God doesn't exist

[LTNUser]

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate

 

[LTNUser]

Bump

 

[The Dark Phoenix]

Dnr shit thread

 

[LTNUser]

Dnr shit thread

Leave it if you find it shit

 

[holy]

I'm down. What's on your mind? Why do you think God doesn't exist (aside from the Bible)?

 

[The Dark Phoenix]

Leave it if you find it shit

No its so shit i had to comment how shit it is

 

[LTNUser]

No its so shit i had to comment how shit it is

Ok if u find this shit,you can just leave this thread

 

[The Dark Phoenix]

Ok if u find this shit,you can just leave this thread

No i cant without letting you know

 

[LTNUser]

I'm down. What's on your mind? Why do you think God doesn't exist (aside from the Bible)?

If God exists and he is righteous,won't evil cease?

 

[LTNUser]

No i cant without letting you know

Ok dude now I know,you may leave

 

[The Dark Phoenix]

Ok dude now I know,you may leave

Good, stop making these shit threads

 

[cobicado901]

If God exists and he is righteous,won't evil cease?

“High IQ argument”, look at this @org3cel.RR

 

[LTNUser]

Good, stop making these shit threads

I'm not debating you
God doesn't exist

 

[IHATEINDIANS]

Dnr

 

[Andremln]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

I summon you.

 

[LTNUser]

Dnr

Ok

 

[LTNUser]

@holy where u gone bro I'm waiting for ur reply

 

[holy]

@holy where u gone bro I'm waiting for ur reply

"Problem of Evil" argument already? Alright.

But there's a major logical flaw here.

You're assuming that a righteous God must eliminate all evil immediately. But, take a second to consider this: if you're a parent and your child is learning to walk, do you stop them from ever falling? No. Why? Because falling and getting back up is part of learning and growing stronger.

Evil exists partially because free will exists. If God eliminated all possibility of evil, we'd basically be robots: pre-programmed to only do good with no ACTUAL choice in the matter. Would that be true righteousness, or just forced compliance?

Plus, how do we define what's "righteous"? From our limited human perspective, suffering might seem purely evil. But sometimes what appears evil in the short term serves a greater purpose, like chemotherapy seeming cruel but ultimately saving lives.

Your argument assumes you know what a "righteous" God should do. That's like an ant trying to understand why humans build cities. Our perspective might be too limited to grasp the full picture.

Does this disprove God? Or does it just show that our human logic might be too simplistic to fully understand a divine being's reasoning?

 

[holy]

But, aside from that, can you also respond to my previous argument:

Alright. Let's say: God doesn't exist.

Cool. Now, where do we base our moral framework on?

Evolution? Eh, that's weak.

Evolution selects for SURVIVAL, not truth or morality. Your moral intuitions are just chemical reactions that helped your ancestors survive. That's it. There's no truth value there.

Human well-being?

Okay, but WHY should we care about human wellbeing in a purposeless universe? Why is human wellbeing more important than, say, viral wellbeing? A virus just wants to reproduce and thrive - in a purely materialistic framework, how is that any less valid than human flourishing? You'd just be smuggling in values you can't justify.

Using reason to justify morality?

Reason is a TOOL, not a SOURCE. Reason can tell you how to get what you want, but it can't tell you what you SHOULD want. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is" - that's basic philosophy. Science can tell you what WILL happen if you torture a child, but it can't tell you that you SHOULDN'T do it.

Society?

Really? So when the majority of society supported slavery, was that moral? When Nazi Germany decided Jews were subhuman, was that moral? See how quick that falls apart? You can't base objective morality on subjective human opinions. That's just moral relativism with extra steps.

Well, if we can't base our morality on ANY of this, how can we say

- "The Holocaust was objectively wrong"
- "Human rights are universal"
- "We should fight against injustice"

when these, in a purely godless universe, are just meaningless?

They're just preferences, like preferring chocolate over vanilla.

The Holocaust wasn't "wrong". It was just atoms moving around.
Human rights aren't "universal". They're just made up concepts.
Injustice isn't "real". It's just stuff happening that you don't like.

You want to know what's really telling?
The fact that people who believe God doesn't exist live like objective morality exists. They get genuinely angry at injustice. They fight for human rights. They condemn evil. They're living in direct contradiction to their worldview.

The only way to ground objective morality is in a transcendent source - God.
Oh, but it's not God? Then, we're just left with:

1. Arbitrary social conventions
2. Personal preferences
3. Evolutionary programming
4. Chemical reactions in the brain

None of these can provide the universal, objective moral framework that you appeal to when making moral arguments. You're sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

 

[LTNUser]

Wait I'm reading it

 

[Swarthy Knight]

“High IQ argument”, look at this @org3cel.RR

He has a point doe

 

[cobicado901]

He has a point doe

Problem of evil has been debunked 100 times in this forum. He said he had high IQ arguments in another thread and he’s upset at me because I told another nigga his age.

 

[pprimus43]

"Problem of Evil" argument already? Alright.

But there's a major logical flaw here.

