Debunking God (at least popular religions portrayals) without the use of morals, good vs evil or world justice arguments

[Zyros]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

 

[Deleted member 5927]

intesting

 

[retard]

there is never going to be a way to debunk or confirm god

a god probably does exist but not the ones currently believed like Christianity and Islam

funny enough Darwin was religious until he started learning more and realized how fucking atrociously brutal some animals are, and he came to the conclusion no god who is to be considered “merciful and loving” could of designed such abhorrent creations

an example of an animal he speaks of is a certain type of wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar and lays its eggs in a specific place that the baby wasps can devour the live caterpillar but will not kill it and feed off it for literal weeks while it is alive and paralyzed, suffering the entire time

I completely agree with Darwin on that sentiment, no such loving god exists, but shit like the Big Bang (more specifically the specific timing it happened) requires a god

In science every action has a cause, why did the Big Bang take place 14 billion years ago instead of 100 trillion trillion years? there had to be a cause

but then you get into the issue of who created god and get caught up in the same ever ending paradox

it really is mind boggling to think about, it is the only mystery in my life that I have lived in such ignorance about, but really everyone does, 8 billion people and no one can find an answer

fascinating really

 

[Zyros]

there is never going to be a way to debunk or confirm god

a god probably does exist but not the ones currently believed like Christianity and Islam

funny enough Darwin was religious until he started learning more and realized how fucking atrociously brutal some animals are, and he came to the conclusion no god who is to be considered “merciful and loving” could of designed such abhorrent creations

an example of an animal he speaks of is a certain type of wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar and lays its eggs in a specific place that the baby wasps can devour the live caterpillar but will not kill it and feed off it for literal weeks while it is alive and paralyzed, suffering the entire time

I completely agree with Darwin on that sentiment, no such loving god exists, but shit like the Big Bang (more specifically the specific timing it happened) requires a god

In science every action has a cause, why did the Big Bang take place 14 billion years ago instead of 100 trillion trillion years? there had to be a cause

but then you get into the issue of who created god and get caught up in the same ever ending paradox

it really is mind boggling to think about, it is the only mystery in my life that I have lived in such ignorance about, but really everyone does, 8 billion people and no one can find an answer

fascinating really

I was talking about the idea of God portrayed by religions. A god with a "persona".

And yes, nature is a fucking abomination.

 

[Deleted member 5927]

there is never going to be a way to debunk or confirm god

a god probably does exist but not the ones currently believed like Christianity and Islam

funny enough Darwin was religious until he started learning more and realized how fucking atrociously brutal some animals are, and he came to the conclusion no god who is to be considered “merciful and loving” could of designed such abhorrent creations

an example of an animal he speaks of is a certain type of wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar and lays its eggs in a specific place that the baby wasps can devour the live caterpillar but will not kill it and feed off it for literal weeks while it is alive and paralyzed, suffering the entire time

I completely agree with Darwin on that sentiment, no such loving god exists, but shit like the Big Bang (more specifically the specific timing it happened) requires a god

In science every action has a cause, why did the Big Bang take place 14 billion years ago instead of 100 trillion trillion years? there had to be a cause

but then you get into the issue of who created god and get caught up in the same ever ending paradox

it really is mind boggling to think about, it is the only mystery in my life that I have lived in such ignorance about, but really everyone does, 8 billion people and no one can find an answer

fascinating really

In theology God is not in time, space, or matter. That is, he never began to exist, and so was not created by any being himself. He is eternal, and never was created. After all, I don't see how a spiritual being could be created anyway, since I don't even see how a spirit is composed of anything that requires creating.

 

[retard]

In theology God is not in time, space, or matter. That is, he never began to exist, and so was not created by any being himself. He is eternal, and never was created. After all, I don't see how a spiritual being could be created anyway, since I don't even see how a spirit is composed of anything that requires creating.

time is simply the potential to change, god had to of existed in some sort of time to manifest change in some sort of way to make the universe


the only answer to the paradox is that the universe “self configured” god himself, but that leads to the same problem again, why didn’t the univserse make a god 100 trillion trillion years ago, what specifically triggered it to happen when it did

 

[Deleted member 5927]

time is simply the potential to change, god had to of existed in some sort of time to manifest change in some sort of way to make the universe


the only answer to the paradox is that the universe “self configured” god himself, but that leads to the same problem again, why didn’t the univserse make a god 100 trillion trillion years ago, what specifically triggered it to happen when it did

Dr. William Lane Craig came up with a theory that God came into time as he created time.

He talks about it in this video, and keep in mind he is the single most praised Christian speaker for theology and philosophy we have in 2020, and Richard Dawkins even ran from a debate from him back a few years ago.

