If God is omnipresent and omnipotent?

[Deleted member 4362]

Then how can free will and choice exist?

 

[Deleted member 4362]

Bumping till christcucks answer

 

[Deleted member 20098]

Idk
God Is 1 Hell Of A Goofy Guy Ill Say

 

[Vermilioncore]

Pain without end

 

[Deleted member 4362]

Pain without end

You should reconsider your worldview

 

[Deleted member 2403]

Idk
God Is 1 Hell Of A Goofy Guy Ill Say

elaborate?

 

[Deleted member 20098]

elaborate?

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

 

[Deleted member 2403]

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

im disappointed

 

[hebbewem]

It can't

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Then how can free will and choice exist?

Free will doesn't exist unless the soul exists

And if the soul exists then God probably does do, and if God exists there is no free will.

Not having free will isn't really a bad thing on an individual level, you can still achieve your aspirations and do whatever you want, just accept it was predetermined solely by your brain chemistry and upbringing.

 

[Deleted member 4362]

Free will doesn't exist unless the soul exists

And if the soul exists then God probably does do, and if God exists there is no free will.

Not having free will isn't really a bad thing on an individual level, you can still achieve your aspirations and do whatever you want, just accept it was predetermined solely by your brain chemistry and upbringing.

What’s the point in this hell and heaven cope then, why don’t they just live their life and stop reading tales from the bible.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

What’s the point in this hell and heaven cope then, why don’t they just live their life and stop reading tales from the bible.

Agreed

@LooksOverAll does not concur

 

[Deleted member 7725]

Then how can free will and choice exist?

Have you ever heard of determinism? Every single atom in the universe abides by the black-and-white laws of physics, including your brain chemistry. How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

 

[exeight]

i dont think there is a free will

 

[Harold O'brien]

checkmate christians

 

[Harold O'brien]

but I think you meant omniscient

 

[Deleted member 18603]

KEK

From a mathematical point of view, if we arbitrarily pick any two propositions, truth and falsity can be attributed to them in four different combinations, specifically

the first is true, and the second is true
the first is true, and the second is false
the first is false, and the second is true
the first is false, and the second is false
However, it sometimes happens that two propositions will have certain logical relationships between them such as to make one or more of these four combinations impossible. For example, consider the two propositions α and β.

α: Diane planted only six rosebushes.

β: Diane planted fewer than eight rosebushes.

While each of these propositions, by itself, could be true and could be false, there are – as it turns out – only three, not four, possible combinations of truth and falsity that can be attributed to this particular pair of propositions. On careful thought, we can see that the second combination – that is, the one which attributes truth to α and falsity to β – is impossible. For if α is true (that is, if it is true that Diane has planted only six rosebushes) then β is also true. Put another way: the truth of α guarantees the truth of β. This is to say

(1) It is impossible (for α to be true and for β to be false).

Unfortunately, ordinary English does not lend itself easily to express the quasi-symbolic sentence (1). In symbols we can express the sentence this way:

(1a) ~◊(α & ~β)

About the best we can do in English is to create the following unidiomatic, extremely clumsy sentence:

(1b) The compound sentence, α and not-β, is impossible (that is, is necessarily false).

English prose is a poor tool for expressing fine logical distinctions (just as it is an unsuitable tool for expressing fine mathematical distinctions[3] ). But, as it turns out, the situation is worse than just having to make do with awkward sentences. For it is a curious fact about most natural languages – English, French, Hebrew, etc. – that when we use modal terms in ordinary speech, we often do so in logically misleading ways. Just see how natural it is to try to formulate the preceding point [namely proposition (1)] in this fashion:

(2) If α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false.

Or, in symbols:

(2a) α ⊃ ~◊~β

In ordinary speech, the latter sentence, (2), is natural and idiomatic; the former sentence (1b) is unnatural and unidiomatic. But – and this is the crucial point – the propositions expressed by (1)-(1b) are not equivalent to the propositions expressed by sentences (2)-(2a). The former set, that is (1)-(1b), are all true. The latter, (2)-(2a)are false and commit the modal fallacy. The fallacy occurs in its assigning the modality of impossibility, not to the relationship between the truth of α and falsity of β as is done in (1)-(1b), but to the falsity of β alone. Ordinary grammar beguiles us and misleads us. It makes us believe that if α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false. But it is possible for β to be false. β is a contingent proposition. Recall the principle of the fixity of modal status. Even if the falsity of β is guaranteed by the truth of some other proposition [in this case α], β does not ‘become’ impossible: it ‘remains’ contingent, and thereby possible.

Whatever impossibility there is lies in jointly asserting α and denying β. (See (1b) above.) The proposition “it is false that β” does not ‘become’ impossible if one asserts α.[4]

Some persons have been deceived by the following (fallacious) argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions:

“(By the Law of Non-contradiction), if a proposition is true (/false), then it cannot be false (/true). If a proposition cannot be false (/true), then it is necessarily true (/false). Therefore if a proposition is true (/false), it is necessarily true (/false). That is, there are no contingent propositions. Every proposition is either necessarily true or necessarily false. (If we could see the world from God’s viewpoint, we would see the necessity of everything. Contingency is simply an artifact of ignorance. Contingency disappears with complete knowledge.)”

