Why being an athiest is not any more logical than religion

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

It’s true that concepts like love justice and logical aren’t always empirically provable but they are grounded in shared human experiences and logical consistency. The existence of God as a metaphysical claim similarly demands a rigorous examination.

The argument cosmological teleological and moral are good but they have criticisms that challenge their conclusions. For example, the cosmological argument’s assumption of a necessary being to explain the universe’s existence is debated why cant the universe itself could be self explanatory?

The teleological arguments reliance on apparent design might be contested by naturalistic explanations of complexity and order. The moral argument raises questions about whether objective moral values require a divine source or if they can be grounded in human experiences and societal constructs.

The challenge for theism is not just in presenting arguments but in criticisms and showing that isis more likely than alternatives. Atheism, on the other hand relies on naturalistic explanations.

It's not about the type of evidence but how well the evidence fits within our world. empirical evidence is not the only standard rational consistency and explanatory power are equally as important

Very good response. You’re high IQ than most gaytheits I have met be proud

Addressing all your points 1 by one

Your argument presupposes that the universe, morality, and human experiences can be sufficiently explained through purely naturalistic means, but that’s precisely what’s in question. Naturalism and materialism themselves have serious shortcomings in providing a foundation for things like logic, morality, and human experience. Why should we trust that human experiences, which are just products of random evolutionary processes in a naturalistic framework, provide us with any real insight into justice, love, or truth? In fact, by reducing everything to naturalistic causes, you undermine the very tools you’re using to argue.

The problem with saying that the universe is self-explanatory is that you’re attributing to the universe qualities it doesn’t have. The universe is contingent—meaning it changes, it’s finite, and it’s dependent on external factors. Something contingent cannot explain itself. To say the universe is self-explanatory is like saying a book can write itself. You need something outside the system—something necessary, unchanging, and not contingent—to ground the existence of contingent things.

Naturalistic explanations of complexity like evolution don’t really explain away design—they just push the question back. Why does nature exhibit such fine-tuning and order? Why are the laws of physics and the constants of the universe so precisely calibrated to allow life? Even if you accept naturalistic evolution, you still need an explanation for why the conditions that allow evolution exist in the first place. The design argument points to an underlying intelligence behind the order and complexity we observe, something naturalism can’t account for, something which I brought up in my previous comment was the design argument, you don’t look at a picture and say “it just is” or the “picture just creates itself broooo.”

The problem with grounding morality in human experience or societal constructs is that it leads to moral relativism. If morality is just a product of human evolution or societal agreements, then it’s not really objective.

Atheism and naturalism can’t account for the very things you’re appealing to. When you rely on rational consistency or explanatory power, you’re using tools—like logic, morality, and reason—that presuppose theism. In a purely materialistic universe, there’s no reason to trust our reasoning faculties, because they’re just the product of random, unguided evolutionary processes. Naturalism fails to account for the preconditions of intelligibility—things like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of logic, and the existence of moral absolutes.

Theism explains why logic works, why we can reason, why the universe has order, and why moral values exist. It gives us a foundation for all these things in a transcendent, personal God who created the universe with purpose and meaning. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves you with an incoherent view of reality where everything is reduced to randomness and chance.

 

[Deleted member 56968]

Well that’s why most philosophers were theists and only a few such as can’t and Hume were atheists and even then they admitted that they don’t know jack shit and they are as knowledgable as an blind rabbit with 0 justification for their beliefs at least Hume is honest I respect that about him.

Anyways if you and @notsocommonthumb wanna know ima use an argument I ripped form Jay Dyer. Why? Because it’s an amazing argument that does really get one thinking about the deeper fundamental realities.

And yes I have an folder on my phone dedicated to this so I’m copy pasting lol

1. What is TAG?

The Transcendental Argument for God argues that God must exist because without Him, we couldn’t make sense of anything—not logic, not morality, not even our ability to reason.

for you to ask me a question, or for us to have this conversation, certain things need to be in place, right? Like, we need logic, the ability to think clearly, to trust our senses, and we need some kind of consistent reality that doesn’t change every second.

3. How Does TAG Work?

“Where do all those things come from?”

