God doesn't exist

[batteryfresh]

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate

how do you know there is no god

 

[Methylphenidate]

"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?

id like it if I was programmed to be good nigga just saying

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

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.

1. You entirely missed the mark. Interconnected and complex systems don't preclude alternative proposals. Complexity =/= justification of suffering we , if a prey's suffering during predation lasts for extended periods, what benefit does this serve over a quicker death? I am saying "if God can make it so these are not the case". My examples were HYPOTHETICALS to show alternative examples - pain suppression (e.g., greater quantities of endorphins) during predation doesn't deny pain utility elsewhere, it is me asking how prolonged suffering during given death is necessary. Learning through pain is adapative but (A) doesn't apply in given death and (B) could be exchanged with stress signals or instinctual avoidance mechanisms. In relation to gratuitous suffering, I am not claiming how to create a perfect universe, I am enquring towards whether or not the suffering we observe and can experience ourselves can be dispensed without logical breakdown. If you are to assert that all suffering is necessery, you are assuming the burden of proof, keep this in mind.

To conclude, philosophical enquiry doesn't require me to have all-encompassing knowledge on ecosystems. My lack of total knowledge doesn't invalidate the question of "could a different system, designed by God's boundless will, achieve similar outcomes with less suffering?".

2. God is the baseline cause of the universe and, under classical theism, this was a CHOICE. Therefore, as an omnipotent being, all consequences of such decisions become fundamentally ON God.

3. If you read what I said you would know my free will objections were besides determinism as I knew you wouldn't be a determinist. If determinism isn't true and we assume there is free will, which was the foundation of everything other than my syllogism to prove determinism (e.g., here is an objection, and then another objection except this time I am proving determinism) then it is never total free will due to influences out of our control, yet still permits moral agency.

4. You asked me what standard my statement of delayed justice being inadequate what based on. I am telling you they are my standards, or more realistically human time standards, as we are the ones objecting.. because we are the ones suffering? If God is described as providing justice, yet that is only reasonably comprehended and thus a valuable attribute under a human lens, any meaning requires it to be within lived experiences, or else it doesn't repair harm. Delayed justice = indifference to the current endured suffering.

5. Gratuitous suffering is pointless in the sense of no proportionate purpose (refer to my examples of extreme predation or natural disasters). All I have to do is conceive a world that does not have the suffering, shifting the topic to the necessity of the suffering. Let's just take the example of a deer being slowly maimed.

A) Pain acts as a survival mechanism. As I have said before, this has no educative power if they are going to die.
B) Predators often incapacitate prey, yet this can involve suffering. If the end goal is consumption (energy transfer up a trophic level), and not suffering, then it is a byproduct. If it is a byproduct that is purely experiential, which we have already outlined serves no purpose in A), then it is not logically indespensible, and I can imagine a consumption framework in which it does not exist (quick, painless kills).
C) If pain suppression is biologically possible (endorphins, cortisol), why is it not universal or more potent (evolution optimises not perfects traits)?

I apologise for making words complicated I am practicing my vocabulary.

Here is a SYLLOGISM:

P1: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would create a world where all suffering serves a necessary purpose for achieving a greater good.
P2: Gratuitous suffering serves no necessary purpose for an observable greater good or necessary ecological function.
P3: Gratuitous suffering exists.
Concluusion: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Things to consider for the syllogism:
- Burden of proof for hidden purpose.
- Occam's Razor for if you are proposing extra unsubstantiated assumptions to absolve God.
- If suffering exists for an unknown purpose we should find consistent patterns to show its ecological utility.
- We know from ecological research that being eaten alive and experiencing mass starvation doesn't contribute to a predator's success, the evolution of the prey, or an ecosystem's stability in an exclusive manner.
- We already know less harmful methods exist.


As a closing statement to cover your enquiry regarding natural sterility even though it doesn't really have any bearing on my critique, I have done some quick research.
- Species experience reproductive hormone changes based on nutritional health (e.g., LH and FSH reduction during malnutrition).
- Sexual maturity may be delayed when nutritional sources are in scarcity.
- Many species only breed during times of resource abundancy to ensure it isn't immediately used up.
- In social species (wolves, primates), the dominant individuals suppress reproduction through behavioural or hormonal cues.
- Desert rodents reduce litter sizes during droughts.
- Insects might entet reproductive dormancy during resource scarcity.
- Aphids can switch between sexual and asexual reproduction according to environmental changes.

Hope this helped

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

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.


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.


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.

Really? Can you tell that to:

- Physicists
- Engineers

Your phone works because of math describing reality, dumbass.



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?



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

Subjective morality isn't a senseless point of view brother. I can claim things are wrong by grounding them in self evident human psychology (axiomatic desires) or, if you want a more objective standard, survival.


Certain moral principles universally promote survival and well-being, where deviations undermine them. Survival is intrinsic to all living beings, so recognising this and playing into compassion and cooperation ensures the long-term survival humans have always been build to exercise. However, considering the micro level this was on in tribal communities, hence "them versus us" and wars with other societies and, in earlier stages, other strands of the homo genus, we apply these ev psych principles on the macro scale now we have global cooperation.

Frameworks prioritising short-term survival and perpetuation of conflict (resource overexploitation, imperialism, strength/dominance, etc) at the expense of long-term sustainability are counterproductive. Differing views on survival strategies is besides the point as, if people recognise baseline cooperation, mutual aid, and fairness, they will come to a compromise that benefits all parties enough. Societies with pooled resource management will always outlast nomadic, conquest-driven groups.

 

[PsychoH]

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate

He does and i know for sure.

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

how do you know there is no god

Reverse Cosmological Argument (classical monotheism objection which applies here)

Two variations:

Naturalistic Defence (A) vs Theistic Offence (B)

A)
P1: If everything requires a cause, God must also require a cause (otherwise SP Fallacy)
P2: If something can be self-existent or uncaused, the universe could fulfil this role instead of God (Law of Parsimony/Occam's Razor)
Conclusion: Postulating a God as a first cause is an unnecessary additional assumption.

B)
P1: An atemporal being is not subject to time or its flow of cause and effect --> therefore does not experience succession or change.
P2: A temporal act inherently occurs within time (beginning, middle, and end --> flow of cause and effect).
P3: If an atemporal being engages in a temporal act, the act would need to be accessible to time and take place within the time structure, therefore contradictory.
P4: If God, an atemporal being, interacts with the temporal world, his nature must cause him to experience time (contradictory) or a change in the nature of time (philosophical inconsistency).
Conclusion: An atemporal being cannot meaningfully execute or contribute to a temporal act without logical contradictions or inconsistencies, and therefore is incoherent.

Rebuttal to argument from eternality:
- If God is atemporal and sees all moments of time at once, then they are not happening for God as they are happening for us, and therefore not recognising them as causal sequences. Hence why it makes it unclear to use how he could intervene in causal processes which are time-bound (creation of the universe), and thus illogical/incoherent.
- Just because God sees all moments at once does not provide any more clarity on the crossing from atemporality to temporality. The syllogism implies acting within time.

Rebuttal to argument from simultaneity (creation and sustainment, for theists who believe that God is required to keep the universe in operation):
- Creation is temporal, how could it be created by someone who does not engage in a temporal sequence?
- If the act of sustaining time is eternal it must therefore be unchanging and simultaneous with all moments of time. How can God sustain time all at one moment yet have it experience temporal sequences? To simplify: time is experienced as a flow from before to after, God does not experience before and after and is upholding the universe from outside of time, whilst the universe changes to experience time. However, time needs a continuous sustaining force to maintain causal links, God's interaction cannot simply be the initial motion.

The universe experiences causality, with events unfolding one after another in a linear sequence. The issue here is when God is proposed as sustaining everything timelessly whilst time itself has a sequential flow, as he is acting past present future with everything existing in his eternal "now". How can God cause a sequence of events that unfolds over time if it is occurring all at once/if God is outside of time and not experiencing one moment after another.
- Suffering, justice, and morality all require temporal interaction relevant to humans.

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

He does and i know for sure.

Let's hear it.

 

[PsychoH]

Let's hear it.

Was at the low point of my life, seconds away from killing myself.
Out of nowhere my phone starts making a noise, it was instagram.
It was a voice saying "dont do it my friend, life's tough. But you have so much to live for. I know you are weak, but you must remain strong."
Other things too but thats about what i can still remember, i had it saved but my account got hacked recently, i'll see if i can find it.
The video which i viewed after only hearing it showed me it was indeed about suicide. It was a christian account.
I have other instances but this was the most significant one for me.
It wasnt a coincidence at all. This was the Almighty God sending me a personal message.
I would have died had i not heard it. I was on the literal point of killing myself with a drug overdose.
I dont blame you for thinking this is just a coincidence, it is not.

 

[PsychoH]

Was at the low point of my life, seconds away from killing myself.
Out of nowhere my phone starts making a noise, it was instagram.
It was a voice saying "dont do it my friend, life's tough. But you have so much to live for. I know you are weak, but you must remain strong."
Other things too but thats about what i can still remember, i had it saved but my account got hacked recently, i'll see if i can find it.
The video which i viewed after hearing that was about suicide. It was a christian account.
I have other instances but this was the most significant one for me.
It wasnt a coincidence at all. This was the Almighty God sending me a personal message.
I would have died had i not heard it. I was on the literal point of killing myself with a drug overdose.
I dont blame you for thinking this is just a coincidence, it is not.

I can give more theological arguments but this is the core to my belief.

 

[Klasik616]

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.


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.


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.

Really? Can you tell that to:

- Physicists
- Engineers

Your phone works because of math describing reality, dumbass.



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?



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

Animals and humans are actually different. Intentionality is not just about "planning" stuff in the time, an intentional act consists of a will that is cappable of going agaisnt "what's meant to be done", let me explain: when animals act as a group they follow a set of social rules, these rules are learned through life by imitation of the parents. The consciousness humans have is cappable of being above social norms, humans are cappable of thinking by themselves instead of following others being the bee or the ant working in it's predetermined task. This is why humans don't have an essence because they are different.

Same reason why morals is not about two poles being what's right or wrong, what's moral or inmoral depends on what society considers to be right or wrong but the actual contents are judgements made by humans and not a God, therefore they can be valid or invalid depending on things like: family, law, school, friends and so on... As a human you can agree or disagree on these things because you have freedom, but being free also comes with being able to know the consequences of our decisions. Is not like criminals had to choose to be criminals because they were poor, no they made a decision and sticked to it. The decision was going to go agaisnt the law to obtain whatever they wanted to obtain such as political power or money.