You're assuming that a righteous God must eliminate all evil immediately. But, take a second to consider this: if you're a parent and your child is learning to walk, do you stop them from ever falling? No. Why? Because falling and getting back up is part of learning and growing stronger.

Evil exists partially because free will exists. If God eliminated all possibility of evil, we'd basically be robots: pre-programmed to only do good with no ACTUAL choice in the matter. Would that be true righteousness, or just forced compliance?

Plus, how do we define what's "righteous"? From our limited human perspective, suffering might seem purely evil. But sometimes what appears evil in the short term serves a greater purpose, like chemotherapy seeming cruel but ultimately saving lives.

Your argument assumes you know what a "righteous" God should do. That's like an ant trying to understand why humans build cities. Our perspective might be too limited to grasp the full picture.

Does this disprove God? Or does it just show that our human logic might be too simplistic to fully understand a divine being's reasoning?

You are high IQ.

 

[holy]

You are high IQ.

Thanks, but i'm really not. The argument itself is pretty shitty.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

I summon you.

I’m. Currently sick rn so even though summoned I can’t use my brain

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

If God exists and he is righteous,won't evil cease?

Evil exists because of free will. Evil has no ontological existence this is something many GAYthiests like yourself seem to not understand. Instead evil is the deprivation of good and if god is goood and holy then anything contrary to him is by definition “evil”

What a cringe and easy thing to debunk ahahaha

And I wanna make it clear only Christian God is real the others are false

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Problem of evil has been debunked 100 times in this forum. He said he had high IQ arguments in another thread and he’s upset at me because I told another nigga his age.

It’s the go to GAYtheist argument which predisposes what “evil” is which is hilarious when you factor in that GAYtheists can’t actually explain what evil is considering their worldview leaves everything as subjective so they literally can’t say what is objectively evil.

So if I rape a woman an GAYtheist can’t call me “evil” for they have no standard by which they can objectively validate and justify “evil”

@holy you gave a good go but stick to using philosophy to destroy GAYtheist arguments it’s literally their Kryptonite

 

[Mosh12]

God exists but it's within us. The Jewish view of God makes more sense tbh
Panentheism

 

[我需要阴部]

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate

Okay

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

God exists but it's within us. The Jewish view of God makes more sense tbh
Panentheism

If we are all god then nothing is god… nonsensical.

God isn’t “within” us. Now it’s true the Holy Spirit makes an abode in those who a huge theosis but not in the sense your making .

If god is within us that implies we are equal to his essense which makes everything god and therefore meaningless

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

My favourite topic.

Explain to me why god (assuming classical theistic Yahweh) is true/real.

 

[Patrick Star]

based

 

[cobicado901]

Where’s the debate?????

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

"Problem of Evil" argument already? Alright.

But there's a major logical flaw here.

You're assuming that a righteous God must eliminate all evil immediately. But, take a second to consider this: if you're a parent and your child is learning to walk, do you stop them from ever falling? No. Why? Because falling and getting back up is part of learning and growing stronger.

Evil exists partially because free will exists. If God eliminated all possibility of evil, we'd basically be robots: pre-programmed to only do good with no ACTUAL choice in the matter. Would that be true righteousness, or just forced compliance?

Plus, how do we define what's "righteous"? From our limited human perspective, suffering might seem purely evil. But sometimes what appears evil in the short term serves a greater purpose, like chemotherapy seeming cruel but ultimately saving lives.

Your argument assumes you know what a "righteous" God should do. That's like an ant trying to understand why humans build cities. Our perspective might be too limited to grasp the full picture.

Does this disprove God? Or does it just show that our human logic might be too simplistic to fully understand a divine being's reasoning?

A better response would be highlighting how love and suffering/evil are not mutually exclusive.
Love does not preclude suffering necessarily, suffering does not negate love. E.g., parental love, martyrdom, and sacrifice, are all forms where boh are intertwined.

However, the problem of evil tries to outline theological incompatibility of love and suffering in co-existence under an omnibenevolent deity. It isn't "suffering" in general, it is NEEDLESS suffering. We can ignore humans and spiritual development, do you know what gratuitous suffering is? For example, a deer, alone in a forest, having its legs crushed by a tree, and subsequently starving and bleeding as it writhes in agony before either succumbing to its injury or being eaten alive by a fox or bear. Why is this necessary? How does this outline God's love for his creations? How does this benefit humans? And more importantly, could he not have made this not so, seeing as he is omnipotent? Omnipotence means all powerful, i.e. prevention of suffering without compromising greater good.

Free will as an argument is invalid for the following reasons:
- Determinism
- God's omnipotence again would allow creation of a world where humans are free but naturally inclined towards good, or having a limited capacity for evil without violating free will.
- Assumes all suffering is a result of human choice, which it isn't. Whether we take my deer example, diseases, natural disasters, or mere accidents.
- Total free will isn't needed for moral agency.

Souls as an argument are equally invalid:
- Genocide, torture, and the suffering of infants doesn't really provide moral development, nor can we prove the existence of souls. Also, animals do not have any.