• Logic: Why do the rules of logic (like 2 + 2 = 4, or A can’t be both A and not-A) always work? They’re not physical objects we can touch.

Morality: Why do we have concepts of right and wrong? And why do they seem to apply to everyone, no matter where they are?

Reason: Why can we trust our brains to make sense of things?


4. TAG’s Main Point:

without God, none of these things make sense.

“If you just believe the universe is random, just molecules bouncing around, there’s no reason why logic, morality, or reason should work at all. But they do work, and they’re consistent. That’s because they come from God, who is the source of all order, logic, and truth. Without God, these things wouldn’t have any foundation.”

5. How TAG Refutes Atheism:

how TAG is used against atheism:

So for an example if someone says ‘I don’t believe in God,’ TAG shows that they’re actually relying on things that only make sense if God exists. When you use logic to argue against God, you’re actually using a tool that only exists because of God. You’re standing on the ground and then trying to argue that the ground doesn’t exist. As I said very self refuting

6. The Core Idea, Simplified:


It’s the equivalent of a video game character arguing that the programmer doesn’t exist. The game world, the rules, the character’s very ability to move and think—all of it came from the programmer. In the same way, everything we do—thinking, reasoning, being moral—comes from God. Without Him, none of it works. But we all know this and yet nobody debates if the programmer exists but for some strange reason we look at the complexity of the universe the complete sheer precision of it all and say “NOPE NO DIVINE MINE HERRP DERP”

logical principles are foundational and self evident truths that don’t require a supernatural explanation. They are abstract constructs that are useful for understanding and navigating an evolutional feauture. morality can be derived from rational human needs and social contracts which don’t require a divine god. The ability to reason and trust our cognitive processes can be explained through evolutionary biology and the development of cognitive faculties.

logical principles are consistent and reliable because they are abstract constructs that hold true regardless of your religion The rules of logic don’t need a god, they’re inherent in the structure of rational thought.
we argue that logic morality and reason are consistent with a naturalistic worldview which doesn’t rely on a god. claiming a divine source for logic and reason doesn’t address how these concepts function in a naturalistic or empirical framework.

You argue that using logic or reason in debate implies a reliance on god It’s like saying you need a magician to explain how a magic trick works. Just because we use logic doesn’t mean its validity is contingent on a supernatural source

your thing about a video game character denying the programmer doesn't make sense when you think about it. The characters world and rules are created by the programmer but the logic and rules within the game don’t necessitate the programmers existence in the real world they’re part of the game’s internal consistency.

 

[Deleted member 56968]

Very good response. You’re high IQ than most gaytheits I have met be proud

Addressing all your points 1 by one

Your argument presupposes that the universe, morality, and human experiences can be sufficiently explained through purely naturalistic means, but that’s precisely what’s in question. Naturalism and materialism themselves have serious shortcomings in providing a foundation for things like logic, morality, and human experience. Why should we trust that human experiences, which are just products of random evolutionary processes in a naturalistic framework, provide us with any real insight into justice, love, or truth? In fact, by reducing everything to naturalistic causes, you undermine the very tools you’re using to argue.

The problem with saying that the universe is self-explanatory is that you’re attributing to the universe qualities it doesn’t have. The universe is contingent—meaning it changes, it’s finite, and it’s dependent on external factors. Something contingent cannot explain itself. To say the universe is self-explanatory is like saying a book can write itself. You need something outside the system—something necessary, unchanging, and not contingent—to ground the existence of contingent things.

Naturalistic explanations of complexity like evolution don’t really explain away design—they just push the question back. Why does nature exhibit such fine-tuning and order? Why are the laws of physics and the constants of the universe so precisely calibrated to allow life? Even if you accept naturalistic evolution, you still need an explanation for why the conditions that allow evolution exist in the first place. The design argument points to an underlying intelligence behind the order and complexity we observe, something naturalism can’t account for, something which I brought up in my previous comment was the design argument, you don’t look at a picture and say “it just is” or the “picture just creates itself broooo.”

The problem with grounding morality in human experience or societal constructs is that it leads to moral relativism. If morality is just a product of human evolution or societal agreements, then it’s not really objective.

