retard tries disproving 2000 years of church history with an argument from 100 A.D.

[coastal]

nigger cant read

nigger makes the apple argument that was debunked by church fathers and Christian apologists 10000 times and thinks he disproved God jfl

and again, it's completely fine if you wanna be an atheist if you have good reasons for that whatever they may be. but being an uneducated retard who just heard an argument from a lolcow debatebro on tiktok live and now trying to spew his retarded arguments which leads people away from the truth and Christ (and let's be honest out of all the people in the world guys on org need Him most)

i wholeheartedly believe that we have a moral right to publicly hang people like this to save the future generation from inheriting their genes

@saumya_19 i will pray for you because whatever you are can only be saved by Christ Jesus but i dont think even that can help T-T

IM NOT OVERREACTING !!! IM NOT OVERREACTING !!! IM NOT OVERREACTING

 

[saumya_19]

Amen, but dnr a single molecule

 

[shngstaaaa107]

Probably just inexperienced in religious debate, if anything. It's a very interesting topic but you shouldn't act superior to someone who is naive

 

[Tyler1]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur I think this is something for you nga

 

[tunisianropemaxxer]

DNR.

 

[WhateverItTakes1]

if you think christian god is real then why do we have natural instincts that go against many christian teachings? genuine question

 

[Tenres]

Whats non experiential knowledge of good and evil? And what normative property does it has if any?

 

[coastal]

Amen, but dnr a single molecule

valid im just venting

 

[saumya_19]

valid im just venting

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

The Problem of Evil argument remains undefeated.. #CantSayMuchMore

 

[coastal]

Whats non experiential knowledge of good and evil? And what normative property does it has if any?

non experiential knowledge of good and evil will be descriptions of what separation of God feels like, but unless they experience sin yourself you'll never be able to have actual knowledge of it. same way as you cant know what love is when you've never experienced it (projection). people can tell you that it feels warm, good etc. etc. but you will never know what it's actually like.

there is no normative properties

 

[coastal]

The Problem of Evil argument remains undefeated.. #CantSayMuchMore

the free will rebuttal remains undefeated

 

[Frenulum]

religion is man made bullshit

 

[coastal]

if you think christian god is real then why do we have natural instincts that go against many christian teachings? genuine question

because after humanity disobeyed God in the garden the world and our intuition was corrupted with sin and our spirits became blinded. also temptations from demons. good question bhai

 

[kranerman23123]

View attachment 4959085 nigger cant read

View attachment 4959088 nigger makes the apple argument that was debunked by church fathers and Christian apologists 10000 times and thinks he disproved God jfl

and again, it's completely fine if you wanna be an atheist if you have good reasons for that whatever they may be. but being an uneducated retard who just heard an argument from a lolcow debatebro on tiktok live and now trying to spew his retarded arguments which leads people away from the truth and Christ (and let's be honest out of all the people in the world guys on org need Him most)

i wholeheartedly believe that we have a moral right to publicly hang people like this to save the future generation from inheriting their genes

@saumya_19 i will pray for you because whatever you are can only be saved by Christ Jesus but i dont think even that can help T-T

IM NOT OVERREACTING !!! IM NOT OVERREACTING !!! IM NOT OVERREACTING

Its funny how atheists always come up with some shitty logically fallacious argument without realizing they already had a war over that exact point 500 years ago

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

the free will rebuttal remains undefeated

Not really, unless you don’t believe in the Biblical God being all-powerful + God has already intervened many times, like when he killed Oman for deciding to spill his semen

 

[Tenres]

non experiential knowledge of good and evil will be descriptions of what separation of God feels like, but unless they experience sin yourself you'll never be able to have actual knowledge of it. same way as you cant know what love is when you've never experienced it (projection). people can tell you that it feels warm, good etc. etc. but you will never know what it's actually like.

there is no normative properties

Yeah then u just don't account for what people mean when they say morality then. People don't want to simply say that x is wrong, but that x is wrong and you should not do it because of that. So by the conventional definition moral properties have some inherent normative property, so you just adopt a proprietary definition that no one actually means to establish your system of morality.

As a quick evidence of this, the is-ought gap isn't a problem for objective morality in your account but for most philosophers it is. Therefore your conception is uncommon.