Heaven/Judgement Day related responses:
- Delayed justice is inadequate considering contemporary suffering. Why are we trying to compensate with future rectification when God could just.. stop the initial suffering? Is it justifiable to permit suffering for a future goal if unnecessary to achieve it?
- Justified by an afterlife makes the love conditional.

Any comments on infallibility or incomprehensibility is a fallacious appeal to mystery, so I frankly do not care.

 

[Klasik616]

"Problem of Evil" argument already? Alright.

But there's a major logical flaw here.

You're assuming that a righteous God must eliminate all evil immediately. But, take a second to consider this: if you're a parent and your child is learning to walk, do you stop them from ever falling? No. Why? Because falling and getting back up is part of learning and growing stronger.

Evil exists partially because free will exists. If God eliminated all possibility of evil, we'd basically be robots: pre-programmed to only do good with no ACTUAL choice in the matter. Would that be true righteousness, or just forced compliance?

Plus, how do we define what's "righteous"? From our limited human perspective, suffering might seem purely evil. But sometimes what appears evil in the short term serves a greater purpose, like chemotherapy seeming cruel but ultimately saving lives.

Your argument assumes you know what a "righteous" God should do. That's like an ant trying to understand why humans build cities. Our perspective might be too limited to grasp the full picture.

Does this disprove God? Or does it just show that our human logic might be too simplistic to fully understand a divine being's reasoning?

Ofc this doesn't disprove God as I've said in other threads discussing the relationship between morality and ontology. But your argument doesn't support itself, you're saying "idk but God might see it differently" that's not an argument. Then why God cannot act agaisnt free will (which is supposed to be the beggining of what's right or wrong); what I would say is: this free will humans have has no direction, proving why commiting "good or bad" doesn't matter, and therefore the relationship between God and morality is not necessary. The power humans have to decide their future requires no God. Christiancels would never admit "God and Satan" have the same power and for that reason free will exists, they would just say "God is the path of good" and why the other path exists? (if exists) We began with absurd metaphysical discussions because they think morality is linked to ontology.

 

[holy]

Ofc this doesn't disprove God as I've said in other threads discussing the relationship between morality and ontology. But your argument doesn't support itself, you're saying "idk but God might see it differently" that's not an argument. Then why God cannot act agaisnt free will (which is supposed to be the beggining of what's right or wrong); what I would say is: this free will humans have has no direction, proving why commiting "good or bad" doesn't matter, and therefore the relationship between God and morality is not necessary. The power humans have to decide their future requires no God. Christiancels would never admit "God and Satan" have the same power and for that reason free will exists, they would just say "God is the path of good" and why the other path exists? (if exists) We began with absurd metaphysical discussions because they think morality is linked to ontology.

Your response is actually self-defeating.

"This free will humans have has no direction, proving why committing good or bad doesn't matter"

Hold up. You just destroyed your own initial premise.

If good and bad don't matter, then your original complaint about evil existing becomes meaningless.

You can't simultaneously argue that:

1. God should eliminate evil because it's wrong
2. Good and evil don't actually matter

Pick a lane.

"The power humans have to decide their future requires no God"

You're making massive assumptions here:

- That free will can exist without a metaphysical grounding
- That consciousness just popped into existence from matter
- That moral agency doesn't need a foundation

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too - wanting objective morality while denying its necessary foundation.
If there's no God, then "evil" is just a human construct, and your original complaint about evil existing becomes meaningless.

Also, you completely mischaracterized the "God might see it differently" argument. It's not "idk lol maybe God has reasons." It's pointing out the logical impossibility of a finite being fully comprehending an infinite being's reasoning. That's not a cop-out - it's basic logic. You don't need to understand quantum mechanics to use a smartphone.

Your argument is basically:
1. Evil exists
2. This is bad
3. Therefore God doesn't exist
4. But also good and evil don't matter
5. But they matter enough to disprove God

See the problem?

 

[holy]

A better response would be highlighting how love and suffering/evil are not mutually exclusive.
Love does not preclude suffering necessarily, suffering does not negate love. E.g., parental love, martyrdom, and sacrifice, are all forms where boh are intertwined.

However, the problem of evil tries to outline theological incompatibility of love and suffering in co-existence under an omnibenevolent deity. It isn't "suffering" in general, it is NEEDLESS suffering. We can ignore humans and spiritual development, do you know what gratuitous suffering is? For example, a deer, alone in a forest, having its legs crushed by a tree, and subsequently starving and bleeding as it writhes in agony before either succumbing to its injury or being eaten alive by a fox or bear. Why is this necessary? How does this outline God's love for his creations? How does this benefit humans? And more importantly, could he not have made this not so, seeing as he is omnipotent? Omnipotence means all powerful, i.e. prevention of suffering without compromising greater good.

Free will as an argument is invalid for the following reasons:
- Determinism
- God's omnipotence again would allow creation of a world where humans are free but naturally inclined towards good, or having a limited capacity for evil without violating free will.
- Assumes all suffering is a result of human choice, which it isn't. Whether we take my deer example, diseases, natural disasters, or mere accidents.
- Total free will isn't needed for moral agency.

Souls as an argument are equally invalid:
- Genocide, torture, and the suffering of infants doesn't really provide moral development, nor can we prove the existence of souls. Also, animals do not have any.