Atheism and naturalism can’t account for the very things you’re appealing to. When you rely on rational consistency or explanatory power, you’re using tools—like logic, morality, and reason—that presuppose theism. In a purely materialistic universe, there’s no reason to trust our reasoning faculties, because they’re just the product of random, unguided evolutionary processes. Naturalism fails to account for the preconditions of intelligibility—things like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of logic, and the existence of moral absolutes.

Theism explains why logic works, why we can reason, why the universe has order, and why moral values exist. It gives us a foundation for all these things in a transcendent, personal God who created the universe with purpose and meaning. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves you with an incoherent view of reality where everything is reduced to randomness and chance.

i will respond tommorrow i have to sleep

 

[Deleted member 22370]

There are many things we believe and act upon every day that cannot be proven through empirical evidence alone. Concepts like love, justice, logical principles, or even the laws of mathematics aren’t ‘proven’ by empirical evidence, yet no one doubts their existence or applicability. Similarly, the existence of God is a metaphysical issue, not something confined to the empirical domain. Asking for empirical proof of a metaphysical reality misunderstands the nature of what you’re asking about.


there is evidence for God, but it’s not necessarily confined to the narrow empirical framework. Instead, evidence for God can be philosophical, historical, moral, or experiential.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence for God’s existence, but it may not fit neatly into a materialist or empirical framework. For example, classical theistic arguments—like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments—provide strong rational evidence for the existence of a necessary, transcendent being. Further, the consistency of the Christian worldview explains reality in a way that atheism or materialism cannot. For instance, how do you ground concepts like objective morality or the laws of logic without presupposing a transcendent source?

Without God, you have a serious problem accounting for the very preconditions of intelligibility—things like the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, or objective moral values. In a purely materialistic or atheistic framework, where everything is just matter in motion, how do you justify trusting your own reasoning processes or believing in immaterial principles like logic? The Christian worldview provides a coherent basis for these things, while atheism falls into self-refutation. So atheism cannot justify anything other than fallacies such as Circular argumentation.

The belief in God provides a coherent framework for understanding reality, human experience, morality, and even reason itself. The Christian worldview isn’t based on a lack of evidence, instead it’s based on centuries of philosophical reasoning, historical events (such as the resurrection of Christ), and personal experiences that point toward the divine (though I air on cotton with natural theology) So, I would ask you, What is the standard of evidence you’re working from, and how does your worldview justify it?

The existence of god can be empirically proven

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

logical principles are foundational and self evident truths that don’t require a supernatural explanation. They are abstract constructs that are useful for understanding and navigating an evolutional feauture. morality can be derived from rational human needs and social contracts which don’t require a divine god. The ability to reason and trust our cognitive processes can be explained through evolutionary biology and the development of cognitive faculties.

logical principles are consistent and reliable because they are abstract constructs that hold true regardless of your religion The rules of logic don’t need a god, they’re inherent in the structure of rational thought.
we argue that logic morality and reason are consistent with a naturalistic worldview which doesn’t rely on a god. claiming a divine source for logic and reason doesn’t address how these concepts function in a naturalistic or empirical framework.

You argue that using logic or reason in debate implies a reliance on god It’s like saying you need a magician to explain how a magic trick works. Just because we use logic doesn’t mean its validity is contingent on a supernatural source

your thing about a video game character denying the programmer doesn't make sense when you think about it. The characters world and rules are created by the programmer but the logic and rules within the game don’t necessitate the programmers existence in the real world they’re part of the game’s internal consistency.

I have answered this in my last reply to you a shame you wrote this before I replied

 

[Deleted member 56968]

I have answered this in my last reply to you a shame you wrote this before I replied

no way you write that fast

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

The existence of god can be empirically proven

To a degree but only the Christian god has made himself known to humanity through theothanies all others are baseless assumptions

 

[Deleted member 56968]

I have answered this in my last reply to you a shame you wrote this before I replied

tommorrow i will make a good response to you

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

no way you write that fast

As I said I have an entire folder of this shit lol.