 

[coastal]

religion is man made bullshit

cool story dude but TAG proves that it is a metaphysical necessity for the preconditions of intelligibility (yes a lot of big words basically you cant justify laws of logic without appealing to metaphysical constants), aka God or platonism (but it has a whole new set of issues like not being able to know the forms)

rep for gatis reference

 

[Frenulum]

cool story dude but TAG proves that it is a metaphysical necessity for the preconditions of intelligibility (yes a lot of big words basically you cant justify laws of logic without appealing to metaphysical constants), aka God or platonism (but it has a whole new set of issues like not being able to know the forms)

rep for gatis reference

yes but that doesnt approve religious gods, it approves that there is a higher being, what that higher being is stays mysterious. I think god is everything and a unlimited energy source, but i dont think that he is a personal being that chooses sides or put any book onto the earth.

very high iq take tho

 

[coastal]

Yeah then u just don't account for what people mean when they say morality then. People don't want to simply say that x is wrong, but that x is wrong and you should not do it because of that.

yea i do, it's wrong coz God said so and that's the only actual justification you can have for it. coz saying "omg rape wrong coz it harms others" will just be an inf regress into "why harm wrong" "coz pain" why pain wrong" etc. and ur not gonna have a justification for this

So by the conventional definition moral properties have some inherent normative property, so you just adopt a proprietary definition that no one actually means to establish your system of morality.

yea but you're presuming we still not have experiential knowledge, but we do because we live in sin now so we have access to knowing the norm proprs

As a quick evidence of this, the is-ought gap isn't a problem for objective morality in your account but for most philosophers it is

yea they'll be wrong as was shown by David Hume, and it's not a problem for Christianity (EO) because we believe that God made the universe and everything in it with love and intention so it isnt just "is", it does have a purpose therefore we can derive an ought

Therefore your conception is uncommon.

i wouldnt say so, im pretty sure most people in the world are religious in some way or another and will have similar aristotelian type metaphysics

 

[coastal]

yes but that doesnt approve religious gods, it approves that there is a higher being, what that higher being is stays mysterious. I think god is everything and a unlimited energy source, but i dont think that he is a personal being that chooses sides or put any book onto the earth.

very high iq take tho

yea and then u can extrapolate TAG info multiplicity in God which proves Christianity as the only paradigm that's able to justify our metaphysical reality. staying mysterious will go against omni properties, and we can deduce His qualities from TAG (autonomous agent to make the universe, moral to ground morality etc.)

he HAS to be a personal being to decide to make the universe

good reply tho mirin high iq

 

[coastal]

Not really, unless you don’t believe in the Biblical God being all-powerful + God has already intervened many times, like when he killed Oman for deciding to spill his semen

please read how the free will argument goes

 

[Quncho]

View attachment 4959085 nigger cant read

View attachment 4959088 nigger makes the apple argument that was debunked by church fathers and Christian apologists 10000 times and thinks he disproved God jfl

and again, it's completely fine if you wanna be an atheist if you have good reasons for that whatever they may be. but being an uneducated retard who just heard an argument from a lolcow debatebro on tiktok live and now trying to spew his retarded arguments which leads people away from the truth and Christ (and let's be honest out of all the people in the world guys on org need Him most)

i wholeheartedly believe that we have a moral right to publicly hang people like this to save the future generation from inheriting their genes

@saumya_19 i will pray for you because whatever you are can only be saved by Christ Jesus but i dont think even that can help T-T

IM NOT OVERREACTING !!! IM NOT OVERREACTING !!! IM NOT OVERREACTING

No evidence no care and yet they can't give their own. Flawed argument from ignorance.

 

[coastal]

No evidence no care and yet they can't give their own. Flawed argument from ignorance.

yep pretty much, i love talking to smart atheists like @Tenres coz he clearly knows what he's talking about and gives thought out critiques of my positions but when it's js "omg lol u believe in sky daddy" "omg but divine hiddenness" "omg but if God good why bad happens" i wanna rope

 

[lemureater]

it saddens me when people dont even know the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'

even well aclaimed atheists like Richard Dawkins have said that theres 'evidence' for god but that its simply not strong enough to act as proof.

evidence is any argument like the origin of life whereas proof would be god being proven scientifcally or mathamatically.

plastic atheists never actually educate themselves on their own arguments

 

[Tenres]

yea i do, it's wrong coz God said so and that's the only actual justification you can have for it. coz saying "omg rape wrong coz it harms others" will just be an inf regress into "why harm wrong" "coz pain" why pain wrong" etc. and ur not gonna have a justification for this

yea but you're presuming we still not have experiential knowledge, but we do because we live in sin now so we have access to knowing the norm proprs


yea they'll be wrong as was shown by David Hume, and it's not a problem for Christianity (EO) because we believe that God made the universe and everything in it with love and intention so it isnt just "is", it does have a purpose therefore we can derive an ought


i wouldnt say so, im pretty sure most people in the world are religious in some way or another and will have similar aristotelian type metaphysics

1. "Rape is wrong because it maximizes negative valences" and defining wrongness as increasing negative valences is as consistent as your definition, so neither are a problem internally. Given that both just define morality as some descriptive fact. So my problem is just going to be an external critique that your semantic perspective is not shared by most people who discuss morality.