Heaven/Judgement Day related responses:
- Delayed justice is inadequate considering contemporary suffering. Why are we trying to compensate with future rectification when God could just.. stop the initial suffering? Is it justifiable to permit suffering for a future goal if unnecessary to achieve it?
- Justified by an afterlife makes the love conditional.

Any comments on infallibility or incomprehensibility is a fallacious appeal to mystery, so I frankly do not care.

I truly respect you for the taking the time to write this, but personally, I just find this argument to just be dressed-up emotional reasoning.

1. Your deer example is... just childish.

You're basically crying "but nature is mean!" Yeah, no shit. That's how ecosystems work.
Without predation, disease, and death, you don't have:

- natural selection
- evolution
- functioning ecosystems.

What's your alternative? A Disney universe where lions eat tofu and nothing dies?
Like, come on.

2. You claim God could create a world with free will but "naturally inclined towards good."

I'm sorry, but that's a fucking contradiction.
Either we have REAL free will, or we're programmed with inclinations.
Pick one. You can't have both.

3. "Determinism"

If you're arguing determinism, then this whole debate is predetermined and meaningless anyway.
You can't use determinism to argue against God while simultaneously making moral judgments that require free will to be meaningful.

4. "Delayed justice is inadequate"

Says who? You? Based on what standard?
If God exists outside time (which omnipotence would suggest), then there's no "delay". It's all happening simultaneously from that perspective. You're applying human time constraints to a theoretically timeless being.

5. "Total free will isn't needed for moral agency" .

Prove it.
Show me a system where partial free will creates genuine moral choice.
I'll wait.

Your entire argument is basically "I don't like how the universe works, therefore God can't exist.", which isn't logic but, again, dressed-up emotional reasoning.
And, this all boils down to you saying "I can imagine a better universe." Can you? Really? You think you've figured out a better way to structure reality than billions of years of evolution? That's some peak human arrogance right there.

 

[persuss]

 

[Klasik616]

Your response is actually self-defeating.

"This free will humans have has no direction, proving why committing good or bad doesn't matter"

Hold up. You just destroyed your own initial premise.

If good and bad don't matter, then your original complaint about evil existing becomes meaningless.

You can't simultaneously argue that:

1. God should eliminate evil because it's wrong
2. Good and evil don't actually matter

Pick a lane.



You're making massive assumptions here:

- That free will can exist without a metaphysical grounding
- That consciousness just popped into existence from matter
- That moral agency doesn't need a foundation

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too - wanting objective morality while denying its necessary foundation.
If there's no God, then "evil" is just a human construct, and your original complaint about evil existing becomes meaningless.

Also, you completely mischaracterized the "God might see it differently" argument. It's not "idk lol maybe God has reasons." It's pointing out the logical impossibility of a finite being fully comprehending an infinite being's reasoning. That's not a cop-out - it's basic logic. You don't need to understand quantum mechanics to use a smartphone.

Your argument is basically:
1. Evil exists
2. This is bad
3. Therefore God doesn't exist
4. But also good and evil don't matter
5. But they matter enough to disprove God

See the problem?

Never said evil exists. Never said God didn't exist because evil exists. I don't think both good and evil are ontological. But your argument that we cannot comprehend an infinite being cus we live in a "finite world" has so many flaws too: you suppose mind can perceive something that is outside the possibilites of thinking, calling it a God. That's just not possible because you are rejecting the notion that we can know what God is, therefore making his existence meaningless. You suppose other infinite world exists ahead of what we know. You think consciousness not only on humans but all animals is not a product of biology happening but probably "a soul system" since we cannot explain how the phenomenoms of conscience occur. If you wanna prove the existence of something, morality is not the way of doing it. Because morality is human and only human, not animal and not trascendental, and morality changes as societies change also. When God doesn't exist, free will has no sense since God didn't had to choose to leave free will to humans, but this argument leaves a question about morality: if free will exists, then good and bad exists, what's bad couldn't come from God. So why do humans have "free will". This term is a blockage, humans have freedom.

 

[holy]

Never said evil exists. Never said God didn't exist because evil exists. I don't think both good and evil are ontological. But your argument that we cannot comprehend an infinite being cus we live in a "finite world" has so many flaws too: you suppose mind can perceive something that is outside the possibilites of thinking, calling it a God. That's just not possible because you are rejecting the notion that we can know what God is, therefore making his existence meaningless. You suppose other infinite world exists ahead of what we know. You think consciousness not only on humans but all animals is not a product of biology happening but probably "a soul system" since we cannot explain how the phenomenoms of conscience occur. If you wanna prove the existence of something, morality is not the way of doing it. Because morality is human and only human, not animal and not trascendental, and morality changes as societies change also. When God doesn't exist, free will has no sense since God didn't had to choose to leave free will to humans, but this argument leaves a question about morality: if free will exists, then good and bad exists, what's bad couldn't come from God. So why do humans have "free will". This term is a blockage, humans have freedom.

Dude, this response is even WORSE than the first one.

1. "Never said evil exists"

THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT??