The fallacy arises in the ambiguity of the first premise. If we interpret it close to the English, we get:

P ⊃ ~◊~P
~◊~P ⊃ ☐P
——————
∴ P ⊃ ☐ P

However, if we regard the English as misleading, as assigning a necessity to what is simply nothing more than a necessary condition, then we get instead as our premises:

~◊(P & ~P) [equivalently: ☐(P ⊃ P)]
~◊~P ⊃ ☐P

From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:

P ⊃ ☐P.

In short, the argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions is unsound. Its very first premise commits the
modal fallacy.

The identical error occurs in the argument for logical determinism. Recall (the expanded version of) Aristotle’s sea battle:

Two warring admirals, A and B, are preparing their fleets for a decisive sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the “logical laws (or principles)” of the excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no proposition is both true and false), require that one of the propositions, “A wins” and “it is false that A wins,” is true and the other is false. Suppose “A wins” is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: A must win; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must win). Or again, suppose “A wins” is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference: A must lose; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must lose). Thus, if every proposition is either true or false (and not both), then planning, or as Aristotle put it “taking trouble,” is futile. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.

If we let “A” stand for “Admiral A wins” and let “B” stand for “Admiral B wins”, the core of this argument can be stated in symbols this way:

A or B	[one or the other of these two propositions is true]
~◊(A & B)	[it is not possible that both A and B are true]

∴	A ⊃ ☐A A ⊃ ~◊~A	}	If A is true, then A mustbe true. If A is true, then A cannot be false.
	A ⊃ ☐~B A ⊃ ~◊B	}	If A is true, then B must be false.If A is true, then B cannot be true.
	B ⊃ ☐B B ⊃ ~◊~B	}	If B is true, then B mustbe true. If B is true, then B cannot be false.
	B ⊃ ☐~A B ⊃ ~◊A	}	If B is true, then A must be false.If B is true, then A cannot be true.

In this argument, by hypothesis, either A is true or B is true, and since they cannot both be true, the second premise may be accepted as true. But none of the conclusions is true. A is contingent, and B is contingent. Yet the conclusions state that from the assumed truth of either of (the two contingencies) A or B, it follows that A and B are each either necessarily true or necessarily false. Each of these eight conclusions violates the principle of the fixity of modal status. What, then, are the conclusions one may draw validly from the premises? These:

☐(A ⊃ ~B)	or, equivalently,	~◊(A & B)
☐(B ⊃ ~A)	or, equivalently,	~◊(B & A)

So long as we remain mindful of the fact that “~◊(P & Q)” is logically equivalent to “☐(P ⊃ ~Q)” but is not equivalent to “P ⊃ ☐~Q”, the argument for logical determinism will be seen to be invalid. Our ordinary language treats “it is impossible for both P and Q to be true” as if it were logically equivalent to “if P is true, then Q is necessarily false”. But the profound difference between these two assertions is that the former preserves the principle of the fixity of modal status, the latter violates that principle. The proposition, “Admiral A wins”, is contingent, and if true, then it “remains” true. Indeed this is a trivial logical truth:

(i) ☐(P ⊃ P) alternatively, ~◊(P & ~P)

The argument for logical determinism illicitly treats this logical truth as if it were equivalent to the false proposition

(ii) P ⊃ ☐P alternatively, P ⊃ ~◊~P

If you do not let yourself be beguiled by the invalid ‘move’ (inference) from (i) to (ii), the argument for logical determinism collapses. The truth of a proposition concerning your future behavior does not make that future behavior necessary. What you choose to do in the future was, is, and will remain contingent, even if a proposition describing that choice is timelessly true.

Let’s recall Maimonides’s argument:

… “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.”

We can symbolize the core of this argument, using “∴” for “it necessarily follows”; and “☐” for “compelled”; and “D” for the proposition describing what some particular person does tomorrow.

gKD
———
∴ ☐D

There seems to be (at least) one missing premise. [In the terminology of logicians, the argument is enthymematic.] One tacit assumption of this argument is the necessary truth, “it is not possible both for God to know that D and for D to be false”, or, in symbols, “~◊(gKD & ~D)”. So the argument becomes:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
————————
∴ ☐D

But even with this repair, the argument remains invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the two premises. To derive the conclusion, a third premise is needed, and it is easy to see what it is. Most persons, with hardly a moment’s thought, virtually as a reflex action, will tacitly assume that the second premise is logically equivalent to:

gKD ⊃ ☐D

and will tacitly (/unconsciously) add this further premise, so as to yield, finally:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D
————————
∴ ☐D

But this third premise, we have seen above, is false; it commits the modal fallacy. Without this premise, Maimonides’ argument is invalid; with it, the argument becomes valid but unsound (that is, has a false and essential premise [namely the third one]). Either way, the argument is a logical botch.