And I talked about christianism because Europe (following by the conquest of America by the english and spanish people) expanded christian values, philosophy and religion. Rome wasnt influenced by Buddha or Lao Tse they were agaisnt it. Rome was influenced by the Greeks and Macedonians. Our world view is mainly eurocentric (like beauty and media), and I used to be christian because I was conquered by European people. Nowadays Islam is expanding but Buddha or Confucius philosophy is dead thanks to communists and the pass of time.

Finally about math, I'm not sure what's your stance on numbers but numbers are not objects, numbers are a language that describes reality but it's not actually what we consider to be reality in the living world such as "beings or things". If you want to discuss about it, tell me what numbers are because numbers don't define anything.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @ReasonableAdvice

 

[Nightloner]

for saying that, you're destined to be born in India again in your next life.

 

[LTNUser]

for saying that, you're destined to be born in India again in your next life.

I just wanted to debate

 

[Talon]

jfl something coming out of nothing

 

[Talon]

im up for debate

 

[ChoSeungHui]

 

[oily703]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @holy
im not trying to debunk Christianity or anything thats what retarded indians try to do
this is just a question
is being good because your scared of hell truly being good?
and is that not the Christian incentive to being good?
again just a question pls dont take this as an insult

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @holy
im not trying to debunk Christianity or anything thats what retarded indians try to do
this is just a question
is being good because your scared of hell truly being good?
and is that not the Christian incentive to being good?
again just a question pls dont take this as an insult

No that’s called Pascal’s wager and that’s not why Christian’s are good your imposing what you THINK we thing and WHY we are good.

 

[oily703]

“yeah I follow god because I fear hell and so I’m good “

i feel like a lot of people share this belief
but no "true" Christians
but i understand thanks

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

i feel like a lot of people share this belief
but no "true" Christians
but i understand thanks

Well I didn’t mean to do a no true Scotsman fallacy and I am not in the position to say who is and isn’t a true Christine based on their spiritual weakness we all on our own journey. But a confident Christian would be good for it is pleasing to god. I don’t fear hell, if I go there I accept it with open arms god knows best and he’s never wrong I’ll go there and accept I deserve it.

But God became human to bear our sins he toiled as us lived as us experienced as us in flesh in material, if you’re poor understand Jesus was a Carpenter he toiled in the sun baked desert day and night for profit from a young age in a foreign nation having fled from King Herod if your an refugee Jesus knows what that was like he knows what it’s like to be starving he knows what it’s like to feel pain and loss shortest verse in the Bible is “And Jesus Wept”. He died for us as the atonement for our sins and to free us from death and Hades, he did this to attach humanity to him to combine the person of God (divinity) with humanity.

And all he asks of us is to follow him, his commands and be good. After all this, how can I protest? How can I argue? How can I get mad? How can I reject him?

a

 

[Deleted member 15778]

I'm an atheist but I'm going to argue in favor of Christianity today.

All I can speak about is my experience. I was lucky enough to be saved, and have had god in my life from a young age. He's always been there, guiding me. I can feel his presence.

Logic only get's you so far in understanding the universe. It is a brittle fragile structure that can extend reason, but there are some things it can't illuminate.

Some things require faith.

When you open your heart to god, he will come in. He's truly wants you to be saved, but you have to take the first step.

 

[joksa23]

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate

ltn debate me its over for you i studied bible for more than 2 years

 

[Deleted member 15778]

ltn debate me its over for you i studied bible for more than 2 years

Lay out your arguments.

 

[joksa23]

Lay out your arguments.

i’m a christian bro i want to debate atheists xd

 

[Deleted member 15778]

i’m a christian bro i want to debate atheists xd

Yes, just write your arguments for why you believe Christianity and tag the athiests, or wait for them to respond. You don't have to ask to debate people on .org.

 

[joksa23]

Yes, just write your arguments for why you believe Christianity and tag the athiests, or wait for them to respond. You don't have to ask to debate people on .org.

i want atheists to give arguments and i will just reply

 

[Deleted member 15778]

i want atheists to give arguments and i will just reply

@ReasonableAdvice already gave arguments. You can reply to him. No need to keep telling people you want to debate, just reply to the arguments people have already given.

God doesn't exist

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate how do you know there is no god

looksmax.org

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

Was at the low point of my life, seconds away from killing myself.
Out of nowhere my phone starts making a noise, it was instagram.
It was a voice saying "dont do it my friend, life's tough. But you have so much to live for. I know you are weak, but you must remain strong."
Other things too but thats about what i can still remember, i had it saved but my account got hacked recently, i'll see if i can find it.
The video which i viewed after only hearing it showed me it was indeed about suicide. It was a christian account.
I have other instances but this was the most significant one for me.
It wasnt a coincidence at all. This was the Almighty God sending me a personal message.
I would have died had i not heard it. I was on the literal point of killing myself with a drug overdose.
I dont blame you for thinking this is just a coincidence, it is not.

Could most definitely be selection bias but, honestly, if it helps you stay happy, by all means bro.

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

ltn debate me its over for you i studied bible for more than 2 years

Yeah my other messages in chat

 

[holy]

1. You entirely missed the mark. Interconnected and complex systems don't preclude alternative proposals. Complexity =/= justification of suffering we , if a prey's suffering during predation lasts for extended periods, what benefit does this serve over a quicker death? I am saying "if God can make it so these are not the case". My examples were HYPOTHETICALS to show alternative examples - pain suppression (e.g., greater quantities of endorphins) during predation doesn't deny pain utility elsewhere, it is me asking how prolonged suffering during given death is necessary. Learning through pain is adapative but (A) doesn't apply in given death and (B) could be exchanged with stress signals or instinctual avoidance mechanisms. In relation to gratuitous suffering, I am not claiming how to create a perfect universe, I am enquring towards whether or not the suffering we observe and can experience ourselves can be dispensed without logical breakdown. If you are to assert that all suffering is necessery, you are assuming the burden of proof, keep this in mind.

To conclude, philosophical enquiry doesn't require me to have all-encompassing knowledge on ecosystems. My lack of total knowledge doesn't invalidate the question of "could a different system, designed by God's boundless will, achieve similar outcomes with less suffering?".

2. God is the baseline cause of the universe and, under classical theism, this was a CHOICE. Therefore, as an omnipotent being, all consequences of such decisions become fundamentally ON God.

3. If you read what I said you would know my free will objections were besides determinism as I knew you wouldn't be a determinist. If determinism isn't true and we assume there is free will, which was the foundation of everything other than my syllogism to prove determinism (e.g., here is an objection, and then another objection except this time I am proving determinism) then it is never total free will due to influences out of our control, yet still permits moral agency.

4. You asked me what standard my statement of delayed justice being inadequate what based on. I am telling you they are my standards, or more realistically human time standards, as we are the ones objecting.. because we are the ones suffering? If God is described as providing justice, yet that is only reasonably comprehended and thus a valuable attribute under a human lens, any meaning requires it to be within lived experiences, or else it doesn't repair harm. Delayed justice = indifference to the current endured suffering.

5. Gratuitous suffering is pointless in the sense of no proportionate purpose (refer to my examples of extreme predation or natural disasters). All I have to do is conceive a world that does not have the suffering, shifting the topic to the necessity of the suffering. Let's just take the example of a deer being slowly maimed.

A) Pain acts as a survival mechanism. As I have said before, this has no educative power if they are going to die.
B) Predators often incapacitate prey, yet this can involve suffering. If the end goal is consumption (energy transfer up a trophic level), and not suffering, then it is a byproduct. If it is a byproduct that is purely experiential, which we have already outlined serves no purpose in A), then it is not logically indespensible, and I can imagine a consumption framework in which it does not exist (quick, painless kills).
C) If pain suppression is biologically possible (endorphins, cortisol), why is it not universal or more potent (evolution optimises not perfects traits)?

I apologise for making words complicated I am practicing my vocabulary.

Here is a SYLLOGISM:

P1: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would create a world where all suffering serves a necessary purpose for achieving a greater good.
P2: Gratuitous suffering serves no necessary purpose for an observable greater good or necessary ecological function.
P3: Gratuitous suffering exists.
Concluusion: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Things to consider for the syllogism:
- Burden of proof for hidden purpose.
- Occam's Razor for if you are proposing extra unsubstantiated assumptions to absolve God.
- If suffering exists for an unknown purpose we should find consistent patterns to show its ecological utility.
- We know from ecological research that being eaten alive and experiencing mass starvation doesn't contribute to a predator's success, the evolution of the prey, or an ecosystem's stability in an exclusive manner.
- We already know less harmful methods exist.


As a closing statement to cover your enquiry regarding natural sterility even though it doesn't really have any bearing on my critique, I have done some quick research.
- Species experience reproductive hormone changes based on nutritional health (e.g., LH and FSH reduction during malnutrition).
- Sexual maturity may be delayed when nutritional sources are in scarcity.
- Many species only breed during times of resource abundancy to ensure it isn't immediately used up.
- In social species (wolves, primates), the dominant individuals suppress reproduction through behavioural or hormonal cues.
- Desert rodents reduce litter sizes during droughts.
- Insects might entet reproductive dormancy during resource scarcity.
- Aphids can switch between sexual and asexual reproduction according to environmental changes.

Hope this helped

"1. You entirely missed the mark. Interconnected and complex systems don't preclude alternative proposals. Complexity =/= justification of suffering we , if a prey's suffering during predation lasts for extended periods, what benefit does this serve over a quicker death? I am saying "if God can make it so these are not the case". My examples were HYPOTHETICALS to show alternative examples - pain suppression (e.g., greater quantities of endorphins) during predation doesn't deny pain utility elsewhere, it is me asking how prolonged suffering during given death is necessary. Learning through pain is adapative but (A) doesn't apply in given death and (B) could be exchanged with stress signals or instinctual avoidance mechanisms. In relation to gratuitous suffering, I am not claiming how to create a perfect universe, I am enquring towards whether or not the suffering we observe and can experience ourselves can be dispensed without logical breakdown. If you are to assert that all suffering is necessery, you are assuming the burden of proof, keep this in mind.