Your entire chain of responses has been about:

- Morality
- good/evil
- and God's relationship to them.

You can't backpedal now.

2. "You suppose mind can perceive something outside possibilities of thinking"

No, that's not the argument. Like, at all.

We can conceive of and reason about things we can't fully comprehend.
We do it in mathematics all the time.
I can understand what infinity means conceptually without being able to count to it.

3. "Morality is human and only human, not animal"

Demonstrably false.

We observe moral behaviors in numerous species:

- Altruism
- Reciprocity
- Fairness

Basic research would show you this.

4. "When God doesn't exist, free will has no sense"

FINALLY, something we agree on.

But you immediately contradict yourself by saying

"humans have freedom."

Freedom from what? Based on what?
In a purely materialistic universe, you're just meat running on chemical reactions.

Your argument has devolved into:

- Morality is purely human
- But also it doesn't exist
- Free will makes no sense without God
- But humans have freedom
- We can't comprehend infinite things
- But we can definitively say God doesn't exist

You're not making philosophical arguments anymore but just throwing contradictory statements at the wall hoping something sticks.
Stick to a coherent position, dude, holy shit.

 

[ngannou]

Believe in Jesus Christ than you shall be saved from sins

 

[Klasik616]

Dude, this response is even WORSE than the first one.



THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT??

Your entire chain of responses has been about:

- Morality
- good/evil
- and God's relationship to them.

You can't backpedal now.



No, that's not the argument. Like, at all.

We can conceive of and reason about things we can't fully comprehend.
We do it in mathematics all the time.
I can understand what infinity means conceptually without being able to count to it.



Demonstrably false.

We observe moral behaviors in numerous species:

- Altruism
- Reciprocity
- Fairness

Basic research would show you this.



FINALLY, something we agree on.

But you immediately contradict yourself by saying



Freedom from what? Based on what?
In a purely materialistic universe, you're just meat running on chemical reactions.

Your argument has devolved into:

- Morality is purely human
- But also it doesn't exist
- Free will makes no sense without God
- But humans have freedom
- We can't comprehend infinite things
- But we can definitively say God doesn't exist

You're not making philosophical arguments anymore but just throwing contradictory statements at the wall hoping something sticks.
Stick to a coherent position, dude, holy shit.

Animals don't have morals because they don't have intentions, human actions are intentional. Just by believing something is moral or inmoral is a sign of intentionality, animals don't have it. They can't know if they're being altruistic because these concepts come from society, and mostly from the christian religion that expanded to Rome.

And I'm not talking about evil because I don't believe in God and your supposed "objective morality", if morality is not objective then good and bad doesn't exist. So it leaves the existence of God for other questions like if we can prove the existence of something just by thinking of it. Math and God are not the same type of beings, when you talk about philosophy of math I'm not sure if you consider that the things you think are entities living in the world. Well, according to christianism God is not in this world cus this world "is finite" (then why we depend on it? Lol). The things you learn in math don't have a definition cus math doesn't reach you about objects in reality (the same goes to God, he doesn't exist because he is not possible to define).

I believe in a non ontological morality because humans act based on values, norms and emotions/feelings. None of these things are ultimate, they change according to communities. Some communities are more selfish, others are more altruistic. Some people have empathy, some don't. Some people are responsible, some don't and so on. This has nothing to do with the ontological existence of "good and bad".

About freedom "in this pure materialistic world" you act based on the needs your body has (oh wow no one knew this), so if you get drunk and you kill someone you're still going to jail even though "I didn't had the freedom to behave correctly", yes you had. Even when I am forced to do stuff, I still have the freedom to try to not do it but my decision could be different. If I like a girl, even though I like her I decide not to try.

 

[got.daim]

dnr fuck you just because God doesn't act how you want him to doesn't mean he's not real, fuck you let me believe in my God don't quote my shit

 

[tanblueyes]

I feel like you say this because of the burden of your sins.

 

[holy]

Animals don't have morals because they don't have intentions, human actions are intentional. Just by believing something is moral or inmoral is a sign of intentionality, animals don't have it. They can't know if they're being altruistic because these concepts come from society, and mostly from the christian religion that expanded to Rome.

And I'm not talking about evil because I don't believe in God and your supposed "objective morality", if morality is not objective then good and bad doesn't exist. So it leaves the existence of God for other questions like if we can prove the existence of something just by thinking of it. Math and God are not the same type of beings, when you talk about philosophy of math I'm not sure if you consider that the things you think are entities living in the world. Well, according to christianism God is not in this world cus this world "is finite" (then why we depend on it? Lol). The things you learn in math don't have a definition cus math doesn't reach you about objects in reality (the same goes to God, he doesn't exist because he is not possible to define).

I believe in a non ontological morality because humans act based on values, norms and emotions/feelings. None of these things are ultimate, they change according to communities. Some communities are more selfish, others are more altruistic. Some people have empathy, some don't. Some people are responsible, some don't and so on. This has nothing to do with the ontological existence of "good and bad".