 

[bladeeout]

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual

stopped reading right there lol

 

[Sikkunt23]

Didn’t read plus u got a shit frame .

 

[Zyros]

Dr. William Lane Craig came up with a theory that God came into time as he created time.

He talks about it in this video, and keep in mind he is the single most praised Christian speaker for theology and philosophy we have in 2020, and Richard Dawkins even ran from a debate from him back a few years ago.

video seems interesting, will watch it later when i have more (no pun intended) time

 

[Deleted member 6095]

stopped reading right there lol

We are chemical robots with retardOS running in the background ngl.

 

[retard]

Dr. William Lane Craig came up with a theory that God came into time as he created time.

He talks about it in this video, and keep in mind he is the single most praised Christian speaker for theology and philosophy we have in 2020, and Richard Dawkins even ran from a debate from him back a few years ago.

thats a paradox though if he came into time at the time he created it, it means he already existed prior to time and then you get back in the loop of who created god then

if god did x to make time, he existed in time before time. If he came into time at the same time, time came into existence, there would be no causation factor assigning the specific emergence of the universe

 

[Slayer]

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses

Hard Problem of Consciousness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu

 

[Zyros]

Hard Problem of Consciousness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu

DIdnt still read the whole thing but from what I ve read this far, this seems about to be about that we have no way to tackle how to explain consciousness empirically or measure it in any way. But this is not related to what I said about emotions, its a whole different thing. Emotions can be actually measured (dopamine rush for happiness, etc, you can induce "emotions" trough drugs). Consciousness could exist without emotions (anger, happiness...).

Still will read the rest of the article later.

 

[chadpreetcel123]

You cannot disprove or prove God bro, It's impossible

I definitely think a higher up exists tho

 

[Deleted member 5927]

thats a paradox though if he came into time at the time he created it, it means he already existed prior to time and then you get back in the loop of who created god then

if god did x to make time, he existed in time before time. If he came into time at the same time, time came into existence, there would be no causation factor assigning the specific emergence of the universe

It's not a paradox, this is a literal world class philosopher and theologian explaining it in the video, he literally had taught at many colleges INCLUDING Harvard.

 

[retard]

It's not a paradox, this is a literal world class philosopher and theologian explaining it in the video, he literally had taught at many colleges INCLUDING Harvard.

if he came into time with it = there is no prior causation factor

if he existed before time to design it = then who created god to design it in the first place

 

[Bromose]

The one and only true god , lord mew the almighty, has ascended many people like myself.

 

[Aesthetics_III]

 

[DutchPrettyBoy]

looksmax.me

 

[Jimsonbobson505]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

Of course you mention science straight away ooh it's our chemical reactions fuck off

 

[Truecel14]

Mirin writing an entire essay for one reaction.

 

[Deleted member 2756]

god, this post reeks of pseudointellectualism.

 

[Blackout.xl]

I disagree with this.

In the context of the bible and Quran, God being portrayed as having emotions is not to be taken literally, it’s meant to be a metaphor to allow for humans to better understand the situation.

Impassibility - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

God (In the Abrahamic religions at least) is timeless and is not said to perceive reality in the same way we do.

“My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8–9).

Seeing an event as bad, doesn’t necessarily mean you see time in a linear way. If you hypothetically existed in all points in time, beginning, past, present, future (eternally), why would you suddenly be bound by linear time because of you seeing an event in the present as wrong?

In the context of Abrahamic theology, gods will is eternal and unchanged throughout. So any move from point A to point B is not motivated out of a desire for point B and a lack of satisfaction with point A, since both points are seen neutrally and part of the plan. But rather, a move from point A to point B is motivated by necessity.

As a comparison, does the quantum vacuum produce particles due to a desire for making particles? No. It creates particles due to it being a necessary part of the process of the quantum vacuum.

As for the point on thoughts, sentience and it’s causes, info on that is extremely incomplete and all we know is how it works in the context of humans / animals on earth. The discovery of another form of life, or even another study showing different results would throw many things we know out the window, so this can’t really be used to make conclusions.

 

[Deleted member 3323]

God's own omnipotence is a paradox in itself, I'm talking about the Abrahamic gods by the way.

Apparently they're all-powerful and know all but if that's so then that must mean they can predict the future and so that means the future is a set time and place thus dismantling the notion of free will.

Moreover, if God can predict the future then it means that he knows some people are simply destined to go to hell and can not be "saved." That is not a loving God.

 

[Edgar]

In theology God is not in time, space, or matter. That is, he never began to exist, and so was not created by any being himself. He is eternal, and never was created. After all, I don't see how a spiritual being could be created anyway, since I don't even see how a spirit is composed of anything that requires creating.

