalt]

muslims rape kids and have oral sex but muh it was a diffrent time peroid

could you explain why people hate Muslims more than what you said there
I don’t know anything about it like what they do I see why some people don’t like Black people but Muslims I don’t know about

 

[Sage]

Theological debates are fundamentally dumb and made by the evil to ruind friendships

Yep religion is the problem

 

[Sage]

could you explain why people hate Muslims
I don’t know anything about it like what they do I see why some people don’t like Black people but Muslims I don’t know about

Mostly steorotypes tbh, but still ignorant

 

[mangotimer]

could you explain why people hate Muslims
I don’t know anything about it like what they do I see why some people don’t like Black people but Muslims I don’t know about

Prophet Muhammad their version of Jesus married a 9 year old

 

[Tenres]

Fine-tuning doesn't prove Allah or religion is real. could be natural, but could also not. much different from "designed" and "islam is true"

No argument sad, this is what all brainwashed muslimtards do.

Well I mean it's clearly more expected that the constants would be variable and that they would subsequently fix in a specific way that allows for meaning under theism. Whereas under naturalism you'll just have a probability of 1/the possible ways the constants could've been

 

[Mr. Squarepants]

Okay, whatever religion you are, prove it.

Ye ye you're tryna make a point with this but you've never seen 7 year old me with dread in it's eyes after doing a school work completely wrong and preparing for the worst assbeat of your life and somehow teach still marks it as correct

This is divine intervention

 

[Blasian-K]

could you explain why people hate Muslims more than what you said there
I don’t know anything about it like what they do I see why some people don’t like Black people but Muslims I don’t know about

Imagine when you find out that black muslims exist…

 

[lenvoalt]

Prophet Muhammad their version of Jesus married a 9 year old

damn

I guess I can see more why
Brenton committed the attack more than just a great replacement theory
I had no idea they did that what else do they do

 

[LoveTheWayYouLie]

I believe in a God, but realistically God is a sociopathic asshole who enjoys tormenting His creation. This world is essentially a torture simulator game for The Most High. Think about it. If God loved everyone, we would all be White.

 

[Sage]

Well I mean it's clearly more expected that the constants would be variable and that they would subsequently fix in a specific way that allows for meaning under theism. Whereas under naturalism you'll just have a probability of 1/the possible ways the constants could've been

that's guessing what a god would do, we couldn't know, he could've not made an universe, or could've made plenty.
Under naturalism we don't know if the constants could've been different

 

[lenvoalt]

Imagine when you find out that black muslims exist…
View attachment 5363586

W reference

 

[mangotimer]

damn

I guess I can see more why
Brenton committed the attack more than just a great replacement theory
I had no idea they did that what else do they do

Muslims main execuse is that it ws a long time ago

 

[EmperorVon]

While your discussing Islam Gio Scotti is getting her back blown out by Dinka BBC

 

[Sage]

I believe in a God, but realistically God is a sociopathic asshole who enjoys tormenting His creation. This world is essentially a torture simulator game for The Most High. Think about it. If God loved everyone, we would all be White.

Tbh you could be right, I dont believe in god, but if he did exist, then yes he would be an arrogant, selfish and cruel liar.

 

[alurmo]

View attachment 5363481

Ahmed88 cares more about internet points then defending his religion​

 

[lenvoalt]

Muslims main execuse is that it ws a long time ago

well it doesn’t matter what time it happened they’re still supporting that religion
And their beliefs
Dang
That just opened up a whole another part that I didn’t know thanks for the info

 

[mangotimer]

Ahmed88 cares more about internet points then defending his religion​

View attachment 5363602
View attachment 5363603

Newsuois

 

[LoveTheWayYouLie]

Tbh you could be right, I dont believe in god, but if he did exist, then yes he would be an arrogant, selfish and cruel liar.

A loving god is logically impossible. But a creator is still possible, if he is either:
a) indifferent to men
b)a complete asshole

 

[Swarthy Knight]

Why mudslime brahs always so hostile? It’s like those camel jockies can’t ever debate in peace, despite being “the religion of peace”

 

[Sage]

Why mudslime brahs always so hostile? It’s like those camel jockies can’t ever debate in peace, despite being “the religion of peace”

Mf told me I was just using insults when HE was the one doing that

 

[Swarthy Knight]

Mf told me I was just using insults when HE was the one doing that

He was using his taqiyahmaxxing tactics to try to gaslight you

 

[Tenres]

that's guessing what a god would do, we couldn't know, he could've not made an universe, or could've made plenty.
Under naturalism we don't know if the constants could've been different

Well it's just going to be an induction from the way agents act, to say that agents act in ways where there is variability and they fix things according to some goal. So that induction would favor a mind being responsible for what we see with the fine tuning of the constants.

Plus all we need for God to have a reason to create is just that (a) Moral realism is true (b) internalism about moral reasons is true, and then if those are true it seems moral facts could at least plausible cause an agent to create a world with life, value, meaning, etc.