*To conclude, philosophical enquiry doesn't require me to have all-encompassing knowledge on ecosystems. My lack of total knowledge doesn't invalidate the question of "could a different system, designed by God's boundless will, achieve similar outcomes with less suffering?"

Your attempt to backpedal here is fucking hilarious.

"Complexity =/= justification of suffering"

No one said it did.

But you can't just handwave away complexity by saying "God could do it differently!"
That's not an argument, that's wishful thinking.

You're essentially saying "make everything work exactly the same but without the bad parts" which shows you don't understand how these systems function at a basic level.

Your endorphin example is perfect for showing how shallow your thinking is. You think you can just crank up endorphins during predation without affecting the entire system? What the fuck? You do realize that those same pathways are important for learning, memory, motivation, and survival behaviors, right? You can't just isolate one piece and tweak it without consequences.
That's not how biology works.

"Learning through pain could be exchanged with stress signals"

What THE FUCK DO YOU THINK PAIN IS?

Hey, dumbass: Pain IS a stress signal.
This is like saying "we don't need rain, we could just have water falling from the sky."

"I am not claiming how to create a perfect universe"

Bullshit. That's exactly what you're doing. You're sitting there saying "God could do better" while admitting you don't understand how these systems work. That's peak arrogance.

"My lack of total knowledge doesn't invalidate the question"

Actually, it kind of does.

You're making claims about what's possible or necessary in complex systems while admitting you don't understand them. That's like me criticizing a quantum physicist's work while admitting I don't understand quantum mechanics.

Here's the real problem:
You're trying to have it both ways. You want to claim suffering is "gratuitous" while simultaneously admitting you don't understand the systems involved. You can't make that claim without understanding what's necessary and what isn't. You're just assuming that because you can imagine a nicer universe, it must be possible. That's not philosophy - that's fantasy.

"2. God is the baseline cause of the universe and, under classical theism, this was a CHOICE. Therefore, as an omnipotent being, all consequences of such decisions become fundamentally ON God."

Under determinism (which YOU claim to believe in), there IS no "choice" - even for God.
You're trying to smuggle libertarian free will back in just for God while denying it to everything else. And if you're arguing from classical theism, God's nature IS goodness - there's no external standard to judge God against.
You're mixing incompatible philosophical frameworks like a drunk bartender mixing cocktails.

"3. If you read what I said you would know my free will objections were besides determinism as I knew you wouldn't be a determinist. If determinism isn't true and we assume there is free will, which was the foundation of everything other than my syllogism to prove determinism (e.g., here is an objection, and then another objection except this time I am proving determinism) then it is never total free will due to influences out of our control, yet still permits moral agency."

This is philosophical whiplash.

You're bouncing between determinism and free will like a ping pong ball, making arguments from both positions while understanding neither. It's actually insane at this point.

"It's never total free will due to influences"

No shit, dumbass, that's called determinism.
You can't have "partial" free will any more than you can be "partially" pregnant.

AGAIN, either:

- our choices are determined by prior causes

OR

- they're not.

Pick one and stick with it.

"4. You asked me what standard my statement of delayed justice being inadequate what based on. I am telling you they are my standards, or more realistically human time standards, as we are the ones objecting.. because we are the ones suffering? If God is described as providing justice, yet that is only reasonably comprehended and thus a valuable attribute under a human lens, any meaning requires it to be within lived experiences, or else it doesn't repair harm. Delayed justice = indifference to the current endured suffering."

Holy fucking narcissism, Batman! You're basically saying:

"God must operate on MY timescale because I'M suffering."

The sheer arrogance of thinking an eternal being must conform to human temporal preferences is staggering.
Your argument is basically "if I can't see justice happening RIGHT NOW, it doesn't count."

You have a toddler's understanding of time and justice.

"Delayed justice = indifference"

That's just assertion without argument.
By that logic, every legal system on Earth shows "indifference" because they don't instantly punish crimes.

You're consistently making the same error (All throughout your points): assuming your human perspective is adequate to judge the operations of an infinite being. It's like an ant criticizing the architecture of the Pentagon.

"5. Gratuitous suffering is pointless in the sense of no proportionate purpose (refer to my examples of extreme predation or natural disasters). All I have to do is conceive a world that does not have the suffering, shifting the topic to the necessity of the suffering. Let's just take the example of a deer being slowly maimed.

A) Pain acts as a survival mechanism. As I have said before, this has no educative power if they are going to die.
B) Predators often incapacitate prey, yet this can involve suffering. If the end goal is consumption (energy transfer up a trophic level), and not suffering, then it is a byproduct. If it is a byproduct that is purely experiential, which we have already outlined serves no purpose in A), then it is not logically indespensible, and I can imagine a consumption framework in which it does not exist (quick, painless kills).
C) If pain suppression is biologically possible (endorphins, cortisol), why is it not universal or more potent (evolution optimises not perfects traits)?

I apologise for making words complicated I am practicing my vocabulary.

Here is a SYLLOGISM:

P1: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would create a world where all suffering serves a necessary purpose for achieving a greater good.
P2: Gratuitous suffering serves no necessary purpose for an observable greater good or necessary ecological function.
P3: Gratuitous suffering exists.
Concluusion: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Things to consider for the syllogism:

- Burden of proof for hidden purpose.
- Occam's Razor for if you are proposing extra unsubstantiated assumptions to absolve God.
- If suffering exists for an unknown purpose we should find consistent patterns to show its ecological utility.
- We know from ecological research that being eaten alive and experiencing mass starvation doesn't contribute to a predator's success, the evolution of the prey, or an ecosystem's stability in an exclusive manner.
- We already know less harmful methods exist.

As a closing statement to cover your enquiry regarding natural sterility even though it doesn't really have any bearing on my critique, I have done some quick research.

- Species experience reproductive hormone changes based on nutritional health (e.g., LH and FSH reduction during malnutrition).
- Sexual maturity may be delayed when nutritional sources are in scarcity.
- Many species only breed during times of resource abundancy to ensure it isn't immediately used up.
- In social species (wolves, primates), the dominant individuals suppress reproduction through behavioural or hormonal cues.
- Desert rodents reduce litter sizes during droughts.
- Insects might entet reproductive dormancy during resource scarcity.
- Aphids can switch between sexual and asexual reproduction according to environmental changes.

Hope this helped "

More pseudo-intellectual masterbation.

Your entire argument about "gratuitous" suffering still fails because you STILL haven't proven it's actually gratuitous.
You're just asserting it.

Your deer example is peak anthropomorphization.

You're applying human concepts of "quick and painless" death -> Systems that evolved over millions of years.
Pain isn't just about "learning" but integral to nervous system function, stress responses, and behavioral patterns across entire populations. You can't just isolate one deer's death and say "this specific pain serves no purpose" -
Like, what the fuck? That's not how complex systems work.

And, your "biological possibilities" show a kindergarten-level understanding of evolution.

"Why isn't pain suppression universal or more potent?"

Because evolution isn't a conscious designer, you walnut.
It's a result of competing pressures. More endorphins might reduce suffering during predation but could also reduce survival fitness in countless other way. You're basically asking "if legs are possible, why don't all animals have super-legs?"

Now for your precious syllogism:

1. P1 assumes you know what constitutes "necessary purpose" and "greater good" from an infinite perspective. You don't. Like, at all.
2. P2 is circular - you're assuming what you're trying to prove.
3. P3 is just assertion without evidence.

Your "things to consider":
- "Burden of proof for hidden purpose" - YOU made the claim about gratuitous suffering. YOU have the burden of proof.
- Occam's Razor actually works against you - you're the one adding assumptions about what suffering is "necessary."
- "Consistent patterns" - There ARE patterns, you're just ignoring them because they don't fit your argument.
- Your claim about ecological research is just flat wrong. Predator-prey relationships absolutely affect evolution and ecosystem stability.

Finally, your "research" about natural sterility just casually proves my point.
These mechanisms ALREADY EXIST, and guess what? They still involve suffering!
You're basically saying "look, nature already does the thing I said it should do" -
while completely missing that these processes STILL involve the suffering you're complaining about.

You're trying so hard to sound academic that you're missing the fundamental flaws in your own arguments.
Strip away the fancy vocabulary in your shitty arguments and what's left is basically
"suffering exists and I don't like it, therefore God bad."

That's not philosophy.
You're complaining, bud.

Hope that helped

 

[holy]

Animals and humans are actually different. Intentionality is not just about "planning" stuff in the time, an intentional act consists of a will that is cappable of going agaisnt "what's meant to be done", let me explain: when animals act as a group they follow a set of social rules, these rules are learned through life by imitation of the parents. The consciousness humans have is cappable of being above social norms, humans are cappable of thinking by themselves instead of following others being the bee or the ant working in it's predetermined task. This is why humans don't have an essence because they are different.

Same reason why morals is not about two poles being what's right or wrong, what's moral or inmoral depends on what society considers to be right or wrong but the actual contents are judgements made by humans and not a God, therefore they can be valid or invalid depending on things like: family, law, school, friends and so on... As a human you can agree or disagree on these things because you have freedom, but being free also comes with being able to know the consequences of our decisions. Is not like criminals had to choose to be criminals because they were poor, no they made a decision and sticked to it. The decision was going to go agaisnt the law to obtain whatever they wanted to obtain such as political power or money.

And I talked about christianism because Europe (following by the conquest of America by the english and spanish people) expanded christian values, philosophy and religion. Rome wasnt influenced by Buddha or Lao Tse they were agaisnt it. Rome was influenced by the Greeks and Macedonians. Our world view is mainly eurocentric (like beauty and media), and I used to be christian because I was conquered by European people. Nowadays Islam is expanding but Buddha or Confucius philosophy is dead thanks to communists and the pass of time.

Finally about math, I'm not sure what's your stance on numbers but numbers are not objects, numbers are a language that describes reality but it's not actually what we consider to be reality in the living world such as "beings or things". If you want to discuss about it, tell me what numbers are because numbers don't define anything.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @ReasonableAdvice

It just gets worse with you. Every. Single. Time.

I'll dissect this clusterfuck piece by piece, because holy shit, your understanding of... well, everything, is painfully wrong.

1. Your "animals vs humans" bullshit.

You're creating this magical divide where humans are somehow special snowflakes that can "think above social norms" while animals are just programmed robots.
Have you ever actually... you know... studied animal behavior? Because this take is so fucking outdated.