Once the logical error is detected, and removed, the argument for epistemic determinism simply collapses. If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become “necessary”, “compelled”, “forced”, or what have you. Inasmuch as its description was, is, and will remain forever contingent, both it and its negation remain possible. Of course only one of the two was, is, and will remain true; while the other was, is, and will remain false. But truth and falsity, per se, do not determine a proposition’s modality. Whether true or false, each of these propositions was, is, and will remain possible. Knowing – whether by God or a human being – some future event no more forces that event to occur than our learning that dinosaurs lived in (what is now) South Dakota forced those reptiles to take up residence there.

 

[Deleted member 18244]

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

What happened to your seal avi?

 

[Deleted member 4362]

KEK

Why is the square used to represent ‘compelled’ when the argument is True or false?

Surely it should be ~◊(gKD & ~ ☐D)

 

[hebbewem]

Have you ever heard of determinism? Every single atom in the universe abides by the black-and-white laws of physics, including your brain chemistry. How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

Yes to your question and you need a reason. For why you dont.

 

[Deleted member 4362]

but I think you meant omniscient

I meant omnipotent, omniscient only implies foreknowledge not all powerful

@wizard master your reply only justifies omniscience but I said omnipotent

How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

Well that’s what I’m arguing & that’s not a scientific explanation at all. You should stick to larps because those skills don’t work so well in a philosophical debate.

 

[Deleted member 18603]

@wizard master your reply only justifies omniscience but I said omnipotent

i dont see how Omnipotency contradicts free will? within the realm of Omnipotence your question gets even more shaky

 

[bwrauycnee]

Because an omnipotent god deemed it so

 

[Deleted member 4362]

i dont see how Omnipotency contradicts free will? within the realm of Omnipotence your question gets even more shaky

All powerful vs. All knowing

 

[Deleted member 20098]

What happened to your seal avi?

Goodbye My Friend

 

[isis_Bleach]

Then how can free will and choice exist?

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
B

Bhupal57​

Bronze​

JoinedJun 8, 2022Posts470Reputation815
Tuesday at 1:50 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #3

Idk
God Is 1 Hell Of A Goofy Guy Ill Say

+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:jim and Leonardo DiCaprio
[IMG alt="Vermilioncore"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/3/3549.jpg?1657120179[/IMG]

Vermilioncore​

deranged dark triad psychopath​

JoinedOct 17, 2019Posts28,272Reputation48,977
Tuesday at 1:50 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #4

Pain without end

+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:wollet2 and Leonardo DiCaprio
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Tuesday at 1:51 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #5

Pain without end

You should reconsider your worldview

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="Leonardo DiCaprio"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/2/2403.jpg?1657058775[/IMG]

Leonardo DiCaprio​

As if​

JoinedJul 15, 2019Posts49,066Reputation126,939
Tuesday at 1:55 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #6

Idk
God Is 1 Hell Of A Goofy Guy Ill Say

elaborate?

+1 Reply
Report
B

Bhupal57​

Bronze​

JoinedJun 8, 2022Posts470Reputation815
Tuesday at 1:56 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #7

elaborate?

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:Mogpogs, jim and Leonardo DiCaprio
[IMG alt="Leonardo DiCaprio"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/2/2403.jpg?1657058775[/IMG]

Leonardo DiCaprio​

As if​

JoinedJul 15, 2019Posts49,066Reputation126,939
Tuesday at 1:57 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #8

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

im disappointed

+1 Reply
Report

• 
• 

Reactions:comfortably dumb and Bhupal57
[IMG alt="hebbewem"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/0/997.jpg?1642255083[/IMG]

hebbewem​

I want a cuckqueen​

JoinedFeb 10, 2019Posts13,711Reputation16,661
Tuesday at 1:57 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #9

It can't

I mog you
+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:wollet2
[IMG alt="zv1212"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18180.jpg?1656996256[/IMG]

zv1212​

Zephir​

JoinedMar 6, 2022Posts4,680Reputation5,171
Tuesday at 2:00 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #10

Then how can free will and choice exist?

Free will doesn't exist unless the soul exists

And if the soul exists then God probably does do, and if God exists there is no free will.

Not having free will isn't really a bad thing on an individual level, you can still achieve your aspirations and do whatever you want, just accept it was predetermined solely by your brain chemistry and upbringing.

+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:GetShrekt
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Tuesday at 2:02 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #11

Free will doesn't exist unless the soul exists

And if the soul exists then God probably does do, and if God exists there is no free will.

Not having free will isn't really a bad thing on an individual level, you can still achieve your aspirations and do whatever you want, just accept it was predetermined solely by your brain chemistry and upbringing.

What’s the point in this hell and heaven cope then, why don’t they just live their life and stop reading tales from the bible.