You think I ain’t argued this shit before

I can literally copy paste at this point

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

tommorrow i will make a good response to you

Snm. Some of it is copy pasted some isn’t. I tailor it to meet you but most of it is pasted

 

[Deleted member 22370]

To a degree but only the Christian god has made himself known to humanity through theothanies all others are baseless assumptions

That's not even remotely true. Millions of Hispanics summon their African gods every single day. These people don't need to believe in their gods. The gods prove their existence constantly with poltergeist activity and other supernatural stuff.

I have summoned a god. That's how I know this stuff is objectively real. I'm not just believing

 

[vanillaicecream]

There are many things we believe and act upon every day that cannot be proven through empirical evidence alone. Concepts like love, justice, logical principles, or even the laws of mathematics aren’t ‘proven’ by empirical evidence, yet no one doubts their existence or applicability. Similarly, the existence of God is a metaphysical issue, not something confined to the empirical domain. Asking for empirical proof of a metaphysical reality misunderstands the nature of what you’re asking about.


there is evidence for God, but it’s not necessarily confined to the narrow empirical framework. Instead, evidence for God can be philosophical, historical, moral, or experiential.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence for God’s existence, but it may not fit neatly into a materialist or empirical framework. For example, classical theistic arguments—like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments—provide strong rational evidence for the existence of a necessary, transcendent being. Further, the consistency of the Christian worldview explains reality in a way that atheism or materialism cannot. For instance, how do you ground concepts like objective morality or the laws of logic without presupposing a transcendent source?

Without God, you have a serious problem accounting for the very preconditions of intelligibility—things like the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, or objective moral values. In a purely materialistic or atheistic framework, where everything is just matter in motion, how do you justify trusting your own reasoning processes or believing in immaterial principles like logic? The Christian worldview provides a coherent basis for these things, while atheism falls into self-refutation. So atheism cannot justify anything other than fallacies such as Circular argumentation.

The belief in God provides a coherent framework for understanding reality, human experience, morality, and even reason itself. The Christian worldview isn’t based on a lack of evidence, instead it’s based on centuries of philosophical reasoning, historical events (such as the resurrection of Christ), and personal experiences that point toward the divine (though I air on cotton with natural theology) So, I would ask you, What is the standard of evidence you’re working from, and how does your worldview justify it?

>There are many things we believe and act upon every day that cannot be proven through empirical evidence alone.

This does not give you any leeway to posit any conceivable thing that operates within the same sort of framework. You can entertain it and discuss it internally, but pointing to one thing that can't be fully demonstrated empirically but we still accept it as a concept of reality does not mean you get to affirm any other specific proposition is true because it operates in the same realm. Something like love can be viewed as a byproduct of brain chemicals as well as a subjective experience, so it's not entirely an unprovable thing since it's subject to a brain and a brain does not need to conform to external and objective reality. This is much different from a god which is objective and separate from a brain. Also logic insofar as syllogisms aren't directly reliant upon empirical demonstrations because we already know their premises are self evident but they're still based on observations of reality. If you propose the syllogism 1- all men are mortals 2- i and a man - therefore I am mortal, this is based on the empirical observation that all men are mortals and that i am a man.

>there is evidence for God, but it’s not necessarily confined to the narrow empirical framework. Instead, evidence for God can be philosophical, historical, moral, or experiential.

None of what you mentioned is necesarily mutually exclusive to the concept of empiricism, so try again.

>In fact, there is plenty of evidence for God’s existence, but it may not fit neatly into a materialist or empirical framework.

The material world is all you have to work with and it's the only framework that has produced results as far as explanations of phenomena, so what reason do you have to add an extra component on top of it that relies upon empty assumptions that there is something more?

>For example, classical theistic arguments—like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments—provide strong rational evidence for the existence of a necessary, transcendent being.

How so? Last time I checked these were leaps of logic. "All things that begin to exist have a cause; The universe began to exist; therefore magical conspua being outside of time and space, not only that but my favorite version of it that i inherited as a result of where I was born". How exactly is this rational?

>Further, the consistency of the Christian worldview explains reality in a way that atheism or materialism cannot.

Lmao, the "consistency" lf the Christian worldview. You can't even settle on what the actual and correct "word of god" is as a result of your thousands of different denominations, my guy. Don't make me laugh.