Let's talk about chimps. They literally engage in politics, form coalitions, deceive each other, and wage calculated wars. They don't just "follow predetermined tasks" - they make complex decisions that often go AGAINST their immediate instincts or group behaviors.
Dolphins use fucking NAME-CALLING systems and gossip networks.
Ravens solve multi-step puzzles and hold grudges against specific humans who fucked them over - even teaching other ravens to recognize these humans.
Elephants mourn their dead, help injured members of OTHER SPECIES, and show complex emotional processing.

But sure, tell me more about how animals just "follow social rules through imitation." Fucking idiot lmfao.

2. Your take on morality is even more painful.

You're basically arguing that morality is purely subjective because it varies by society, while simultaneously trying to make objective claims about human nature and freedom. You can't have it both ways, genius.

If everything is purely subjective and based on society, then your claims about human consciousness and freedom are ALSO just social constructs with no inherent truth value.

3. Holy shit, your history...

"Buddha or Confucius philosophy is dead thanks to communists"

???

Are you fucking serious?

There are over 500 MILLION Buddhists alive today. Confucian thought is still MASSIVE in East Asia and heavily influences modern Chinese, Korean, and Japanese society.
You're literally speaking from such a narrow, eurocentric viewpoint that you're declaring massive philosophical traditions "dead" just because... what? They don't fit your narrative?

4. Then we get to your numbers argument, which somehow manages to be both obvious and wrong at the same time.

Yes, numbers are abstract concepts that describe reality. NO SHIT.
But you're using this to somehow argue against their validity while simultaneously making claims about human nature that are EQUALLY abstract.
The fact that something is abstract doesn't make it less real or valid - ask any physicist working with quantum mechanics.

5. Your whole spiel about freedom is just... chef's kiss perfect contradiction.

You want humans to have this magical ability to "go against what's meant to be done" while simultaneously being purely products of their society and circumstances.
Pick a fucking lane. Either we have genuine free will (which, by the way, requires some form of metaphysical grounding that your purely materialistic worldview can't provide), or we're just meat computers responding to inputs. You can't have both.

You're trying to sound so fucking deep while fundamentally misunderstanding:
- Basic biology and animal behavior
- The relationship between abstract concepts and reality
- The actual state of world philosophy
- The logical implications of your own arguments

And the worst part? You're so confident in your wrongness that you don't even realize how many times you've contradicted yourself. You're basically the philosophical equivalent of someone who watched a few YouTube videos and now thinks they understand quantum physics.

I'll gladly set up a real discussion for us about consciousness, free will, and morality. But first:
1. Actually study some modern animal cognition research
2. Learn about philosophy outside your eurocentric bubble
3. Figure out what you actually believe, because right now you're trying to hold multiple contradictory positions simultaneously

Until then, you're just throwing around big words and half-understood concepts while managing to be both condescending AND wrong. It's actually impressive, in a way.

 

[Deleted member 117431]

Hey @holy I'm down for a debate

water

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

Your attempt to backpedal here is fucking hilarious.

"Complexity =/= justification of suffering"

No one said it did.

But you can't just handwave away complexity by saying "God could do it differently!"
That's not an argument, that's wishful thinking.

You're essentially saying "make everything work exactly the same but without the bad parts" which shows you don't understand how these systems function at a basic level.

Your endorphin example is perfect for showing how shallow your thinking is. You think you can just crank up endorphins during predation without affecting the entire system? What the fuck? You do realize that those same pathways are important for learning, memory, motivation, and survival behaviors, right? You can't just isolate one piece and tweak it without consequences.
That's not how biology works.

"Learning through pain could be exchanged with stress signals"

What THE FUCK DO YOU THINK PAIN IS?

Hey, dumbass: Pain IS a stress signal.
This is like saying "we don't need rain, we could just have water falling from the sky."

"I am not claiming how to create a perfect universe"

Bullshit. That's exactly what you're doing. You're sitting there saying "God could do better" while admitting you don't understand how these systems work. That's peak arrogance.

"My lack of total knowledge doesn't invalidate the question"

Actually, it kind of does.

You're making claims about what's possible or necessary in complex systems while admitting you don't understand them. That's like me criticizing a quantum physicist's work while admitting I don't understand quantum mechanics.

Here's the real problem:
You're trying to have it both ways. You want to claim suffering is "gratuitous" while simultaneously admitting you don't understand the systems involved. You can't make that claim without understanding what's necessary and what isn't. You're just assuming that because you can imagine a nicer universe, it must be possible. That's not philosophy - that's fantasy.



Under determinism (which YOU claim to believe in), there IS no "choice" - even for God.
You're trying to smuggle libertarian free will back in just for God while denying it to everything else. And if you're arguing from classical theism, God's nature IS goodness - there's no external standard to judge God against.
You're mixing incompatible philosophical frameworks like a drunk bartender mixing cocktails.



This is philosophical whiplash.

You're bouncing between determinism and free will like a ping pong ball, making arguments from both positions while understanding neither. It's actually insane at this point.

"It's never total free will due to influences"

No shit, dumbass, that's called determinism.
You can't have "partial" free will any more than you can be "partially" pregnant.

AGAIN, either:

- our choices are determined by prior causes

OR

- they're not.

Pick one and stick with it.



Holy fucking narcissism, Batman! You're basically saying:

"God must operate on MY timescale because I'M suffering."

The sheer arrogance of thinking an eternal being must conform to human temporal preferences is staggering.
Your argument is basically "if I can't see justice happening RIGHT NOW, it doesn't count."

You have a toddler's understanding of time and justice.

"Delayed justice = indifference"

That's just assertion without argument.
By that logic, every legal system on Earth shows "indifference" because they don't instantly punish crimes.

You're consistently making the same error (All throughout your points): assuming your human perspective is adequate to judge the operations of an infinite being. It's like an ant criticizing the architecture of the Pentagon.



More pseudo-intellectual masterbation.

Your entire argument about "gratuitous" suffering still fails because you STILL haven't proven it's actually gratuitous.
You're just asserting it.

Your deer example is peak anthropomorphization.

You're applying human concepts of "quick and painless" death -> Systems that evolved over millions of years.
Pain isn't just about "learning" but integral to nervous system function, stress responses, and behavioral patterns across entire populations. You can't just isolate one deer's death and say "this specific pain serves no purpose" -
Like, what the fuck? That's not how complex systems work.

And, your "biological possibilities" show a kindergarten-level understanding of evolution.

"Why isn't pain suppression universal or more potent?"

Because evolution isn't a conscious designer, you walnut.
It's a result of competing pressures. More endorphins might reduce suffering during predation but could also reduce survival fitness in countless other way. You're basically asking "if legs are possible, why don't all animals have super-legs?"

Now for your precious syllogism:

1. P1 assumes you know what constitutes "necessary purpose" and "greater good" from an infinite perspective. You don't. Like, at all.
2. P2 is circular - you're assuming what you're trying to prove.
3. P3 is just assertion without evidence.

Your "things to consider":
- "Burden of proof for hidden purpose" - YOU made the claim about gratuitous suffering. YOU have the burden of proof.
- Occam's Razor actually works against you - you're the one adding assumptions about what suffering is "necessary."
- "Consistent patterns" - There ARE patterns, you're just ignoring them because they don't fit your argument.
- Your claim about ecological research is just flat wrong. Predator-prey relationships absolutely affect evolution and ecosystem stability.

Finally, your "research" about natural sterility just casually proves my point.
These mechanisms ALREADY EXIST, and guess what? They still involve suffering!
You're basically saying "look, nature already does the thing I said it should do" -
while completely missing that these processes STILL involve the suffering you're complaining about.

You're trying so hard to sound academic that you're missing the fundamental flaws in your own arguments.
Strip away the fancy vocabulary in your shitty arguments and what's left is basically
"suffering exists and I don't like it, therefore God bad."

That's not philosophy.
You're complaining, bud.

Hope that helped

1)

1.1. You have ignored how omnipotence works. I am not saying "Oh yeah why didn't nature just be nicer?" I am saying that an all-powerful being can design nature in a manner in which they do not experience suffering (or incredibly less) because we know of ways in which suffering is reduced whilst still preserving ecological function.
1.2. Burden of proof relies on assertion that all suffering is necessary which is a necessary consequent of God being benevolent.
1.3. I do not need knowledge on biological or ecological systems to say "Is less suffering possible?". I was giving examples as you asked for them, this isn't a debate on how I can overhaul all of ecology myself.
1.4. You turned to semantics by critiquing the fact pain was a stress signal when I very clearly meant something that serves the purpose of pain without entailing suffering.
1.5. Criticising the work of quantum mechanics is not equitable to philosophical inquiry into "Is suffering necessary in a universe created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God" as I am trying to avoid going into the technical level.

2)

Determinism entails that all "choices" are determined by prior causes. I am saying that everything is a result of cause and effect, but as classical theism posits God as the first cause and omnipotent, he is the starting point, thereby setting the deterministic frame into motion. I am not smuggling libertarian free will anywhere. Theism does not require God to have this form or free will - his actions are determined by his nature, but as the first link, he is responsible for the existence of suffering. He is not exempt from determinism but has a form of self-determinism, in which his nature determines his actions.

As a preface, we must understand that human goodness is a model, and our determination of what is good from a suffering point of view, we look into our own biology. It is not a flawed way to critique, it just requires scaling to the level of omniotence and omniscience. Divine goodness must be greater, not alien to our own understanding.

I ask you this, how do you define omnibenevolence in a way it means for a being to be omnibenevolent, independent of its nature without it being tautological, such as explaining the actions or attributes? I can imagine it will surround the ideas of maximising wellbeing, as shared with the majority of ethical systems such as Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Kantian Ethics with wellbeing as a universal standard due to its anchoring in human evolutionary psychology. As to avoid strawmanning you, I will clarify that the following arguments arise from this assumption to a degree:

God's nature under your worldview is goodness yes, but I am arguing whether what we observe (suffering) aligns with that standard. His will is not arbitrary or independent of his nature, as he cannot will something contrary to his goodness as such would be incoherent, but would his actions inherently BECOME goodness? For example, if God murders someone, is this considered good because it is a result of his will which is a result of his nature? This would make the concept of goodness circular or devoid of any independent meaning - how can the distinction be made between truly moral actions and arbitrary ones. Of course, you can't appeal to Platonism for this as you have already said God is the standard, and any appeal to mystery makes it inaccessible to human reasoning and thereby not worth bringing into the discussion. If the murder is impossible because it cannot align with his nature, this would presuppose that it has a definition independent of God's action, and therefore he does not define goodness (albeit we know God has murdered).