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="zv1212"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18180.jpg?1656996256[/IMG]

zv1212​

Zephir​

JoinedMar 6, 2022Posts4,680Reputation5,171
Tuesday at 2:03 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #12

What’s the point in this hell and heaven cope then, why don’t they just live their life and stop reading tales from the bible.

Agreed

@

@LooksOverAll does not concur

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="LooksOverAll"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/7/7725.jpg?1656547591[/IMG]

LooksOverAll​

All your questions can be answered in scripture.​

JoinedJun 8, 2020Posts14,604Reputation29,073
Tuesday at 2:29 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #13

Then how can free will and choice exist?

Have you ever heard of determinism? Every single atom in the universe abides by the black-and-white laws of physics, including your brain chemistry. How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:Ryan
E

exeight​

Diamond​

JoinedJan 14, 2022Posts1,337Reputation1,247
Tuesday at 3:19 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #14

i dont think there is a free will

+1 Reply
Report
H

Harold O'brien​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀​

JoinedDec 3, 2021Posts4,153Reputation4,974
Tuesday at 3:29 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #15

checkmate christians

+1 Reply
Report
H

Harold O'brien​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀​

JoinedDec 3, 2021Posts4,153Reputation4,974
Tuesday at 3:30 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #16

but I think you meant omniscient

+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:GetShrekt
[IMG alt="wizard master"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18603.jpg?1657180311[/IMG]

wizard master​

ㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤ​

JoinedMar 26, 2022Posts1,218Reputation1,389
Yesterday at 8:51 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #17

KEK

From a mathematical point of view, if we arbitrarily pick any two propositions, truth and falsity can be attributed to them in four different combinations, specifically

the first is true, and the second is true
the first is true, and the second is false
the first is false, and the second is true
the first is false, and the second is false
However, it sometimes happens that two propositions will have certain logical relationships between them such as to make one or more of these four combinations impossible. For example, consider the two propositions α and β.

α: Diane planted only six rosebushes.

β: Diane planted fewer than eight rosebushes.

While each of these propositions, by itself, could be true and could be false, there are – as it turns out – only three, not four, possible combinations of truth and falsity that can be attributed to this particular pair of propositions. On careful thought, we can see that the second combination – that is, the one which attributes truth to α and falsity to β – is impossible. For if α is true (that is, if it is true that Diane has planted only six rosebushes) then β is also true. Put another way: the truth of α guarantees the truth of β. This is to say

(1) It is impossible (for α to be true and for β to be false).

Unfortunately, ordinary English does not lend itself easily to express the quasi-symbolic sentence (1). In symbols we can express the sentence this way:

(1a) ~◊(α & ~β)

About the best we can do in English is to create the following unidiomatic, extremely clumsy sentence:

(1b) The compound sentence, α and not-β, is impossible (that is, is necessarily false).

English prose is a poor tool for expressing fine logical distinctions (just as it is an unsuitable tool for expressing fine mathematical distinctions[3] ). But, as it turns out, the situation is worse than just having to make do with awkward sentences. For it is a curious fact about most natural languages – English, French, Hebrew, etc. – that when we use modal terms in ordinary speech, we often do so in logically misleading ways. Just see how natural it is to try to formulate the preceding point [namely proposition (1)] in this fashion:

(2) If α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false.

Or, in symbols:

(2a) α ⊃ ~◊~β

In ordinary speech, the latter sentence, (2), is natural and idiomatic; the former sentence (1b) is unnatural and unidiomatic. But – and this is the crucial point – the propositions expressed by (1)-(1b) are not equivalent to the propositions expressed by sentences (2)-(2a). The former set, that is (1)-(1b), are all true. The latter, (2)-(2a)are false and commit the modal fallacy. The fallacy occurs in its assigning the modality of impossibility, not to the relationship between the truth of α and falsity of β as is done in (1)-(1b), but to the falsity of β alone. Ordinary grammar beguiles us and misleads us. It makes us believe that if α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false. But it is possible for β to be false. β is a contingent proposition. Recall the principle of the fixity of modal status. Even if the falsity of β is guaranteed by the truth of some other proposition [in this case α], β does not ‘become’ impossible: it ‘remains’ contingent, and thereby possible.

Whatever impossibility there is lies in jointly asserting α and denying β. (See (1b) above.) The proposition “it is false that β” does not ‘become’ impossible if one asserts α.[4]
Click to expand...

Some persons have been deceived by the following (fallacious) argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions:

“(By the Law of Non-contradiction), if a proposition is true (/false), then it cannot be false (/true). If a proposition cannot be false (/true), then it is necessarily true (/false). Therefore if a proposition is true (/false), it is necessarily true (/false). That is, there are no contingent propositions. Every proposition is either necessarily true or necessarily false. (If we could see the world from God’s viewpoint, we would see the necessity of everything. Contingency is simply an artifact of ignorance. Contingency disappears with complete knowledge.)”
Click to expand...

The fallacy arises in the ambiguity of the first premise. If we interpret it close to the English, we get:

P ⊃ ~◊~P
~◊~P ⊃ ☐P
——————
∴ P ⊃ ☐ P
Click to expand...