About freedom "in this pure materialistic world" you act based on the needs your body has (oh wow no one knew this), so if you get drunk and you kill someone you're still going to jail even though "I didn't had the freedom to behave correctly", yes you had. Even when I am forced to do stuff, I still have the freedom to try to not do it but my decision could be different. If I like a girl, even though I like her I decide not to try.

At this point, your arguments keep getting fucking worse that it just pains me to type on my keyboard to even respond to this bullshit.

"Animals don't have intentions"

Have you ever even owned a pet? This is embarrassingly wrong.
Animals plan, deceive, show intentional behavior constantly.

So:

- A cat waiting to ambush isn't intentional?
- A crow using tools isn't intentional?

This is the kind of shitty argument you make when your entire understanding of animal behavior comes from philosophy 101 textbooks instead of actual science.

"These concepts come from society, mostly from Christian religion that expanded to Rome"

Jesus Christ, crack open a history book.
Moral philosophy existed WAY before Christianity. Ever heard of:

- Confucius?
- Buddha?
- Ancient Egyptian moral codes?

You're not only wrong but historically illiterate.
But, honestly, where we currently are, it really doesn't surprise me.


And, your math argument is pure nonsense.

"Math doesn't reach you about objects in reality"?

Really? Can you tell that to:

- Physicists
- Engineers

Your phone works because of math describing reality, dumbass.

"I believe in non ontological morality because humans act based on values"

You're describing psychology, not morality. If morality is just whatever people feel like, then you can't claim ANYTHING is wrong.

- Hitler? Just different values!
- Stalin? Different community norms!

See how fucking stupid this gets?

"Even when I am forced to do stuff, I still have the freedom to try to not do it"

This is literally word salad.

You're trying to have determinism and free will at the same time. It's like saying "This circle is square but also circular!"

You're not making even making philosophical arguments anymore (Not that you made any to begin with). You're basically making freshman dorm room "deep thoughts" after too many bong hits. You're contradicting yourself every other sentence while somehow managing to be condescending AND wrong at the same time.

I'll engage with you on these ideas if you JUST start by:

1. Learning basic biology
2. Reading some actual history
3. Understanding what words mean before using them
4. Picking ONE coherent position and sticking to it

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

I truly respect you for the taking the time to write this, but personally, I just find this argument to just be dressed-up emotional reasoning.

1. Your deer example is... just childish.

You're basically crying "but nature is mean!" Yeah, no shit. That's how ecosystems work.
Without predation, disease, and death, you don't have:

- natural selection
- evolution
- functioning ecosystems.

What's your alternative? A Disney universe where lions eat tofu and nothing dies?
Like, come on.

2. You claim God could create a world with free will but "naturally inclined towards good."

I'm sorry, but that's a fucking contradiction.
Either we have REAL free will, or we're programmed with inclinations.
Pick one. You can't have both.

3. "Determinism"

If you're arguing determinism, then this whole debate is predetermined and meaningless anyway.
You can't use determinism to argue against God while simultaneously making moral judgments that require free will to be meaningful.

4. "Delayed justice is inadequate"

Says who? You? Based on what standard?
If God exists outside time (which omnipotence would suggest), then there's no "delay". It's all happening simultaneously from that perspective. You're applying human time constraints to a theoretically timeless being.

5. "Total free will isn't needed for moral agency" .

Prove it.
Show me a system where partial free will creates genuine moral choice.
I'll wait.

Your entire argument is basically "I don't like how the universe works, therefore God can't exist.", which isn't logic but, again, dressed-up emotional reasoning.
And, this all boils down to you saying "I can imagine a better universe." Can you? Really? You think you've figured out a better way to structure reality than billions of years of evolution? That's some peak human arrogance right there.

1. No appeal to emotion. Gratuitous suffering means, by definition, pointless. God created the natural processes you say suffering functions towards, but that is not something that has to be so. For example, predators being designed to conduct quick and humane deaths, having natural pain-suppression mechanisms during predation, having reproduction rates matching resources so you don't need die-offs or kin predation to reduce the demand, emphasis on symbiosis amongst organisms, non-painful ecosystemic mechanisms such as natural sterility under resource scarcity, having ecosystems that rely on detritivores and autotrophy over carnivorousness, reduction of natural disasters and droughts - you do not need mass starvation to prompt migration or adaptation, mutations and genetic changes leading to gradual adaption rather than suffering of the less-fit, God making animals with in-built adaptability mechanisms so there is no need for trial and error natural selection, etc.

Lion example was a slippery slope fallacy, use your brain.

2. Being naturally inclined doesn't remove your opinion, false dichotomy here between "ultimate choice" and totalitarianism. You are frequently put in situations in life in which you are inclined to do something. E.g., cultural emphasis on health will exemplify your reluctance to consume a slice of cake, yet you can choose to do so anyway.

I am a determinist though, I do not believe in free will, if you want me to prove it to you logically, feel free to ask.

3. I was arguing from a non-determinist point of view to provide you with objections that didn't hinge on it in case you showed unwavering disapproval.
You do not know what determinism is if you presuppose it's lack of value and invalidation of moral judgement. This argumentation could not have been otherwise, but I do not know the future, so you may well be subject to the cause and effect of this conversation and be convinced by it. Or you will not change your mind, as this was set in stone based on your neurology and evironment, I do not know. Regardless of whether free will exists, discussing and refining ideas improves knowledge to guide your FUTURE behaviour.