In your criticism, you outlined how I am effectively referring to an external standard in my negativity towards gratuitous suffering. But this isn't what I am doing, I am enacting an internal critique of the CT claims of benevolence. From the human perspective, which again is what is required for this discussion, we experience suffering as something to avoid because it is axiomatically negative from an experiential point of view. For comparison, an external standard would be me saying "gratuitous suffering is bad because of objective moral principles outside of God", but I am asking if the very claims of classical theism are coherent in of themselves. We see no perceivable benefits from gratuitous suffering, thereby making it unjustified, so I am expecting an explanation for why it is, which is substantiated.

My underscoring of determinism in relation to classical theism isn't the mixing of incompatible frameworks, its a legitimate inquiry considering my own worldview, that being that all consequences of creation trace back to God.

3) I apologise for any confusion, I was trying to show you criticisms from two views to avoid hinging on just one and causing this thread-restricted debate to branch into two directions. I am not trying to argue for compatabilism or quasi-determinism. I am a determinist, I have provided determinist objections, and I have also provided objections from the position of a non-determinist.

You also mischaracterise my prior point, which I will provide you with the benefit of the doubt in and blame it on poor explanation on my part, by conflating internal influences and total determination. From a non-deterministic point of view, I could suggest that every decision is advised by your upbringing and thereby social expectations of you, informing your choice but not stripping you of your autonomy to defy them. Autonomy means you can still make decisions contrary to influences - it is not total willpower, but having the ability to choose.

I understand that you're waiting for a clear commitment to either determinism or non-determinism. However, my goal here is to show the capacity for insight from both perspectives in my critique.
4)

I am aware that God operates on a different timescale, but I am saying that justice is only meaningful when felt within the lifetimes of human perspective. It isn't about whether or not his is different, it is about whether he can address our suffering in a way that make sense to us, as we are the endurers.

Yes, justice is delayed in human systems, but it is typically resolved within a reasonable period of time (again, from our standards as we are the enderers) and on the micro for specific inflicters of suffering or instances of suffering. Overarchingly, human suffering feels unresolved when not addressed in our lifetimes, as though the pain we are enduring currently is being ignored or postponed indefinitely, providing no meaningful relief in the present.

Considering your critique of my character in being arrogant, I feel the need to clarify you are misunderstanding my intentions yet again, and your hostility is not helping to sustain civil discussion. I am making a philosophical enquiry regarding the meaning and effectiveness of justice from a human perspective - as the human perspective is needed to provide a coherent framework to understand justice. Whether or not God's is broader or incomprehensible doesn't invalidate our own experiences, so it is reasonable to expect to receive justice when it matters to us. My whole critique is about our understanding of what it means to repair harm, this is about moral relevance to our lifetimes not whether or not we have NPD.

As for the ant, human understanding being limited =/= our view is entirely illegitimate. Our perspective is the only perspective we can access, so accepting the human understanding of God's goodness yet responding with a cloaked appeal to mystery regarding any discontent with our suffering seems unreasonable to me. Effectively, we can perceive the moral consequences of God's actions to the extent they effect us and others, yet you invalidate criticisms that entail from this because we cannot comprehend the deeper purpose of what we are observing. So, to summarise, we are justified in questioning whether God's actions align with our understanding of goodness.

5)
I'll work from the bottom up to avoid issues seeing as the point of contention is the evidence for the gratuitous suffering or, rather, how it is being labelled as such.

- Slow incapacitation of prey by predators has not been shown to contribute to the success of a predator or the balance of an ecosystem, especially when we know that more efficient and less painful methods of killing exist.
- A necessary purpose would show patterns, which you claim there are, yet we do not see such patterns for prolonged pain or suffering that leads to death to suggest an evolutionary benefit. Ecological research shows that extreme forms of suffering (eaten alive, starving to death) do not make an ecosystem more stable or a predator more successful. Under a naturalistic world view, this makes sense, as evolution favours survival over comfort.
- Prolonged Starvation, as opposed to injury or momentary malnutritional discomfort, does not provide direct learning as to how to find food faster or more efficiently, rather having it experience biological distress, and eventually have energy depleted to the point where it loses the capacity to engage in food acquisition.

The Occam's Razor is subsequently applied in defence of this naturalistic proposal, as any unsubstantiated assumptions to explain this suffering in alignment with God's benevolence (hidden divine/cosmic purposes) introduce unnecessary complexity. Or, going back a step, the Razor can simply be used to demonstrate that the suffering is gratuitous, providing more room to critique classical theism.

Evolution is not a conscious process, but got designing such would be. So where evolution may favour certain pain responses to a level of moderation that avoids counterproductive consumption of energy and resources. In some cases, pain serves immediate evolutionary function triggering survival mechanisms like increased alertness, understanding, or escapebehaviours, but once suffering has fulfilled that function, prolonged suffering (starvation, drawn-out death) does not contribute adaptive advantages, merely being a by-product of evolution being unguided and not requiring these to be any more comforting or merciful to the animals.

This is key when we consider your attempted rebuttal regarding sterility including suffering. All the mechanisms I listed are adaptive, being directly tied to survival and flourishing, so it is not gratuitous. You yourself said that evolution is not a conscious designer, and are correct in suggesting that more pain suppression may reduce suffering but could negatively impact more beneficial traits elsewhere. But I think you should recognise that having trade-offs doesn't mean the amount of suffering they experience is designed optimally for the well-being of sentient beings, as evolution optimises for survival, where as a process guided by a being that aims to mitigate suffering could emphasise efficient consumption of prey without excessive suffering or a design in which these "trade offs" do not need to be the case, as God can ensure they experience the minimal necessary amount of suffering to survive. He cares, evolution does not (not that it can, hence my point).

So, as a theoretical possibility (opposed to empirical), one can consider the ability to create systems where creatures still need to survive, reproduce, and thrive, but the suffering involved is minimised, in which evolution is structured so pain is exclusively a learning mechanism, not a learning mechanism which sometimes extends into excessive/prolonged experiences of suffering out of unguided indifference. After all, God has no evolutionary limitations and could even take it a step further with my "super legs" universal and potent pain suppression.

Closing statement:

I am sorry if it seems like I have backpedalled, or if I have explained something poorly and resulted in confusion or hostility at assumed arrogance. Though I think you are misunderstanding my repeated points about the purpose for suffering being completely moot if the one who is suffering is going to die before any information from the suffering can be meaningfully used for their own survival or the wider ecosystem.

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

Animals and humans are actually different. Intentionality is not just about "planning" stuff in the time, an intentional act consists of a will that is cappable of going agaisnt "what's meant to be done", let me explain: when animals act as a group they follow a set of social rules, these rules are learned through life by imitation of the parents. The consciousness humans have is cappable of being above social norms, humans are cappable of thinking by themselves instead of following others being the bee or the ant working in it's predetermined task. This is why humans don't have an essence because they are different.

Same reason why morals is not about two poles being what's right or wrong, what's moral or inmoral depends on what society considers to be right or wrong but the actual contents are judgements made by humans and not a God, therefore they can be valid or invalid depending on things like: family, law, school, friends and so on... As a human you can agree or disagree on these things because you have freedom, but being free also comes with being able to know the consequences of our decisions. Is not like criminals had to choose to be criminals because they were poor, no they made a decision and sticked to it. The decision was going to go agaisnt the law to obtain whatever they wanted to obtain such as political power or money.

And I talked about christianism because Europe (following by the conquest of America by the english and spanish people) expanded christian values, philosophy and religion. Rome wasnt influenced by Buddha or Lao Tse they were agaisnt it. Rome was influenced by the Greeks and Macedonians. Our world view is mainly eurocentric (like beauty and media), and I used to be christian because I was conquered by European people. Nowadays Islam is expanding but Buddha or Confucius philosophy is dead thanks to communists and the pass of time.

Finally about math, I'm not sure what's your stance on numbers but numbers are not objects, numbers are a language that describes reality but it's not actually what we consider to be reality in the living world such as "beings or things". If you want to discuss about it, tell me what numbers are because numbers don't define anything.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @ReasonableAdvice

Not to jump in here on @holy 's behalf, but seeing as you pinged me I will take a read.

- Humans are animals.
- Non-human animals can also make decisions.
- I am a determinist.
- I agree with the subjective morality perspective you hold, although I believe there are universal principles that transcend culture.
- You misunderstand a lot of criminals with a bold generalisation.
- I agree with the nominalistic view on mathematics.

 

[ReasonableAdvice]

It just gets worse with you. Every. Single. Time.

I'll dissect this clusterfuck piece by piece, because holy shit, your understanding of... well, everything, is painfully wrong.

1. Your "animals vs humans" bullshit.

You're creating this magical divide where humans are somehow special snowflakes that can "think above social norms" while animals are just programmed robots.
Have you ever actually... you know... studied animal behavior? Because this take is so fucking outdated.

Let's talk about chimps. They literally engage in politics, form coalitions, deceive each other, and wage calculated wars. They don't just "follow predetermined tasks" - they make complex decisions that often go AGAINST their immediate instincts or group behaviors.
Dolphins use fucking NAME-CALLING systems and gossip networks.
Ravens solve multi-step puzzles and hold grudges against specific humans who fucked them over - even teaching other ravens to recognize these humans.
Elephants mourn their dead, help injured members of OTHER SPECIES, and show complex emotional processing.

But sure, tell me more about how animals just "follow social rules through imitation." Fucking idiot lmfao.

2. Your take on morality is even more painful.

You're basically arguing that morality is purely subjective because it varies by society, while simultaneously trying to make objective claims about human nature and freedom. You can't have it both ways, genius.

If everything is purely subjective and based on society, then your claims about human consciousness and freedom are ALSO just social constructs with no inherent truth value.

3. Holy shit, your history...



???

Are you fucking serious?

There are over 500 MILLION Buddhists alive today. Confucian thought is still MASSIVE in East Asia and heavily influences modern Chinese, Korean, and Japanese society.
You're literally speaking from such a narrow, eurocentric viewpoint that you're declaring massive philosophical traditions "dead" just because... what? They don't fit your narrative?