However, if we regard the English as misleading, as assigning a necessity to what is simply nothing more than a necessary condition, then we get instead as our premises:

~◊(P & ~P) [equivalently: ☐(P ⊃ P)]
~◊~P ⊃ ☐P
Click to expand...

From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:

P ⊃ ☐P.
Click to expand...

In short, the argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions is unsound. Its very first premise commits the
modal fallacy.

The identical error occurs in the argument for logical determinism. Recall (the expanded version of) Aristotle’s sea battle:

Two warring admirals, A and B, are preparing their fleets for a decisive sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the “logical laws (or principles)” of the excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no proposition is both true and false), require that one of the propositions, “A wins” and “it is false that A wins,” is true and the other is false. Suppose “A wins” is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: A must win; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must win). Or again, suppose “A wins” is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference: A must lose; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must lose). Thus, if every proposition is either true or false (and not both), then planning, or as Aristotle put it “taking trouble,” is futile. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.
Click to expand...

If we let “A” stand for “Admiral A wins” and let “B” stand for “Admiral B wins”, the core of this argument can be stated in symbols this way:

A or B	[one or the other of these two propositions is true]
~◊(A & B)	[it is not possible that both A and B are true]

∴	A ⊃ ☐A A ⊃ ~◊~A	}	If A is true, then A mustbe true. If A is true, then A cannot be false.
	A ⊃ ☐~B A ⊃ ~◊B	}	If A is true, then B must be false.If A is true, then B cannot be true.
	B ⊃ ☐B B ⊃ ~◊~B	}	If B is true, then B mustbe true. If B is true, then B cannot be false.
	B ⊃ ☐~A B ⊃ ~◊A	}	If B is true, then A must be false.If B is true, then A cannot be true.

Click to expand...

In this argument, by hypothesis, either A is true or B is true, and since they cannot both be true, the second premise may be accepted as true. But none of the conclusions is true. A is contingent, and B is contingent. Yet the conclusions state that from the assumed truth of either of (the two contingencies) A or B, it follows that A and B are each either necessarily true or necessarily false. Each of these eight conclusions violates the principle of the fixity of modal status. What, then, are the conclusions one may draw validly from the premises? These:

☐(A ⊃ ~B)	or, equivalently,	~◊(A & B)
☐(B ⊃ ~A)	or, equivalently,	~◊(B & A)

Click to expand...

So long as we remain mindful of the fact that “~◊(P & Q)” is logically equivalent to “☐(P ⊃ ~Q)” but is not equivalent to “P ⊃ ☐~Q”, the argument for logical determinism will be seen to be invalid. Our ordinary language treats “it is impossible for both P and Q to be true” as if it were logically equivalent to “if P is true, then Q is necessarily false”. But the profound difference between these two assertions is that the former preserves the principle of the fixity of modal status, the latter violates that principle. The proposition, “Admiral A wins”, is contingent, and if true, then it “remains” true. Indeed this is a trivial logical truth:

(i) ☐(P ⊃ P) alternatively, ~◊(P & ~P)
Click to expand...

The argument for logical determinism illicitly treats this logical truth as if it were equivalent to the false proposition

(ii) P ⊃ ☐P alternatively, P ⊃ ~◊~P
Click to expand...

If you do not let yourself be beguiled by the invalid ‘move’ (inference) from (i) to (ii), the argument for logical determinism collapses. The truth of a proposition concerning your future behavior does not make that future behavior necessary. What you choose to do in the future was, is, and will remain contingent, even if a proposition describing that choice is timelessly true.
Click to expand...

Let’s recall Maimonides’s argument:

… “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.”

We can symbolize the core of this argument, using “∴” for “it necessarily follows”; and “☐” for “compelled”; and “D” for the proposition describing what some particular person does tomorrow.

gKD
———
∴ ☐D

There seems to be (at least) one missing premise. [In the terminology of logicians, the argument is enthymematic.] One tacit assumption of this argument is the necessary truth, “it is not possible both for God to know that D and for D to be false”, or, in symbols, “~◊(gKD & ~D)”. So the argument becomes:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
————————
∴ ☐D

But even with this repair, the argument remains invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the two premises. To derive the conclusion, a third premise is needed, and it is easy to see what it is. Most persons, with hardly a moment’s thought, virtually as a reflex action, will tacitly assume that the second premise is logically equivalent to:

gKD ⊃ ☐D

and will tacitly (/unconsciously) add this further premise, so as to yield, finally:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D
————————
∴ ☐D

But this third premise, we have seen above, is false; it commits the modal fallacy. Without this premise, Maimonides’ argument is invalid; with it, the argument becomes valid but unsound (that is, has a false and essential premise [namely the third one]). Either way, the argument is a logical botch.