2. Yeh but if we are just going to ground normative properties in experience, then why not just accept that negative / positive experiences are themselves normative and what we refer to when we talk about goodness v. badness

3. It's more that morality is inherently normative, and when he have non-normative morality. Seemingly your just not having the same conversation anymore.

Because clearly a non normative could exist, because we can say any standard of behavior can be our moral system even if it compells 0 people to act in accordance to it, etc

 

[Quncho]

it saddens me when people dont even know the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'

even well aclaimed atheists like Richard Dawkins have said that theres 'evidence' for god but that its simply not strong enough to act as proof.

evidence is any argument like the origin of life whereas proof would be god being proven scientifcally or mathamatically.

plastic atheists never actually educate themselves on their own arguments

The asking of proof is the worst argument that can be given when it comes to arguments about religions in general. Proof is asking to get something and it put in front of a person that confirms that something exists. But you see that would eliminate the whole point of faith. In the same way atheism can't be proved either.

We all believe that Christopher Colombus existed because he was in our history books. Insurmountable evidence says he did exist but it's not like we can grab a time capsule and bring him back to life and prove it. It's just very, very likely.

Same way goes for evidence of Jesus' existence.

 

[coastal]

1. "Rape is wrong because it maximizes negative valences" and defining wrongness as increasing negative valences is as consistent as your definition, so neither are a problem internally. Given that both just define morality as some descriptive fact. So my problem is just going to be an external critique that your semantic perspective is not shared by most people who discuss morality.

being internally consistent doesnt really mean much the issue is materialists not being able to justify the normativety itself (inf regress)

2. Yeh but if we are just going to ground normative properties in experience, then why not just accept that negative / positive experiences are themselves normative and what we refer to when we talk about goodness v. badness

coz it's subjective (raper enjoys rape = good, raped feels pain = bad for her) and they're gonna have epistemological symmetry with no ability to resolve it so this fails

3. It's more that morality is inherently normative, and when he have non-normative morality. Seemingly your just not having the same conversation anymore.

not even an argument tbh? you still have no argument for why ought we follow any mortality like humanism utilitarianism etc.

im gonna go sleep now mirin iq

much love God bless

 

[lemureater]

The asking of proof is the worst argument that can be given when it comes to arguments about religions in general. Proof is asking to get something and it put in front of a person that confirms that something exists. But you see that would eliminate the whole point of faith. In the same way atheism can't be proved either.

We all believe that Christopher Colombus existed because he was in our history books. Insurmountable evidence says he did exist but it's not like we can grab a time capsule and bring him back to life and prove it. It's just very, very likely.

Same way goes for evidence of Jesus' existence.

hm agreed

atheists take pride in evidentialism and yet they themselves dont have a counter argument for alot of theist arguements like the origin of life or fine-tuning

the only reason why im on the fence between agnostism and chrisianity is simply due to morality reasons and historical evidence that supports the idea that judeuism is based off other beliefs etc

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

please read how the free will argument goes

Do you believe that God can’t intervene because of one’s free will?

 

[lemureater]

coz it's subjective (raper enjoys rape = good, raped feels pain = bad for her) and they're gonna have epistemological symmetry with no ability to resolve it so this fails

however would the rape victim suffer for a lifetime or at least multiple years from this rape via emotional and physical trauma? Therefore we can say its not symmetrical

 

[coastal]

it saddens me when people dont even know the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'

even well aclaimed atheists like Richard Dawkins have said that theres 'evidence' for god but that its simply not strong enough to act as proof.

evidence is any argument like the origin of life whereas proof would be god being proven scientifcally or mathamatically.

plastic atheists never actually educate themselves on their own arguments

yep basically, evolution doesnt even follow the scientific method everyone loves so much because it's not observable

but TAG is actual proof if you do an actual reductio in a debate so W for Christ

 

[coastal]

Do you believe that God can’t intervene because of one’s free will?