>For instance, how do you ground concepts like objective morality or the laws of logic without presupposing a transcendent source?

It basically ties back to the concept of I think therefore I am. We have this internal mechanism called brain upon which we can draw conclusions of reality based on what this mechanism points to, we can then assess what is most likely true based on observations of external reality with novel testable predictions. "If this thing is true then this this what we expect to find". If it is found then we have a reliable model of reality that explains a certain phenomenon. Regarding morally specifically, it's an evolutionary concept that concerns what is ultimately in our best interest, if we want to survive as a society we need to come up with a set of rules that will be the most beneficial for survival and cooperation. How exactly would we not be capable of inferring what is ultimately more beneficial for the survival of our species on a social level based on trial and error and why would we need an ultimate transcendental source for this? Again, occams razor violation.

 

[vanillaicecream]

1. What is TAG?

The Transcendental Argument for God argues that God must exist because without Him, we couldn’t make sense of anything—not logic, not morality, not even our ability to reason.

First of all you dodged from the main point regarding what most philosophers believe by appealing to centuries ago where knowledge of the world and philosophy itself was much more limited so there's that. Second, regarding the argument, it can be promptly rejected with basis on my point from my previous post about the internal mechanism that we have called the brain. This mechanism has proven capable of judging reality accurately within its own functioning so that's all we need to explain these things, if you're going to posit that we are braindead monkeys incapable of assessing reality from our own internal mechanisms then I have no more interest in engaging with you. "Oh, here's this thing that we have been able to conclude from centuries of observations that doesn't cater to our survival as a collective society, so we're going to learn from it and throw that in the garbage and instead try and see what's best for us through trial and error". See? It's really easy. Your sophistry is a monumental violation of occams razor from top to bottom.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

>There are many things we believe and act upon every day that cannot be proven through empirical evidence alone.

This does not give you any leeway to posit any conceivable thing that operates within the same sort of framework. You can entertain it and discuss it internally, but pointing to one thing that can't be fully demonstrated empirically but we still accept it as a concept of reality does not mean you get to affirm any other specific proposition is true because it operates in the same realm. Something like love can be viewed as a byproduct of brain chemicals as well as a subjective experience, so it's not entirely an unprovable thing since it's subject to a brain and a brain does not need to conform to external and objective reality. This is much different from a god which is objective and separate from a brain. Also logic insofar as syllogisms aren't directly reliant upon empirical demonstrations because we already know their premises are self evident but they're still based on observations of reality. If you propose the syllogism 1- all men are mortals 2- i and a man - therefore I am mortal, this is based on the empirical observation that all men are mortals and that i am a man.

>there is evidence for God, but it’s not necessarily confined to the narrow empirical framework. Instead, evidence for God can be philosophical, historical, moral, or experiential.

None of what you mentioned is necesarily mutually exclusive to the concept of empiricism, so try again.

>In fact, there is plenty of evidence for God’s existence, but it may not fit neatly into a materialist or empirical framework.

The material world is all you have to work with and it's the only framework that has produced results as far as explanations of phenomena, so what reason do you have to add an extra component on top of it that relies upon empty assumptions that there is something more?

>For example, classical theistic arguments—like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments—provide strong rational evidence for the existence of a necessary, transcendent being.

How so? Last time I checked these were leaps of logic. "All things that begin to exist have a cause; The universe began to exist; therefore magical conspua being outside of time and space, not only that but my favorite version of it that i inherited as a result of where I was born". How exactly is this rational?

>Further, the consistency of the Christian worldview explains reality in a way that atheism or materialism cannot.

Lmao, the "consistency" lf the Christian worldview. You can't even settle on what the actual and correct "word of god" is as a result of your thousands of different denominations, my guy. Don't make me laugh.

>For instance, how do you ground concepts like objective morality or the laws of logic without presupposing a transcendent source?