Once the logical error is detected, and removed, the argument for epistemic determinism simply collapses. If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become “necessary”, “compelled”, “forced”, or what have you. Inasmuch as its description was, is, and will remain forever contingent, both it and its negation remain possible. Of course only one of the two was, is, and will remain true; while the other was, is, and will remain false. But truth and falsity, per se, do not determine a proposition’s modality. Whether true or false, each of these propositions was, is, and will remain possible. Knowing – whether by God or a human being – some future event no more forces that event to occur than our learning that dinosaurs lived in (what is now) South Dakota forced those reptiles to take up residence there.
Click to expand...

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="Mogpogs"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18244.jpg?1657049939[/IMG]

Mogpogs​

Noveau Bitche​

JoinedMar 10, 2022Posts7,248Reputation8,357
Yesterday at 9:13 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #18

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

What happened to your seal avi?

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Today at 12:53 AM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #19

KEK

Why is the square used to represent ‘compelled’ when the argument is True or false?

Surely it should be ~◊(gKD & ~ ☐D)

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="hebbewem"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/0/997.jpg?1642255083[/IMG]

hebbewem​

I want a cuckqueen​

JoinedFeb 10, 2019Posts13,711Reputation16,661
Today at 12:56 AM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #20

Have you ever heard of determinism? Every single atom in the universe abides by the black-and-white laws of physics, including your brain chemistry. How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

Yes to your question and you need a reason. For why you dont.

I mog you
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Today at 1:07 AM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #21

but I think you meant omniscient

I meant omnipotent, omniscient only implies foreknowledge not all powerful

@

@wizard master your reply only justifies omniscience but I said omnipotent

How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

Well that’s what I’m arguing & that’s not a scientific explanation at all. You should stick to larps because those skills don’t work so well in a philosophical debate.

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="wizard master"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18603.jpg?1657180311[/IMG]

wizard master​

ㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤ​

JoinedMar 26, 2022Posts1,218Reputation1,389
49 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #22

@

@wizard master your reply only justifies omniscience but I said omnipotent

i dont see how Omnipotency contradicts free will? within the realm of Omnipotence your question gets even more shaky



+1 Reply
Report

• 

Reactions:GetShrekt
[IMG alt="bwrauycnee"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/11/11689.jpg?1626790762[/IMG]

bwrauycnee​

Zephir​

JoinedJan 3, 2021Posts1,972Reputation1,938
47 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #23

Because an omnipotent god deemed it so

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
45 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #24

i dont see how Omnipotency contradicts free will? within the realm of Omnipotence your question gets even more shaky

All powerful vs. All knowing

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
B

Bhupal57​

Bronze​

JoinedJun 8, 2022Posts470Reputation815
20 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #25

What happened to your seal avi?

Goodbye My Friend

+1 Reply
Report

[IMG alt="isis_Bleach"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/m/10/10281.jpg?1656392927[/IMG]
Remove formattingBoldItalicFont sizeText colorMore options…
ListAlignment

• Align left
• Align center
• Align right
• Justify text

Paragraph format
Insert linkInsert imageSmileys BarInsert GIFMediaQuoteMore options…
UndoRedoToggle BB codeDrafts
Preview

Font familyStrike-throughUnderlineInline codeInline spoiler
Insert tableInsert horizontal lineInsert videoSpoilerCode

Write your reply...

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Post reply
Attach files

Similar threads​

[IMG alt="disillusioned"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/0/752.jpg?1568063265[/IMG]
JFL The white supremacy trope is fucking hilarious

• disillusioned
• Jun 30, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies9Views150
Friday at 2:11 AM
btsgangruling
[IMG alt="btsgangruling"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/17/17311.jpg?1656617969[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Ryan"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/11/11787.jpg?1656527530[/IMG]
Cope "Muh Im subhuman so no god"

• Ryan
• Jun 28, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies36Views266
Jun 28, 2022
hebbewem
[IMG alt="hebbewem"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/0/997.jpg?1642255083[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Witheredly90"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/11/11126.jpg?1654629367[/IMG]
LifeFuel In 10 years at my HS reunion I will be better then everyone

• Witheredly90
• Jun 28, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies19Views161
Jun 29, 2022
Witheredly90
[IMG alt="Witheredly90"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/11/11126.jpg?1654629367[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Chinacurry"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/5/5538.jpg?1647623333[/IMG]
Blackpill Pro choice

• Chinacurry
• Jun 30, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies4Views70
Jun 30, 2022
Spiegel
[IMG alt="Spiegel"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/19/19180.jpg?1652839774[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Vermilioncore"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/3/3549.jpg?1657120179[/IMG]
Discussion Women’s yearn for Chad’s CUM is the sole reason why abortion is even an issue

• Vermilioncore
• Jun 24, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies19Views252
Jun 27, 2022
currylightskin
[IMG alt="currylightskin"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/16/16386.jpg?1656327305[/IMG]

Users who are viewing this thread​

• isis_Bleach
• greeneyedsubhuman
• Bhupal57
• DesperadoRatado
• Kal-El
• Gonthar
• bwrauycnee
• ... and 8 more.