Sounds like mental gymnastics bruh sorry

 

[Deleted member 5927]

Sounds like mental gymnastics bruh sorry

It's a crystal clear explanation, only a moron who doesn't understand it would say something like you just did.

 

[Blackout.xl]

God's own omnipotence is a paradox in itself, I'm talking about the Abrahamic gods by the way.

Apparently they're all-powerful and know all but if that's so then that must mean they can predict the future and so that means the future is a set time and place thus dismantling the notion of free will.

Moreover, if God can predict the future then it means that he knows some people are simply destined to go to hell and can not be "saved." That is not a loving God.

He knows what will happen according to the possible outcomes and choices somebody/something can make.

It’s not set in the context that everything is predetermined before a individual choice can be made.

I.e, God knows that you will wake up in the morning and have cereal for breakfast. This does not mean that the choice of you getting out of bed and having cereal is predetermined outside your control. You still have to make the choice yourself.

If you in this scenario choose different, god wouldn’t of known you would get out of bed but rather you would stay in bed, but that choice still has to be made inside your head by you alone. So free will still applies and isn’t dismantled.

 

[Deleted member 3323]

He knows what will happen according to the possible outcomes and choices somebody/something can make.

It’s not set in the context that everything is predetermined before a individual choice can be made.

I.e, God knows that you will wake up in the morning and have cereal for breakfast. This does not mean that the choice of you getting out of bed and having cereal is predetermined outside your control. You still have to make the choice yourself.

If you in this scenario choose different, god wouldn’t of known you would get out of bed but rather you would stay in bed, but that choice still has to be made inside your head by you alone. So free will still applies and isn’t dismantled.

Then God can't predict the future accurately, he's only limited to the choices you might make thus he isn't omnipotent.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Then God can't predict the future accurately, he's only limited to the choices you might make thus he isn't omnipotent.

It’s not the choices you might make though. It’s all possible choices you can make, which still allows for him to accurately predict the future

 

[Deleted member 3323]

It’s not the choices you might make though. It’s all possible choices you can make, which still allows for him to accurately predict the future

You can only make one choice and he cant no which one. He has multiple realities where that future is fulfilled but he cant pinpoint which one, he just knows you'll make one of the choices.

 

[Blackout.xl]

You can only make one choice and he cant no which one. He has multiple realities where that future is fulfilled but he cant pinpoint which one, he just knows you'll make one of the choices.

Why can’t he pinpoint one? Why is he restricted just to knowing youll make one of the choices? If he’s said to be all knowing then there’s no reason why these restrictions would apply

 

[Deleted member 3323]

Why can’t he pinpoint one? Why is he restricted to knowing youll just make one of the choices? If he’s said to be all knowing then there’s no reason why these restrictions would apply

Becuase if he knows the EXACT choice you will make then that means free will doesn't exist, you will always make that choice.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Becuase if he knows the EXACT choice you will make then that means free will doesn't exist, you will always make that choice.

I detailed why this isn’t true in my example I put up in my earlier comment.

Even if he knows exactly what choice you’ll make, you still have to make the choice on your own. There is no outside influence from god present. Your actions aren’t sourced from his head, they’re sourced from yours only.

You will always make the choice he predicts you’ll make, but this being an argument against free will would require god to be the direct source of your decisions

 

[xdxdxnice1]

astaghfirullah

 

[Zyros]

He knows what will happen according to the possible outcomes and choices somebody/something can make.

It’s not set in the context that everything is predetermined before a individual choice can be made.

I.e, God knows that you will wake up in the morning and have cereal for breakfast. This does not mean that the choice of you getting out of bed and having cereal is predetermined outside your control. You still have to make the choice yourself.

If you in this scenario choose different, god wouldn’t of known you would get out of bed but rather you would stay in bed, but that choice still has to be made inside your head by you alone. So free will still applies and isn’t dismantled.

I was going to argue this part but I see others already did

 

[Deleted member 3323]

I detailed why this isn’t true in my example I put up in my earlier comment.

Even if he knows exactly what choice you’ll make, you still have to make the choice on your own. There is no outside influence from god present. Your actions aren’t sourced from his head, they’re sourced from yours only.

You will always make the choice he predicts you’ll make, but this being an argument against free will would require god to be the direct source of your decisions

It came from you but if God knew you were going to make it then that means it was going to happen regardless of anything, your thoughts etc etc. He knows you'll make it before it even happened so that means even if you didn't think about it, it will happen. Get it?


There is a Christian saying that "God knew you before you were born" and that itself just proves what im saying.

 

[Deleted member 6873]

this is giving me r/atheism vibes lol

 

[Zyros]

this is giving me r/atheism vibes lol

nah, r/atheism is more usually like "me not have silly belief in man in the sky fairytale! me smart!"