It basically ties back to the concept of I think therefore I am. We have this internal mechanism called brain upon which we can draw conclusions of reality based on what this mechanism points to, we can then assess what is most likely true based on observations of external reality with novel testable predictions. "If this thing is true then this this what we expect to find". If it is found then we have a reliable model of reality that explains a certain phenomenon. Regarding morally specifically, it's an evolutionary concept that concerns what is ultimately in our best interest, if we want to survive as a society we need to come up with a set of rules that will be the most beneficial for survival and cooperation. How exactly would we not be capable of inferring what is ultimately more beneficial for the survival of our species on a social level based on trial and error and why would we need an ultimate transcendental source for this? Again, occams razor violation.

Once again you fell right into the thing I said you’d do…

You gave a big ass reply do out of respect I’ll give you a nice one


LIMITS OF EMPIRICISM

Your claim that the material world is all we have is itself a philosophical assumption that cannot be empirically verified. You’re operating on a kind of self-imposed limitation that says only material phenomena are worth considering, but this is circular reasoning. You assume that only material evidence counts, and then reject anything that doesn’t fit within that framework. But things like logic, morality, and consciousness don’t fit neatly into a purely materialistic view of reality. Even the method of science itself relies on immaterial principles like the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. How do you ground those in a purely materialistic framework?

Why tag is NEEDED as a foundation to make your assumptions

Your critique of the cosmological argument overlooks the fact that causality itself needs a ground outside of the contingent universe. The universe is finite, changing, and dependent—these are undeniable facts whether you’re a materialist or theist. But saying the universe is self-explanatory or self-caused is incoherent because it creates a contradiction—something contingent can’t explain its own existence. You need something outside the chain of contingent causes, something necessary, uncaused, and eternal to explain why there’s anything at all. This is why theism posits a necessary being as the source of all existence. The leap you’re accusing theists of making is actually grounded in the very principles you’re relying on—causality, existence, and logic.


empiricism vs rationality

The issue isn’t that theism is some ‘extra component’ tacked on to the material world; rather, it’s that theism provides the very preconditions for intelligibility. Empirical science itself requires the assumption that the universe is orderly, that our minds can apprehend reality, and that the laws of logic are reliable. But why should the universe be orderly in the first place? Why should your mind, as a product of random evolutionary processes, be able to grasp universal truths? The theistic worldview explains these things coherently, whereas the materialistic worldview leads to epistemic skepticism—you have no reason to trust your mind, your senses, or the uniformity of nature without invoking a transcendent foundation.

Subjectivity vs Objectivity (how are you stupid enough to not get this?)

If morality is just a byproduct of evolution and societal constructs, then it’s not truly objective. What’s ‘right’ for one society could be ‘wrong’ for another, and you would have no basis to criticize practices like genocide or slavery in cultures where they’re accepted. Evolutionary morality leads to relativism, where moral values are reduced to what is most beneficial for survival—not what is truly right or wrong. However, most of us intuitively recognize that some things are objectively wrong—no matter what evolutionary pressures or societal norms might say. Objective moral values require a transcendent source, something that evolution cannot provide. Without God, morality becomes just another survival mechanism, subject to change and negotiation.



logic in and of itself is immaterial and transcendent therefore cannot be founded within materialism

Logic isn’t based purely on empirical observation. The laws of logic—like the law of non-contradiction—are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. They don’t ‘evolve’ with human brains or depend on physical processes. If logic were just a product of the brain, then it could differ from person to person, and you’d have no reason to trust your conclusions or engage in rational discourse. But logic transcends individual minds, and that’s why it requires a grounding in something that is also transcendent—namely, God. Without a transcendent source, you cannot account for the immaterial, universal nature of logic itself.


Christian consistency in the eyes of an brainier gaytheist ignoramus

The existence of different Christian denominations doesn’t undermine the consistency of the core Christian worldview. The foundational claims of Christianity—God’s existence, Christ’s divinity, and the moral order—remain consistent across denominations. Disagreements on secondary theological issues don’t disprove the coherence of the entire system. In fact, Christianity has historically demonstrated remarkable consistency in its metaphysical, moral, and epistemological claims about the nature of reality. These internal debates are no more a problem for Christianity than disagreements among scientists are a problem for science. They reflect differences in interpretation, not a lack of coherence in the worldview itself.

Using Occam’s razor is ironic considering Gaythiests leave us with unexplained questions with no true foundation.