Total: 19 (Looksmaxers: 15, Bluepillers: 4)
Share:
FacebookTwitterRedditPinterestTumblrEmailLink

• Forums
• Looksmax
• Offtopic

• Fast Banana Dark
• Change width

• Contact us
• Terms and rules
• Privacy policy
• Help
• Home
• RSS

Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
B

Bhupal57​

Bronze​

JoinedJun 8, 2022Posts470Reputation815
Tuesday at 1:50 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #3

Idk
God Is 1 Hell Of A Goofy Guy Ill Say

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768722

Reactions:jim and Leonardo DiCaprio
[IMG alt="Vermilioncore"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/3/3549.jpg?1657120179[/IMG]

Vermilioncore​

deranged dark triad psychopath​

JoinedOct 17, 2019Posts28,272Reputation48,977
Tuesday at 1:50 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #4

Pain without end

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768727

Reactions:wollet2 and Leonardo DiCaprio
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Tuesday at 1:51 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #5

You should reconsider your worldview

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="Leonardo DiCaprio"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/2/2403.jpg?1657058775[/IMG]

Leonardo DiCaprio​

As if​

JoinedJul 15, 2019Posts49,066Reputation126,939
Tuesday at 1:55 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #6

elaborate?

+1 Reply
Report
B

Bhupal57​

Bronze​

JoinedJun 8, 2022Posts470Reputation815
Tuesday at 1:56 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #7

I Would But I Have Braind Damage M'Lord

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768724

Reactions:Mogpogs, jim and Leonardo DiCaprio
[IMG alt="Leonardo DiCaprio"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/2/2403.jpg?1657058775[/IMG]

Leonardo DiCaprio​

As if​

JoinedJul 15, 2019Posts49,066Reputation126,939
Tuesday at 1:57 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #8

im disappointed

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768723
• View attachment 1768726

Reactions:comfortably dumb and Bhupal57
[IMG alt="hebbewem"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/0/997.jpg?1642255083[/IMG]

hebbewem​

I want a cuckqueen​

JoinedFeb 10, 2019Posts13,711Reputation16,661
Tuesday at 1:57 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #9

It can't

I mog you
+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768725

Reactions:wollet2
[IMG alt="zv1212"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18180.jpg?1656996256[/IMG]

zv1212​

Zephir​

JoinedMar 6, 2022Posts4,680Reputation5,171
Tuesday at 2:00 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #10

Free will doesn't exist unless the soul exists

And if the soul exists then God probably does do, and if God exists there is no free will.

Not having free will isn't really a bad thing on an individual level, you can still achieve your aspirations and do whatever you want, just accept it was predetermined solely by your brain chemistry and upbringing.

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768721

Reactions:GetShrekt
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Tuesday at 2:02 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #11

What’s the point in this hell and heaven cope then, why don’t they just live their life and stop reading tales from the bible.

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="zv1212"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18180.jpg?1656996256[/IMG]

zv1212​

Zephir​

JoinedMar 6, 2022Posts4,680Reputation5,171
Tuesday at 2:03 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #12

Agreed

@

@LooksOverAll does not concur

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="LooksOverAll"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/7/7725.jpg?1656547591[/IMG]

LooksOverAll​

All your questions can be answered in scripture.​

JoinedJun 8, 2020Posts14,604Reputation29,073
Tuesday at 2:29 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #13

Have you ever heard of determinism? Every single atom in the universe abides by the black-and-white laws of physics, including your brain chemistry. How can you somehow have free will despite everything being pre-determined from the start of the Universe?

So that's the scientific explanation for it. Now you can't prove free will the same way you can't prove consciousness. But do you truly believe that your free will and consciousness is simply an illusion created by chemicals that abide solely by the laws of physics? I personally don't.

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768718

Reactions:Ryan
E

exeight​

Diamond​

JoinedJan 14, 2022Posts1,337Reputation1,247
Tuesday at 3:19 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #14

i dont think there is a free will

+1 Reply
Report
H

Harold O'brien​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀​

JoinedDec 3, 2021Posts4,153Reputation4,974
Tuesday at 3:29 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #15

checkmate christians

+1 Reply
Report
H

Harold O'brien​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀​

JoinedDec 3, 2021Posts4,153Reputation4,974
Tuesday at 3:30 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #16

but I think you meant omniscient

+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768720

Reactions:GetShrekt
[IMG alt="wizard master"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18603.jpg?1657180311[/IMG]

wizard master​

ㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤ​

JoinedMar 26, 2022Posts1,218Reputation1,389
Yesterday at 8:51 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #17

KEK







+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="Mogpogs"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18244.jpg?1657049939[/IMG]

Mogpogs​

Noveau Bitche​

JoinedMar 10, 2022Posts7,248Reputation8,357
Yesterday at 9:13 PM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #18

What happened to your seal avi?

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Today at 12:53 AM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #19

Why is the square used to represent ‘compelled’ when the argument is True or false?