4. Then we get to your numbers argument, which somehow manages to be both obvious and wrong at the same time.

Yes, numbers are abstract concepts that describe reality. NO SHIT.
But you're using this to somehow argue against their validity while simultaneously making claims about human nature that are EQUALLY abstract.
The fact that something is abstract doesn't make it less real or valid - ask any physicist working with quantum mechanics.

5. Your whole spiel about freedom is just... chef's kiss perfect contradiction.

You want humans to have this magical ability to "go against what's meant to be done" while simultaneously being purely products of their society and circumstances.
Pick a fucking lane. Either we have genuine free will (which, by the way, requires some form of metaphysical grounding that your purely materialistic worldview can't provide), or we're just meat computers responding to inputs. You can't have both.

You're trying to sound so fucking deep while fundamentally misunderstanding:
- Basic biology and animal behavior
- The relationship between abstract concepts and reality
- The actual state of world philosophy
- The logical implications of your own arguments

And the worst part? You're so confident in your wrongness that you don't even realize how many times you've contradicted yourself. You're basically the philosophical equivalent of someone who watched a few YouTube videos and now thinks they understand quantum physics.

I'll gladly set up a real discussion for us about consciousness, free will, and morality. But first:
1. Actually study some modern animal cognition research
2. Learn about philosophy outside your eurocentric bubble
3. Figure out what you actually believe, because right now you're trying to hold multiple contradictory positions simultaneously

Until then, you're just throwing around big words and half-understood concepts while managing to be both condescending AND wrong. It's actually impressive, in a way.

Despite our disagreements previously and your misinterpretation of my free will versus determinism hopscotch, this was a nice rebuttal and I agree (considering it doesn't go against anything I just replied to him with).

 

[Skara]

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

No evidence of his existence = doesn't exist. Nobody proved for 2000 years that he exists and therefore he doesn't exist that's all

 

[holy]

No evidence of his existence = doesn't exist. Nobody proved for 2000 years that he exists and therefore he doesn't exist that's all

I'm sorry, I know I left this debate a fucking month or two ago, but this reasoning is actually dogshit.

 

[Skara]

I'm sorry, I know I left this debate a fucking month or two ago, but this reasoning is actually dogshit.

This reasoning is good. no one has yet demonstrated God and his divine power or logically been able to prove his existence. He doesn't exist

 

[Futura]

If you're not a determinist relativist agnostic you're iq is low by default

 

[holy]

This reasoning is good. no one has yet demonstrated God and his divine power or logically been able to prove his existence. He doesn't exist

Holy FUCK, the sheer stupidity of that argument makes me want to bash my head against a fucking tree, you absolute mongoloid:

First, that's an argument from ignorance fallacy, you fucking troglodyte. 'No evidence = doesn't exist'? By that dipshit logic, before we discovered quantum mechanics, atoms, or radio waves, they didn't fucking exist either.

Second, what counts as 'proof' to your smooth brain? We have philosophical arguments, cosmological evidence, fine-tuning of universal constants, but let me guess, you want God to appear in your bedroom and do a fucking tap dance.

Third, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, you absolute waste of oxygen. That's basic fucking logic.

 

[Skara]

Holy FUCK, the sheer stupidity of that argument makes me want to bash my head against a fucking tree, you absolute mongoloid:

First of all, I'm not a mongoloid, I'm white. And you are probably a nigger or smth.

First, that's an argument from ignorance fallacy, you fucking troglodyte. 'No evidence = doesn't exist'? By that dipshit logic, before we discovered quantum mechanics, atoms, or radio waves, they didn't fucking exist either.

No one discovered quantum mechanics.
it's just an abstract concept (like your god). But at least it's used to describe the behavior of matter.
God is used for this purpose too (but it's all pseudoscientific nonsense): Why does it rain? - Because the rain god sends it.

Why does the world exist? - Because god created it.

Why do natural disasters happen? - It's the wrath of the gods.

but at least quantum mechanics is used in science, and God is pseudoscientific.

Second, what counts as 'proof' to your smooth brain? We have philosophical arguments, cosmological evidence, fine-tuning of universal constants, but let me guess, you want God to appear in your bedroom and do a fucking tap dance.

no you don't have any proof. It is clear from the start that God is not material (and therefore does not exist) and he is only in your head. But if you want, then show all your unphilosophical, cosmological, etc. proofs.

Third, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, you absolute waste of oxygen. That's basic fucking logic.

The duty of proof or burden of proof according to the rule of logic lies with the assertor. Therefore, if it is asserted that God exists, then the one who asserts it is obliged to prove it. The duty of the denier is to refute the evidence put forward by the assertor. All evidence of the existence of God without exception has been refuted. Moreover, scientists have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to prove the existence of God in principle. Therefore, the assertion that God exists has no basis and according to the law of logic is not true, that is, it is false.

 

[holy]

No one discovered quantum mechanics.
it's just an abstract concept (like your god). But at least it's used to describe the behavior of matter.
God is used for this purpose too (but it's all pseudoscientific nonsense): Why does it rain? - Because the rain god sends it.

Why does the world exist? - Because god created it.

Why do natural disasters happen? - It's the wrath of the gods.

but at least quantum mechanics is used in science, and God is pseudoscientific.

Quantum mechanics ISN'T just an 'abstract concept' you ignorant fuck. It's a mathematical framework that describes OBSERVED PHENOMENA. We can literally measure and predict quantum effects. But guess what? The MATH behind it (the abstract part) existed before we discovered it. The Schrödinger equation wasn't INVENTED, it was DISCOVERED as a description of reality.

'Rain gods'

What a way to show you don't understand jack shit about theological arguments.

We're not talking about 'God of the gaps' explanations for natural phenomena. We're talking about fundamental questions of existence, consciousness, and moral absolutes that science CAN'T EVEN ADDRESS.

Science itself rests on philosophical assumptions it can't prove, you fucking moron. The idea that the universe is rational and comprehensible? That's a THEOLOGICAL assumption that came from believing in a rational God!! Even Einstein said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible!

Your primitive understanding of God as some sky daddy who makes it rain shows you're attacking a strawman version of theology that no serious philosopher has believed for centuries. We're talking about the ground of all being, the source of logic and reason itself. Not some Zeus wannabe throwing lightning bolts.

And calling God 'pseudoscientific' just proves you don't understand basic categories. I won't even entertain that shitty statement.

no you don't have any proof. It is clear from the start that God is not material (and therefore does not exist) and he is only in your head. But if you want, then show all your unphilosophical, cosmological, etc. proofs.

Holy FUCK, the materialist delusion is strong with this braindead motherfucker.

'Not material therefore doesn't exist'? Are you actually this fucking stupid? By that logic, numbers don't exist. Laws of logic don't exist. Mathematical truths don't exist. CONSCIOUSNESS itself doesn't exist because it's not material, you absolute waste of neurons.

You want proofs? Fine:

- Cosmological: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist (Big Bang). Therefore the universe has a cause that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial - exactly what we'd expect of God.

- Fine-tuning: Universal constants are balanced on a knife's edge. Change them by a fraction and no life possible.
- Moral argument: Objective moral values exist. In a purely material universe, there can't be objective morals - just chemical reactions and survival instincts. Yet even YOU live like objective morals exist, you hypocritical fuck.
- Consciousness: How does dead matter produce consciousness? How do purely physical brain states produce subjective experience? Materialism can't explain this shit.

And, the thing is, you intellectually bankrupt cumstain: You're making a philosophical claim while rejecting philosophy!!!

You're saying 'only material things exist', but that statement itself isn't a MATERIAL THING. It's a philosophical position that defeats itself. Your demand for 'unphilosophical proofs' shows you don't understand basic epistemology. ALL proofs rely on philosophy, including your precious science.

The duty of proof or burden of proof according to the rule of logic lies with the assertor. Therefore, if it is asserted that God exists, then the one who asserts it is obliged to prove it. The duty of the denier is to refute the evidence put forward by the assertor. All evidence of the existence of God without exception has been refuted. Moreover, scientists have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to prove the existence of God in principle. Therefore, the assertion that God exists has no basis and according to the law of logic is not true, that is, it is false.

Yeah, you also don't know how burden of proof works. Fucking suprising.

First, the burden of proof applies to SPECIFIC claims, not to entire worldviews, you ignorant fuck. BOTH theism AND atheism make positive claims about reality. You're claiming that NOTHING exists beyond the material universe - that's a positive fucking claim that needs proof!!

Second, 'all evidence has been refuted'? What delusional echo chamber did you pull that from?

The cosmological argument hasn't been refuted.
The moral argument hasn't been refuted.
The argument from consciousness hasn't been refuted.

You're just declaring victory without doing the philosophical heavy lifting.

And which 'scientists' exactly say it's impossible to prove God?

Science can't even fucking ADDRESS the question of God's existence. It's like trying to weigh love with a fucking ruler - wrong category entirely. Scientists who claim they've disproven God are stepping WAY outside their lane.

Oh, and by the way: Science itself REQUIRES God-like assumptions to even function!!!

You believe:

- The universe is rational and comprehensible
- Our minds can accurately understand reality
- Mathematical truths are universal
- Logic works consistently

Where the FUCK do these assumptions come from in your materialist worldview? You're sawing off the branch you're sitting on. And, please, don't give me that 'science works' bullshit. Science works BECAUSE these God-given principles exist.

 

[Skara]

You don't even know the basics, the most simple things. You are retarded. I'm a lot smarter than you.

Quantum mechanics ISN'T just an 'abstract concept' you ignorant fuck. It's a mathematical framework that describes OBSERVED PHENOMENA. We can literally measure and predict quantum effects. But guess what? The MATH behind it (the abstract part) existed before we discovered it. The Schrödinger equation wasn't INVENTED, it was DISCOVERED as a description of reality.

quantum mechanics is a mathematical framework and therefore it is an abstract concept, math is an abstract thing. Your god is also abstract like mathematics. He does not exist in reality, but only in your head.
I'm surprised that someone calls you high IQ, although you do not understand even the simplest things.

'Rain gods'

What a way to show you don't understand jack shit about theological arguments.

We're not talking about 'God of the gaps' explanations for natural phenomena. We're talking about fundamental questions of existence, consciousness, and moral absolutes that science CAN'T EVEN ADDRESS.