God gave us free will and he doesnt contradict himself so he doesnt always intervene to respect the free will he gave us

just google the full structured argument

 

[Tenres]

being internally consistent doesnt really mean much the issue is materialists not being able to justify the normativety itself (inf regress)


coz it's subjective (raper enjoys rape = good, raped feels pain = bad for her) and they're gonna have epistemological symmetry with no ability to resolve it so this fails


not even an argument tbh? you still have no argument for why ought we follow any mortality like humanism utilitarianism etc.

im gonna go sleep now mirin iq

much love God bless

Obviously there are innately preferential experiences (e.g., negative and positive valences), whether these are non-physical isn't particularly relevant. Although simply to say they aren't is to posit two substances that can somehow interact despite immaterial things necessarily existing outside of the universe and therefore Hamiltonian (so there possibility space should be infinite [excluding logical impossibilities], therefore not explaining how immaterial things somehow interact consistently with material things as in with the brain -- in the non physicalist account). And so to conclude this piece, it's simply going to be the case that if a physicalist model can account for these experiences, then you have a normative system.

Well in the case where it's just bad to increase negative valences gratuitously, it's not going to matter if they feel good about it. And you'd basically be positing a utility monster situation as IRL the rape victim will deal with lifelong trauma, whereas the rapist will get some temporary pleasure. In any case, I think rule utilitarian frameworks can account for this (everyone is at threat of a utility monster, even utility monsters, therefore it would cause extreme disutility to allow them to do whatever they want based on simple act utilitarian calculus).

Well theres just more reason to follow a normative morality than a non-normative morality by definition because ones action-guiding and ones not. A non normative morality by definition has a set of standards as to how to act, but has no intrinsically motivating property that makes it so people should act in accordance with it.

It is an arg tho because if I ran the basic omnipotence paradox, and then you said "well I define omnipotence as including only logical possibilities" and then I simply said "well I don't." You'd point out that I'm just not engaging with what theists actually think.

Edit:
+ [excluding logical impossibilities]
posting --> positing

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

he doesnt contradict himself

What? So you’re saying it’s impossible for him to contradict himself simply because he’s God? How old are you?

doesnt always

Doesn’t matter, he already has multiple times

I’ll stop here, you seem young and don't understand the concept of the Biblical Gods omnipotence

 

[coastal]

Obviously there are innately preferential experiences (e.g., negative and positive valences), whether these are non-physical isn't particularly relevant. Although simply to say they aren't is to posit two substances that can somehow interact despite immaterial things necessarily existing outside of the universe and therefore Hamiltonian (so there possibility space should be infinite [excluding logical impossibilities], therefore not explaining how immaterial things somehow interact consistently with material things as in with the brain -- in the non physicalist account). And so to conclude this piece, it's simply going to be the case that if a physicalist model can account for these experiences, then you have a normative system.

Well in the case where it's just bad to increase negative valences gratuitously, it's not going to matter if they feel good about it. And you'd basically be positing a utility monster situation as IRL the rape victim will deal with lifelong trauma, whereas the rapist will get some temporary pleasure. In any case, I think rule utilitarian frameworks can account for this (everyone is at threat of a utility monster, even utility monsters, therefore it would cause extreme disutility to allow them to do whatever they want based on simple act utilitarian calculus).

Well theres just more reason to follow a normative morality than a non-normative morality by definition because ones action-guiding and ones not. A non normative morality by definition has a set of standards as to how to act, but has no intrinsically motivating property that makes it so people should act in accordance with it.

It is an arg tho because if I ran the basic omnipotence paradox, and then you said "well I define omnipotence as including only logical possibilities" and then I simply said "well I don't." You'd point out that I'm just not engaging with what theists actually think.

Edit:
+ [excluding logical impossibilities]
posting --> positing

sorry dnr im smoking on a bench im sure it's a good arg but my anger went away and now i dont wanna argue and wanna be friends with everyone

 

[coastal]

What? So you’re saying it’s impossible for him to contradict himself simply because he’s God? How old are you?

yes it's part of our theology. im 19 since ur asking

Doesn’t matter, he already has multiple times

I’ll stop here, you seem young and don't understand the concept of the Biblical Gods omnipotence

yes i do, and since you don't know the logical nature of God maybe you're the one who doesnt get it

alr niggas i dont wnanaanana arguueee!!! you're all correct i concede u won the debate guys