Surely it should be ~◊(gKD & ~ ☐D)

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="hebbewem"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/0/997.jpg?1642255083[/IMG]

hebbewem​

I want a cuckqueen​

JoinedFeb 10, 2019Posts13,711Reputation16,661
Today at 12:56 AM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #20

Yes to your question and you need a reason. For why you dont.

I mog you
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
Today at 1:07 AM

• New
• Add bookmark
• #21

I meant omnipotent, omniscient only implies foreknowledge not all powerful

@

@wizard master your reply only justifies omniscience but I said omnipotent

Well that’s what I’m arguing & that’s not a scientific explanation at all. You should stick to larps because those skills don’t work so well in a philosophical debate.

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="wizard master"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/18/18603.jpg?1657180311[/IMG]

wizard master​

ㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤ​

JoinedMar 26, 2022Posts1,218Reputation1,389
49 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #22

i dont see how Omnipotency contradicts free will? within the realm of Omnipotence your question gets even more shaky



+1 Reply
Report

• View attachment 1768719

Reactions:GetShrekt
[IMG alt="bwrauycnee"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/11/11689.jpg?1626790762[/IMG]

bwrauycnee​

Zephir​

JoinedJan 3, 2021Posts1,972Reputation1,938
47 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #23

Because an omnipotent god deemed it so

+1 Reply
Report
[IMG alt="GetShrekt"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/4/4362.jpg?1657121950[/IMG]

GetShrekt​

Toxic​

JoinedDec 15, 2019Posts14,843Reputation17,573
45 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #24

All powerful vs. All knowing

The men taking part express misogyny and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement to sex that women are withholding from them.

Some incels advocate violence against women - and the men who are lucky enough to be in happy relationships.
+1 Reply
Report
B

Bhupal57​

Bronze​

JoinedJun 8, 2022Posts470Reputation815
20 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #25

Goodbye My Friend

+1 Reply
Report

[IMG alt="isis_Bleach"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/m/10/10281.jpg?1656392927[/IMG]
Remove formattingBoldItalicFont sizeText colorMore options…
ListAlignment

• Align left
• Align center
• Align right
• Justify text

Paragraph format
Insert linkInsert imageSmileys BarInsert GIFMediaQuoteMore options…
UndoRedoToggle BB codeDrafts
Preview

Font familyStrike-throughUnderlineInline codeInline spoiler
Insert tableInsert horizontal lineInsert videoSpoilerCode

Write your reply...

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Post reply
Attach files

Similar threads​

[IMG alt="disillusioned"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/0/752.jpg?1568063265[/IMG]
JFL The white supremacy trope is fucking hilarious

• disillusioned
• Jun 30, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies9Views150
Friday at 2:11 AM
btsgangruling
[IMG alt="btsgangruling"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/17/17311.jpg?1656617969[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Ryan"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/11/11787.jpg?1656527530[/IMG]
Cope "Muh Im subhuman so no god"

• Ryan
• Jun 28, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies36Views266
Jun 28, 2022
hebbewem
[IMG alt="hebbewem"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/0/997.jpg?1642255083[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Witheredly90"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/11/11126.jpg?1654629367[/IMG]
LifeFuel In 10 years at my HS reunion I will be better then everyone

• Witheredly90
• Jun 28, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies19Views161
Jun 29, 2022
Witheredly90
[IMG alt="Witheredly90"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/11/11126.jpg?1654629367[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Chinacurry"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/5/5538.jpg?1647623333[/IMG]
Blackpill Pro choice

• Chinacurry
• Jun 30, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies4Views70
Jun 30, 2022
Spiegel
[IMG alt="Spiegel"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/19/19180.jpg?1652839774[/IMG]
[IMG alt="Vermilioncore"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/3/3549.jpg?1657120179[/IMG]
Discussion Women’s yearn for Chad’s CUM is the sole reason why abortion is even an issue

• Vermilioncore
• Jun 24, 2022
• Offtopic

Replies19Views252
Jun 27, 2022
currylightskin
[IMG alt="currylightskin"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/s/16/16386.jpg?1656327305[/IMG]

Users who are viewing this thread​

• isis_Bleach
• greeneyedsubhuman
• Bhupal57
• DesperadoRatado
• Kal-El
• Gonthar
• bwrauycnee
• ... and 8 more.

Total: 19 (Looksmaxers: 15, Bluepillers: 4)
Share:
FacebookTwitterRedditPinterestTumblrEmailLink

• Forums
• Looksmax
• Offtopic

• Fast Banana Dark
• Change width

• Contact us
• Terms and rules
• Privacy policy
• Help
• Home
• RSS

Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.

nigga wtf

 

[RecessedChinCel]

God knew you were destined to be an incel before the universe existed. How do you cope?

 

[comfortably dumb]

dude, just consider the state and situation of humanity when these tales were made (by recycling myths of previous civilizations + adding some content of their own)

people simply didn't know better than mental gymnastics, and they obviously got tangled up in it

lol at barking at religions in 2022