Science itself rests on philosophical assumptions it can't prove, you fucking moron. The idea that the universe is rational and comprehensible? That's a THEOLOGICAL assumption that came from believing in a rational God!! Even Einstein said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible!

Your primitive understanding of God as some sky daddy who makes it rain shows you're attacking a strawman version of theology that no serious philosopher has believed for centuries. We're talking about the ground of all being, the source of logic and reason itself. Not some Zeus wannabe throwing lightning bolts.

And calling God 'pseudoscientific' just proves you don't understand basic categories. I won't even entertain that shitty statement.

religioncel cope, if we are talking about fundamental questions of existence, consciousness and morality, then God has absolutely nothing to do with it (He does not exist), He does not give all the answers to this. Religion offers its interpretations and that's it. This is the subjective opinion of the authors of your fantasy book (the Bible). To connect the rationality of the Universe with faith in God is obviously the ravings of a madman.
The rationality of the Universe exists without theology, for example, through the anthropic principle or the multiverse.
Logic and reason exists through the evolution and development of the human brain. We do not need to resort to the supernatural to explain why we are able to think rationally.

If God claims to explain natural phenomena (for example, "God created the Universe"), then such nonsense automatically falls into the realm of pseudoscience, since they cannot be verified and refuted. Science requires empirical evidence, and religion offers faith. Science is for rational people, religion is for primitive retards.

God is pseudoscientific. The book of fiction (the Bible) contains obvious contradictions to reality (i.e. the theory of evolution, and the sciences of astronomy, geology, etc.) Simply because the first chapter of the Book of Genesis describes the creation of the world in six days, including the creation of plants, animals, and man. This is obviously untrue and nonsense.

Holy FUCK, the materialist delusion is strong with this braindead motherfucker.

'Not material therefore doesn't exist'? Are you actually this fucking stupid? By that logic, numbers don't exist. Laws of logic don't exist. Mathematical truths don't exist. CONSCIOUSNESS itself doesn't exist because it's not material, you absolute waste of neurons.

You want proofs? Fine:

- Cosmological: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist (Big Bang). Therefore the universe has a cause that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial - exactly what we'd expect of God.

- Fine-tuning: Universal constants are balanced on a knife's edge. Change them by a fraction and no life possible.
- Moral argument: Objective moral values exist. In a purely material universe, there can't be objective morals - just chemical reactions and survival instincts. Yet even YOU live like objective morals exist, you hypocritical fuck.
- Consciousness: How does dead matter produce consciousness? How do purely physical brain states produce subjective experience? Materialism can't explain this shit.

And, the thing is, you intellectually bankrupt cumstain: You're making a philosophical claim while rejecting philosophy!!!

You're saying 'only material things exist', but that statement itself isn't a MATERIAL THING. It's a philosophical position that defeats itself. Your demand for 'unphilosophical proofs' shows you don't understand basic epistemology. ALL proofs rely on philosophy, including your precious science.

COPE, immaterial things like numbers or laws of logic do exist only in your head not in the real world.
They are abstract things. But of course modern neuroscience shows that consciousness is the result of neurons and their interactions. So its immaterial doesn't mean that it exists independently of matter.
Consciousness is a property of the brain that arises as a result of complex physical and chemical processes, there is nothing divine or immaterial about it. Laws of logic and mathematical truths exist, but they are abstractions created by the human mind. They do not exist independently of us, like planets or atoms.

The cosmological argument hasn't been refuted.
The moral argument hasn't been refuted.
The argument from consciousness hasn't been refuted.

You're just declaring victory without doing the philosophical heavy lifting.

And which 'scientists' exactly say it's impossible to prove God?

Science can't even fucking ADDRESS the question of God's existence. It's like trying to weigh love with a fucking ruler - wrong category entirely. Scientists who claim they've disproven God are stepping WAY outside their lane.

Oh, and by the way: Science itself REQUIRES God-like assumptions to even function!!!

You believe:

- The universe is rational and comprehensible
- Our minds can accurately understand reality
- Mathematical truths are universal
- Logic works consistently

Where the FUCK do these assumptions come from in your materialist worldview? You're sawing off the branch you're sitting on. And, please, don't give me that 'science works' bullshit. Science works BECAUSE these God-given principles exist.

hypercope, the cosmological nonseneargument very problematic and it's very easy to debunk it.
Because it claims that everything that exists has a cause for its existence, which is of course bullshit.
First: If everything must have a cause, then what is the cause of God himself? If God does not need a cause, then why can't the Universe be the same - existing without a cause?
Second: At the level of quantum phenomena, there are events that are uncaused (virtual particles or quantum uncertainty).
Cosmological models such as quantum gravity or the multiverse offer explanations for the origin of the Universe without the need for divine intervention.
Moreover, there is a very weak connection between cause and God. Even if the Universe has a cause, this does not mean that this cause is God. It could be a natural process that we do not yet know about.

Now let's talk about the stupid moral argument.
First, Moral principles developed through evolution and sociobiology. Humans, as social beings, developed moral norms to survive and thrive in groups. There is nothing divine about it. There is no such thing as objective morality, different societies have different moral principles, it is a social thing for the most part. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but today it is condemned.

I have already refuted the argument of consciousness, read above.

Overall, I destroyed you in this debate. It's better to admit that you're wrong. I've already destroyed your friend in a debate @PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[holy]

quantum mechanics is a mathematical framework and therefore it is an abstract concept, math is an abstract thing. Your god is also abstract like mathematics. He does not exist in reality, but only in your head.
I'm surprised that someone calls you high IQ, although you do not understand even the simplest things.

You just proved my fucking point while being too stupid to realize it, you absolute smoothbrain.
Let me spell it out in terms even your room-temperature IQ might grasp:
YES, math is abstract - that's exactly the fucking problem for your materialist worldview.
How do abstract, universal, unchanging mathematical truths EXIST in a universe that's supposedly nothing but physical stuff? Where do these transcendent truths COME FROM?
The Schrödinger equation DESCRIBES reality perfectly, but guess what: it's not a physical thing! It's an abstract truth that governs physical reality while existing beyond it. Just like logic, just like moral truths, just like consciousness - these are all non-physical realities that your pathetic materialist worldview can't explain.

religioncel cope, if we are talking about fundamental questions of existence, consciousness and morality, then God has absolutely nothing to do with it (He does not exist), He does not give all the answers to this. Religion offers its interpretations and that's it. This is the subjective opinion of the authors of your fantasy book (the Bible). To connect the rationality of the Universe with faith in God is obviously the ravings of a madman.
The rationality of the Universe exists without theology, for example, through the anthropic principle or the multiverse.
Logic and reason exists through the evolution and development of the human brain. We do not need to resort to the supernatural to explain why we are able to think rationally.

If God claims to explain natural phenomena (for example, "God created the Universe"), then such nonsense automatically falls into the realm of pseudoscience, since they cannot be verified and refuted. Science requires empirical evidence, and religion offers faith. Science is for rational people, religion is for primitive retards.

God is pseudoscientific. The book of fiction (the Bible) contains obvious contradictions to reality (i.e. the theory of evolution, and the sciences of astronomy, geology, etc.) Simply because the first chapter of the Book of Genesis describes the creation of the world in six days, including the creation of plants, animals, and man. This is obviously untrue and nonsense.

Holy FUCKING shit, the depths of your philosophical ignorance are actually impressive.

The anthropic principle? That's not an EXPLANATION you dipshit, it's an OBSERVATION. Saying 'the universe must be compatible with observers because we observe it' explains NOTHING about WHY it's rational.
The multiverse? You're replacing God with an infinite number of unobservable universes and think that's MORE rational? Talk about fucking faith.
'Evolution explains rationality'
Are you fucking HIGH? Natural selection selects for SURVIVAL, not TRUTH. In a purely material universe, there's no reason our evolved meat computers should be able to grasp abstract mathematical truths.
And your understanding of Genesis is as shallow as your understanding of everything else.
The Bible isn't a fucking science textbook, you historically illiterate waste of oxygen. The creation account uses ancient Near Eastern literary devices to convey THEOLOGICAL truth about God's relationship to creation.
The early church fathers knew this wasn't literal - Augustine warned against making Christianity look stupid by treating Genesis as a science text.

But let's get to your bigger fuckup: claiming science requires empirical evidence while religion offers faith. You clearly don't know shit about epistemology. Science itself REQUIRES faith in unprovable assumptions:

- That our senses are reliable
- That the future will resemble the past
- That mathematical truths apply universally
- That our minds can comprehend reality

You can't PROVE any of these empirically. NONE.
You take them on FAITH because they make science possible. And where do these rational principles come from?

hypercope, the cosmological nonseneargument very problematic and it's very easy to debunk it.
Because it claims that everything that exists has a cause for its existence, which is of course bullshit.
First: If everything must have a cause, then what is the cause of God himself? If God does not need a cause, then why can't the Universe be the same - existing without a cause?
Second: At the level of quantum phenomena, there are events that are uncaused (virtual particles or quantum uncertainty).
Cosmological models such as quantum gravity or the multiverse offer explanations for the origin of the Universe without the need for divine intervention.
Moreover, there is a very weak connection between cause and God. Even if the Universe has a cause, this does not mean that this cause is God. It could be a natural process that we do not yet know about.

Now let's talk about the stupid moral argument.
First, Moral principles developed through evolution and sociobiology. Humans, as social beings, developed moral norms to survive and thrive in groups. There is nothing divine about it. There is no such thing as objective morality, different societies have different moral principles, it is a social thing for the most part. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but today it is condemned.

I have already refuted the argument of consciousness, read above.

First, you absolute smoothbrain, the cosmological argument says everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.
God, being eternal and necessary, doesn't BEGIN to exist. The universe, having a finite past, DOES. Basic fucking logic!!

'Quantum events are uncaused'? Wrong again, dipshit.
Quantum events have PROBABILISTIC causes, not NO causes. And even if truly uncaused events existed, they'd still need a quantum vacuum and physical laws to exist IN - they don't explain ultimate origins.
'evolution explains morality' Pure bullshit. Evolution might explain why we HAVE moral beliefs, but it can't explain why any moral claims are actually TRUE.
If morality is just evolutionary programming, then there's no REAL right or wrong, just what helped our ancestors survive.