Under my deterministic worldview, morality is a set of rules or behaviours promoting social wellbeing (basic principle of evolutionary psychology). Decisions people make against this framework are still meaningful as they impact the causal chain to produce negative consequences, hence why I would guide people into NOT doing such actions. Responsibility is not withdrawn, but redefined, hence why I focus on rehabilitation as people's decisions are based on internal neurological factors and/or how they are shaped and influenced by their environment.

As a result of my determinist worldview, if God created the universe and it is all a result of cause and effect, he is entirely at fault for the outcomes of it. So why would he create a system like such that allows/necessitates gratuitous suffering?

4. God's atemporality is NOT relevant as his justice needs to be meaningful within OUR lived experiences as WE are the ones suffering, and empathy requires handling when suffering occurs. If you delay justice, it is failing its primary purpose inherently. If it occurs in the afterlife, it does not repair or stop the suffering lost in our material world, does not deter against harm, and does not present any real sense of fairness (especially to those who are not going to end up in the afterlife).

Additionally, if God created a world where time and suffering exist, should the aforementioned justice not operate in a way that aligns with said time? We cannot access the timeless state of God.

Regardless, afterlife justice is not proven, so it would not be a very reasonable thing to respond to my objections with.

5. Grant a non-deterministic framework, observe:

- You are influenced by your upbringing and social pressures (social environment), biology (neurology/brain chemicals), and the physical stimuli (environment).
- Your decision is at least partially influenced by these factors, therefore operating under constraints you cannot control.
- You have the capacity to reflect on influences and make choices, you are morally responsible for your final deliberation.

In syllogistic form:

P1: Moral agency requires the ability to deliberate informatively.
P2: Partial free will allows informative deliberation regardless of constraints.
Conclusion: Partial free will is sufficient for moral agency.

6. The closing statement you gave me is riddled with fallacious argumentation. At no point did I mention "I do not like the universe", I was making observation-based objections to your claim that a God operates this world by targeting exclusively free-will and morality based claims (we can go into teleology and cosmology if you wish). I was questioning how an omni God (specifically omnibenevolent and omnipotent) could coexist with a world of gratuitous suffering. Philosophical critique =/= "emotional reasoning".

Whether or not I can propose my own universal model down to the finest detail of ecosystemic processes is completely besides the point by directing the conversation elsewhere, although it would be valid of me to do so anyway. Suggesting a universe with less suffering as an objection has no bearing on my ego.

 

[Mosh12]

God exists but it's within us. The Jewish view of God makes more sense tbh
Panentheism

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

T

God exists but it's within us. The Jewish view of God makes more sense tbh
Panentheism

Panentheism just reduces God to a natural force.

 

[kasrkin]

I don't think you can fix backwards muslims

 

[holy]

1. No appeal to emotion. Gratuitous suffering means, by definition, pointless. God created the natural processes you say suffering functions towards, but that is not something that has to be so. For example, predators being designed to conduct quick and humane deaths, having natural pain-suppression mechanisms during predation, having reproduction rates matching resources so you don't need die-offs or kin predation to reduce the demand, emphasis on symbiosis amongst organisms, non-painful ecosystemic mechanisms such as natural sterility under resource scarcity, having ecosystems that rely on detritivores and autotrophy over carnivorousness, reduction of natural disasters and droughts - you do not need mass starvation to prompt migration or adaptation, mutations and genetic changes leading to gradual adaption rather than suffering of the less-fit, God making animals with in-built adaptability mechanisms so there is no need for trial and error natural selection, etc.

Lion example was a slippery slope fallacy, use your brain.

2. Being naturally inclined doesn't remove your opinion, false dichotomy here between "ultimate choice" and totalitarianism. You are frequently put in situations in life in which you are inclined to do something. E.g., cultural emphasis on health will exemplify your reluctance to consume a slice of cake, yet you can choose to do so anyway.

I am a determinist though, I do not believe in free will, if you want me to prove it to you logically, feel free to ask.

3. I was arguing from a non-determinist point of view to provide you with objections that didn't hinge on it in case you showed unwavering disapproval.
You do not know what determinism is if you presuppose it's lack of value and invalidation of moral judgement. This argumentation could not have been otherwise, but I do not know the future, so you may well be subject to the cause and effect of this conversation and be convinced by it. Or you will not change your mind, as this was set in stone based on your neurology and evironment, I do not know. Regardless of whether free will exists, discussing and refining ideas improves knowledge to guide your FUTURE behaviour.

Under my deterministic worldview, morality is a set of rules or behaviours promoting social wellbeing (basic principle of evolutionary psychology). Decisions people make against this framework are still meaningful as they impact the causal chain to produce negative consequences, hence why I would guide people into NOT doing such actions. Responsibility is not withdrawn, but redefined, hence why I focus on rehabilitation as people's decisions are based on internal neurological factors and/or how they are shaped and influenced by their environment.