 

[Deleted member 6873]

nah, r/atheism is more usually like "me not have silly belief in man in the sky fairytale! me smart!"

Yeah i get what you mean man haha just fucking with ya

 

[Blackout.xl]

It came from you but if God knew you were going to make it then that means it was going to happen regardless of anything, your thoughts etc etc. He knows you'll make it before it even happened so that means even if you didn't think about it, it will happen. Get it?


There is a Christian saying that "God knew you before you were born" and that itself just proves what im saying.

I obviously get what you’re saying, It’s not that I don’t follow, it’s that I disagree with this interpretation of knowing / time.

The definition of free will is that you are able to have control over your actions. Even if god knows what will happen and the thoughts you will have, the actions you take still exist independently of his knowledge.

There is no intervention happening. The only way for free will in this scenario to be violated and proved to not exist is if there is active intervention which results in the choices and therefore, your personal will becoming irrelevant.

That saying doesnt give your argument anymore validity. It only reinforces the Christian view of god being all knowing.

 

[Lev Peshkov]

@john2 you see I agree with this what's ur counter?

 

[Blackout.xl]

@john2 you see I agree with this what's ur counter?

See my reply to it

 

[Lev Peshkov]

See my reply to it

Oki let me read this, I'm enjoying this debate tbh. I never really get to discuss my viewsb

 

[Deleted member 3323]

I obviously get what you’re saying, It’s not that I don’t follow, it’s that I disagree with this interpretation of knowing / time.

The definition of free will is that you are able to have control over your actions. Even if god knows what will happen and the thoughts you will have, the actions you take still exist independently of his knowledge.

There is no intervention happening. The only way for free will in this scenario to be violated and proved to not exist is if there is active intervention which results in the choices and therefore, your personal will becoming irrelevant.

That saying doesnt give your argument anymore validity. It only reinforces the Christian view of god being all knowing.

We just have different definitions of free will.

 

[Blackout.xl]

We just have different definitions of free will.

I see. What’s your definition?

 

[Patriot]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

Well, interesting but this is based on the monistic materialism or naturalism.
In Abrahamic religions (which pursue dualism of reality) God is "otherworldly" or whatever is the proper english term, He does not dwell in this reality.

 

[Deleted member 3323]

I see. What’s your definition?

The pre-determinist view that no matter what you do it was already set in stone because time is linear all that will happen has already happened. See if I say to myself "I have a big dick because I'm going to use an extender" it has already happened, just in another place and time it's just awaiting it's time to reveal itself. How does this relate to free will? Well if I make a choice and it has a certain outcome and I can't change that outcome is it really free will? It gets more complicated. All the choices I make will have an outcome to which I cant change and that to me is not having free will.

There's also genetics. I didn't choose my genetics nor did I choose to be born, I didn't choose what interests I have, I didn't choose the environment I'm in and even if I chose a certain job it was just a product of the environment and genetics I didn't choose to have and it will only produce an outcome I can't change.

 

[Blackout.xl]

The pre-determinist view that no matter what you do it was already set in stone because time is linear all that will happen has already happened. See if I say to myself "I have a big dick because I'm going to use an extender" it has already happened, just in another place and time it's just awaiting it's time to reveal itself. How does this relate to free will? Well if I make a choice and it has a certain outcome and I can't change that outcome is it really free will? It gets more complicated. All the choices I make will have an outcome to which I cant change and that to me is not having free will.

There's also genetics. I didn't choose my genetics nor did I choose to be born, I didn't choose what interests I have, I didn't choose the environment I'm in and even if I chose a certain job it was just a product of the environment and genetics I didn't choose to have and it will only produce an outcome I can't change.

I see.

 

[john2]

We just have different definitions of free will.

Both you and @Blackout.xl are discussing about omniscience considering the fact that Calvinism is true, which is a doctrine in Christianity which supports the complete omniscience of God.

I'm pretty sure Blackout.xl argues in support of Arminianism, indicating that libertarian free will exists (at the same time God is sovereign)...

e.g. - if i give someone the choice to eat a dead rat or a pizza... i'm pretty sure the person will choose pizza over the rat. Why? It's because it's an educated guess, considering the person's nature and tastes.

But does that completely eliminate the possibility of the person ending up eating the rat instead of the pizza?
No it doesn't.
He still physically has the choice and ability to eat the rat rather than the pizza.

@john2 you see I agree with this what's ur counter?

I've had a divine encounter of God, so I wouldn't want to simply disclose it here where people are arguing over the existence of a 'God' or a 'spiritual realm/world'... since it wouldn't be appropriate. But I agree with blackout.xl's answers ITT.