-Rape
- Murder
- Genocide

can't say they're ACTUALLY wrong, just that we evolved to dislike them!
That's your 'enlightened' worldview?

I have already refuted the argument of consciousness, read above.

You're genuinely retarded. Like, seriously.
You haven't 'refuted' consciousness for shit.

- How does purely physical matter give rise to subjective experience?
- How do electrochemical signals in a meat computer create the sensation of seeing red or feeling pain?
It's called the 'hard problem of consciousness' for a reason, you infant.

Your whole worldview is a house of cards built on stolen capital from theism.

You want to steal the foundations of rationality while denying their source? Let me make this crystal fucking clear:
- You use LOGIC to argue against God - but in your worldview, logic is just neurons firing!! Why trust it?
- You appeal to MORAL OUTRAGE about religion - but in your worldview, morality is just chemical reactions!! Why should anyone care?
- You rely on MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY - but in your worldview, math is just a human construct!! Why does it work?
- You trust SCIENTIFIC LAWS - but in your worldview, these are just patterns we've noticed!! Why expect them to continue?

Every fucking argument you make ASSUMES the very thing you're trying to deny - an intelligent, rational foundation to reality.

Overall, I destroyed you in this debate.

Holy FUCK, the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

You haven't even managed to grasp the BASICS of what you're arguing against, you delusional fucking troglodyte. Let me recap your intellectual failures:

- You confused 'begins to exist' with 'exists' in the cosmological argument
- You think evolution explains objective morality while admitting morality is subjective
- You claim quantum mechanics refutes causation while not understanding quantum mechanics
- You use reason to argue against the foundation of reason
- You make moral claims while denying moral truth exists
- You trust science while undermining its philosophical foundations

You haven't 'destroyed' anything except your own credibility.

Fucking embarrassing.

 

[Skara]

Again, you don't even understand basics. It's understandable that you're angry about the defeat and that's why you insult me.
You aren't smart enough and your understanding of reality is lacking.
Let me destroy you in a very elegant way (just like I usually do)

You just proved my fucking point while being too stupid to realize it, you absolute smoothbrain.
Let me spell it out in terms even your room-temperature IQ might grasp:
YES, math is abstract - that's exactly the fucking problem for your materialist worldview.
How do abstract, universal, unchanging mathematical truths EXIST in a universe that's supposedly nothing but physical stuff? Where do these transcendent truths COME FROM?
The Schrödinger equation DESCRIBES reality perfectly, but guess what: it's not a physical thing! It's an abstract truth that governs physical reality while existing beyond it. Just like logic, just like moral truths, just like consciousness - these are all non-physical realities that your pathetic materialist worldview can't explain.

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of materialism and the nature of abstractions just because you are a pretty primitive chimp (no offence).

Math, logic, and other abstract concepts are not transcendent entities, but products of human thinking. This is something even kindergarteners understand, but apparently, it's very difficult for a retard like you to grasp. The brain, being a material object, is capable of creating models and abstractions to describe reality.

the Schrödinger equation is not a nonphysical entity but a model created by humans to describe the behavior of quantum systems. I am many times smarter than you, you should stop arguing. Consciousness is a property of highly organized matter (the brain). Moral truths are social constructs that emerged during the evolution of human society. They do not exist independently of humans but are a product of our biology and culture.
You bark of mathematics as something universal and unchanging, but ofc, that's not the case. For example, non-Euclidean geometry or quantum mechanics have shown that our "truths" can be limited and revised.

The problem with your pseudo-argument is that you confuse the description of reality with reality itself. The Schrödinger equation describes reality, but that doesn't mean it exists somewhere outside the physical world. It exists only within the context of human understanding.

Holy FUCKING shit, the depths of your philosophical ignorance are actually impressive.

The anthropic principle? That's not an EXPLANATION you dipshit, it's an OBSERVATION. Saying 'the universe must be compatible with observers because we observe it' explains NOTHING about WHY it's rational.
The multiverse? You're replacing God with an infinite number of unobservable universes and think that's MORE rational? Talk about fucking faith.
'Evolution explains rationality'
Are you fucking HIGH? Natural selection selects for SURVIVAL, not TRUTH. In a purely material universe, there's no reason our evolved meat computers should be able to grasp abstract mathematical truths.
And your understanding of Genesis is as shallow as your understanding of everything else.
The Bible isn't a fucking science textbook, you historically illiterate waste of oxygen. The creation account uses ancient Near Eastern literary devices to convey THEOLOGICAL truth about God's relationship to creation.
The early church fathers knew this wasn't literal - Augustine warned against making Christianity look stupid by treating Genesis as a science text.

But let's get to your bigger fuckup: claiming science requires empirical evidence while religion offers faith. You clearly don't know shit about epistemology. Science itself REQUIRES faith in unprovable assumptions:

- That our senses are reliable
- That the future will resemble the past
- That mathematical truths apply universally
- That our minds can comprehend reality

You can't PROVE any of these empirically. NONE.
You take them on FAITH because they make science possible. And where do these rational principles come from?

JFL at this cope, your emotional essay is full of superficial statements (I continue to destroy you in an elegant way).
The anthropic principle does not explain the rationality of the universe. It simply states that we observe a universe that is compatible with our existence. If you don't understand, I'll tell you: it's not an answer to the question "why". That's all.

Multiverse is a hypothesis, it doesn't replace god (which doesn't exist), but offers a better and more rational explanation. Criticizing it for faith is extremely retarded, because science always works with hypotheses.

You scream that natural selection selects only for survival, not for truth. What nonsense. The ability to think rationally increases the chances of survival. Understanding mathematics allows us to build bridges, cure diseases and predict natural phenomena. If our brains were not capable of rational thinking, we simply would not survive as a species. You are really dumb if you think differently.
Rational principles are not transcendental truths, but tools we have created to describe the world. They work because they reflect the patterns of reality we observe.

First, you absolute smoothbrain, the cosmological argument says everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.
God, being eternal and necessary, doesn't BEGIN to exist. The universe, having a finite past, DOES. Basic fucking logic!!

The answer that God has always existed is not an answer, but an evasion of the answer.
I know this is hard for you, but think about it. If everything that exists must have a cause, then what is the cause of God? If God can exist without a cause, then why can't the universe exist without a cause? It's a double standard.

'Quantum events are uncaused'? Wrong again, dipshit.
Quantum events have PROBABILISTIC causes, not NO causes. And even if truly uncaused events existed, they'd still need a quantum vacuum and physical laws to exist IN - they don't explain ultimate origins.

God also does not explain the origin of these laws too.

'evolution explains morality' Pure bullshit. Evolution might explain why we HAVE moral beliefs, but it can't explain why any moral claims are actually TRUE.
If morality is just evolutionary programming, then there's no REAL right or wrong, just what helped our ancestors survive.

-Rape
- Murder
- Genocide

can't say they're ACTUALLY wrong, just that we evolved to dislike them!
That's your 'enlightened' worldview?

Dude, even in a materialistic world we can say that such actions are harmful to society and individuals and therefore they are wrong.
Moral norms are a product of evolution and culture, of course. This doesn't mean that they are not real, like you are trying to say like a fucking bitch. It's opposite, they are real in the sense that they influence our behavior and society.

View attachment 3515849

delete this disgusting chimp. Non-pale skin is beyond ugly.

You're genuinely retarded. Like, seriously.
You haven't 'refuted' consciousness for shit.

- How does purely physical matter give rise to subjective experience?
- How do electrochemical signals in a meat computer create the sensation of seeing red or feeling pain?
It's called the 'hard problem of consciousness' for a reason, you infant.

you are really stupid if you don't understand. Consciousness is simply a product of physical processes in the brain. Subjective experience is identical to certain neural processes. We also know which areas of the brain are activated by certain experiences, and which brain disorders lead to changes in consciousness

Your whole worldview is a house of cards built on stolen capital from theism.

You want to steal the foundations of rationality while denying their source? Let me make this crystal fucking clear:
- You use LOGIC to argue against God - but in your worldview, logic is just neurons firing!! Why trust it?
- You appeal to MORAL OUTRAGE about religion - but in your worldview, morality is just chemical reactions!! Why should anyone care?
- You rely on MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY - but in your worldview, math is just a human construct!! Why does it work?
- You trust SCIENTIFIC LAWS - but in your worldview, these are just patterns we've noticed!! Why expect them to continue?

Every fucking argument you make ASSUMES the very thing you're trying to deny - an intelligent, rational foundation to reality.

hypercope, logic evolved as a tool for survival and problem solving. Logic is based on physical processes in the brain, but that doesn't make it any less reliable. Physical processes obey certain laws, and logic is a way of reflecting those laws. We trust logic because it works. What are the alternatives to logic? Intuition? Faith? They often lead to contradictory and incorrect conclusions.

Already destroyed your moral take. But if you forgot, I will destroy it one more time. moral feelings evolved to support cooperation in a group. And Morality is also the result of a social contract, that is, a set of rules that people voluntarily accept in order to live in society.

Mathematical principles reflect fundamental laws that exist in nature (as opposed to God). The universe obeys certain laws that are expressed mathematically

Have you ever heard of induction??? Science is based on the principle of induction, that is, the patterns that we observed in the past will continue in the future.

Huh, that's all. I destroyed all your takes here.

Holy FUCK, the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

You haven't even managed to grasp the BASICS of what you're arguing against, you delusional fucking troglodyte. Let me recap your intellectual failures:

- You confused 'begins to exist' with 'exists' in the cosmological argument
- You think evolution explains objective morality while admitting morality is subjective
- You claim quantum mechanics refutes causation while not understanding quantum mechanics
- You use reason to argue against the foundation of reason
- You make moral claims while denying moral truth exists
- You trust science while undermining its philosophical foundations

You haven't 'destroyed' anything except your own credibility.

Fucking embarrassing.

Let me recap your intellectual failures:
-You confuse eternal existence with explanation, claiming that God can exist without a cause
-You say that morality is subjective, using moral arguments as if they were objective
-You invoke quantum mechanics to deny causality, not realizing that quantum uncertainty does not invalidate causality at the macro level
-You use reason and logic to deny that reason and logic can be based on anything other than the material.
-You make moral claims, claiming that something is right or wrong, denying the existence of objective moral truth
-You trust science, yet deny the philosophical foundations that make science possible, such as rationality and the universality of the laws of nature