Even if you want to say the conjunction of the 2 is unlikely it's certainly more likely than fine tuning under naturalism which will be like 1 / ((10^(10^123)) according to some estimates

 

[Sage]

Well it's just going to be an induction from the way agents act, to say that agents act in ways where there is variability and they fix things according to some goal. So that induction would favor a mind being responsible for what we see with the fine tuning of the constants.

Plus all we need for God to have a reason to create is just that (a) Moral realism is true (b) internalism about moral reasons is true, and then if those are true it seems moral facts could at least plausible cause an agent to create a world with life, value, meaning, etc.

Even if you want to say the conjunction of the 2 is unlikely it's certainly more likely than fine tuning under naturalism which will be like 1 / ((10^(10^123)) according to some estimates

You're guessing how a god would work based on HUMAN psychology (keyword human) he's a cosmic being.
You're assuming god exists to prove he exists. The probability estimates are made up, we don't know if constants could be different

 

[Tenres]

You're guessing how a god would work based on HUMAN psychology (keyword human) he's a cosmic being.
You're assuming god exists to prove he exists. The probability estimates are made up, we don't know if constants could be different

No I'm not, if a hypothesis predicts the evidence we have available and the competing hypothesis doesn't, then that hypothesis gets support over it's competing hypothesis. The point is that fine tuning is evidence that is more likely given that there was a being who wanted to create value v. If there wasn't.

What probability do you need justified. Philosophers are largely split on moral realism, so it'd be reasonable if we assign a p of .5 and on internalism we can again assign .5. So the probability of morals being real mind independent facts about the world and these reasons being innately compelling to agents is .5^2 , if our priors on a God is .5 as well then we can say it's .5^3 that there exists a God who is compelled to act for moral reasons.

So far much more likely than the estimate of phycisists putting the initial state at being 1/10(10^123) lol

Edit: Even if we have super low priors on God then it's just going to be

P( Life | God exists and moral realism is true and internalism is true) = P(G and m and I Life) x P(G and M and I) / P(Life) with the probability of P(G and m and I Life) being extrmely low. But it still shouldn't be lower than what I said was the probably of fine tuning given naturalism.

 

[Sage]

No I'm not, if a hypothesis predicts the evidence we have available and the competing hypothesis doesn't, then that hypothesis gets support over it's competing hypothesis. The point is that fine tuning is evidence that is more likely given that there was a being who wanted to create value v. If there wasn't.

What probability do you need justified. Philosophers are largely split on moral realism, so it'd be reasonable if we assign a p of .5 and on internalism we can again assign .5. So the probability of morals being real mind independent facts about the world and these reasons being innately compelling to agents is .5^2 , if our priors on a God is .5 as well then we can say it's .5^3 that there exists a God who is compelled to act for moral reasons.

So far much more likely than the estimate of phycisists putting the initial state at being 1/10(10^123) lol

Fine-tuning doesn't prove God, it just proves the universe works. Could be simulation, multiverse, or many other things. Even if it points to a designer, you still have to prove it's YOUR god, not a kid in a lab.

 

[Tenres]

Fine-tuning doesn't prove God, it just proves the universe works. Could be simulation, multiverse, or many other things. Even if it points to a designer, you still have to prove it's YOUR god, not a kid in a lab.

The multiverse under the Schrodinger equation would still only have branches that operate under the same laws of physics / cosmological constants. I think we have good reason to rule out a simulation for the same reason we have reason to rule out any skeptical scenarios through Moorean shifts (I.e., to me it's more plausible that my experience is genuine than it's plausible that I could be having a purely simulated experience.

 

[Sage]

The multiverse under the Schrodinger equation would still only have branches that operate under the same laws of physics / cosmological constants. I think we have good reason to rule out a simulation for the same reason we have reason to rule out any skeptical scenarios through Moorean shifts (I.e., to me it's more plausible that my experience is genuine than it's plausible that I could be having a purely simulated experience.

The Schrödinger multiverse is only one model there are a ton of others that have varying constants, the moreean shift isnt evidence, not proof just intuition.

 

[mangotimer]

gem that saved the party

 

[fraudster#1]

@Ahmed88

 

[Tenres]

The Schrödinger multiverse is only one model there are a ton of others that have varying constants, the moreean shift isnt evidence, not proof just intuition.

From my understanding the minority of physicists who do affirm multiverse models are doing so mainly because of the Schrodinger equation. It's a small minority of physicists who converge on the type of multiverse models you speak of, which is strong evidence against it.

Well it's just going to be reason to reject simulation theories on the basis that if they were true, my experiences would all be artificial. And as long as we have independent reason to reject that then we have reason to reject simulation theory. Firstly I think we do because of our seeming. Intuitions are evidence in my view. And I just thought of probably a better response which is just that the simulation theory has a lot of theoretical vices but particularly having basically 0 empirical constraints / novel predictions. So we have a pretheoreitc basis for rejecting it.

Btw, whenever you get tired we can stop. I'm not even a theist.

 

[Latinolooksmaxxer]

Org rep is more important than god

 

[RichardSpencel]

Noooooo you have to get into 50 page discooosions on offtopic ,I need to debooooonk you

W reference

cage he was a comic genius I remember caging hard asf at his playlist

 

[jeremyy]

View attachment 5363481

Who?