As a result of my determinist worldview, if God created the universe and it is all a result of cause and effect, he is entirely at fault for the outcomes of it. So why would he create a system like such that allows/necessitates gratuitous suffering?

4. God's atemporality is NOT relevant as his justice needs to be meaningful within OUR lived experiences as WE are the ones suffering, and empathy requires handling when suffering occurs. If you delay justice, it is failing its primary purpose inherently. If it occurs in the afterlife, it does not repair or stop the suffering lost in our material world, does not deter against harm, and does not present any real sense of fairness (especially to those who are not going to end up in the afterlife).

Additionally, if God created a world where time and suffering exist, should the aforementioned justice not operate in a way that aligns with said time? We cannot access the timeless state of God.

Regardless, afterlife justice is not proven, so it would not be a very reasonable thing to respond to my objections with.

5. Grant a non-deterministic framework, observe:

- You are influenced by your upbringing and social pressures (social environment), biology (neurology/brain chemicals), and the physical stimuli (environment).
- Your decision is at least partially influenced by these factors, therefore operating under constraints you cannot control.
- You have the capacity to reflect on influences and make choices, you are morally responsible for your final deliberation.

In syllogistic form:

P1: Moral agency requires the ability to deliberate informatively.
P2: Partial free will allows informative deliberation regardless of constraints.
Conclusion: Partial free will is sufficient for moral agency.

6. The closing statement you gave me is riddled with fallacious argumentation. At no point did I mention "I do not like the universe", I was making observation-based objections to your claim that a God operates this world by targeting exclusively free-will and morality based claims (we can go into teleology and cosmology if you wish). I was questioning how an omni God (specifically omnibenevolent and omnipotent) could coexist with a world of gratuitous suffering. Philosophical critique =/= "emotional reasoning".

Whether or not I can propose my own universal model down to the finest detail of ecosystemic processes is completely besides the point by directing the conversation elsewhere, although it would be valid of me to do so anyway. Suggesting a universe with less suffering as an objection has no bearing on my ego.

A whole manifesto of someone who just discovered philosophical terms trying to sound profound while completely missing the fundamental nature of their own arguments.

1. Your "improved universe" suggestions are so profoundly naive that it genuinely hurts.

You're basically saying:

"just make predators kill humanely, make reproduction match resources perfectly, and have built-in adaptability instead of natural selection"

As if you could just rewrite the fundamental laws of physics, chemistry, and biology without understanding how deeply interconnected these systems are.

It's like watching someone suggest we could solve traffic by making everyone fly, completely oblivious to the cascading consequences of such changes in complex systems.

Your understanding of biological systems is SO surface-level it's painful: you talk about emphasizing symbiosis as if it's not already a fundamental aspect of ecosystems, suggest pain suppression during predation while ignoring the IMPORTANT role of pain in learning and survival, and propose "natural sterility under resource scarcity" without considering HOW that would actually play out in real ecological systems.

2. Your determinism stance is where things get really fucking messy because:

- You're trying to simultaneously argue that everything is determined by prior causes
- AND that God is somehow morally culpable for the universe's design

This is LITERALLY philosophically incoherent on a basic level; if determinism is true, then this universe literally couldn't be any other way, and concepts like "fault" or "should have done differently" become meaningless.

You can't have your deterministic cake and eat your moral responsibility too.

Either:

- We're all just molecules bouncing around inevitably according to physical laws

OR

- There's actual moral agency at play.

3. "partial free will"

What the fuck? This is basically determinism wearing a fake mustache.

You're saying:

- We're influenced by our environment but can still make choices

This is literally just describing determinism with extra steps while trying to preserve moral responsibility through philosophical sleight of hand. Your attempt at a syllogism just smuggles in the assumption of free will in your premises, making the whole thing circular as fuck.

4. The absolute peak of arrogance comes when you declare that "God's justice needs to be meaningful within OUR lived experiences"

Why does an infinite being need to conform to YOUR preferred timeline of justice delivery?
This is the philosophical equivalent of a toddler demanding their punishment happen **RIGHT NOW** because they can't conceptualize longer timeframes.

5. Why do you keep throwing around "gratuitous suffering"?

You haven't actually proven any suffering is truly gratuitous. In fact, all you've done is assert it based on your limited human perspective of complex systems.

"I can't immediately see the purpose of this suffering, therefore it must be purposeless," This is what your whole argument boils down to, which isn't philosophy but just arrogance.

For someone claiming not to make emotional arguments, you sure spent a fuckton of words trying to appeal to how things "should" be based entirely on YOUR feelings about suffering.

Either engage with the actual complexity of these issues, or admit you're just philosophically masturbating with fancy vocabulary.

It's completely FINE to critique the architecture of reality, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you're doing it from a position of profound ignorance about how complex systems actually work.

Your "better universe" suggestions read like a teenager explaining how they'd fix the global economy by just printing more money, technically forming complete sentences but just missing every single important aspect of how things actually function.

Spend less time trying to sound sophisticated by throwing around terms like "syllogistic form" and "omnibenevolent," and more time actually understanding the systems you're criticizing - because right now, you're just showing your whole ass while trying to sound smart.