Occam’s Razor doesn’t simply say ‘simpler is better’; it says ‘don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.’ Theism doesn’t multiply entities; it provides a necessary explanation for why there’s anything rather than nothing. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves several crucial issues unexplained—like why the universe exists, why there’s order in nature, and why we can trust our reasoning faculties. These are metaphysical problems that require a metaphysical solution, and theism provides a coherent, consistent explanation as opposed to atheism. This is FAR from violating Occam’s Razor, theism

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

First of all you dodged from the main point regarding what most philosophers believe by appealing to centuries ago where knowledge of the world and philosophy itself was much more limited so there's that. Second, regarding the argument, it can be promptly rejected with basis on my point from my previous post about the internal mechanism that we have called the brain. This mechanism has proven capable of judging reality accurately within its own functioning so that's all we need to explain these things, if you're going to posit that we are braindead monkeys incapable of assessing reality from our own internal mechanisms then I have no more interest in engaging with you. "Oh, here's this thing that we have been able to conclude from centuries of observations that doesn't cater to our survival as a collective society, so we're going to learn from it and throw that in the garbage and instead try and see what's best for us through trial and error". See? It's really easy. Your sophistry is a monumental violation of occams razor from top to bottom.

Judging reality using sense data…….

Wow and you wonder why I say atheist are wrong. How do you know what you’re using to Isish’s true? You’re going to say because muh sense data and how can you be sure that’s true? Because sense data and if it’s all by trail and error then morality truth etc are all relative then… the fore social constructs which means they are meaningless which leads to nothing less which btw is a contradiction on the 3rd rule of Logic called the “law of the excluded middle” a statement is either right or wrong (something you can’t even make in this entire debate because your worldview is in the middle lol) or in coding we call it’s a Boolean function as in True or false. Relativism won’t win you this debate all you do is embarrass yourself here buddy and make my argument even more powerful

Please dude STOP my brain is hurting. Please also stop invoking Occam’s razor when you yourself have a worldview that just leaves many questions unexplained please stop your not helping yourself you look dumb.

 

[vanillaicecream]

Once again you fell right into the thing I said you’d do…

You gave a big ass reply do out of respect I’ll give you a nice one


LIMITS OF EMPIRICISM

Your claim that the material world is all we have is itself a philosophical assumption that cannot be empirically verified. You’re operating on a kind of self-imposed limitation that says only material phenomena are worth considering, but this is circular reasoning. You assume that only material evidence counts, and then reject anything that doesn’t fit within that framework. But things like logic, morality, and consciousness don’t fit neatly into a purely materialistic view of reality. Even the method of science itself relies on immaterial principles like the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. How do you ground those in a purely materialistic framework?

Why tag is NEEDED as a foundation to make your assumptions

Your critique of the cosmological argument overlooks the fact that causality itself needs a ground outside of the contingent universe. The universe is finite, changing, and dependent—these are undeniable facts whether you’re a materialist or theist. But saying the universe is self-explanatory or self-caused is incoherent because it creates a contradiction—something contingent can’t explain its own existence. You need something outside the chain of contingent causes, something necessary, uncaused, and eternal to explain why there’s anything at all. This is why theism posits a necessary being as the source of all existence. The leap you’re accusing theists of making is actually grounded in the very principles you’re relying on—causality, existence, and logic.


empiricism vs rationality

The issue isn’t that theism is some ‘extra component’ tacked on to the material world; rather, it’s that theism provides the very preconditions for intelligibility. Empirical science itself requires the assumption that the universe is orderly, that our minds can apprehend reality, and that the laws of logic are reliable. But why should the universe be orderly in the first place? Why should your mind, as a product of random evolutionary processes, be able to grasp universal truths? The theistic worldview explains these things coherently, whereas the materialistic worldview leads to epistemic skepticism—you have no reason to trust your mind, your senses, or the uniformity of nature without invoking a transcendent foundation.

Subjectivity vs Objectivity (how are you stupid enough to not get this?)

If morality is just a byproduct of evolution and societal constructs, then it’s not truly objective. What’s ‘right’ for one society could be ‘wrong’ for another, and you would have no basis to criticize practices like genocide or slavery in cultures where they’re accepted. Evolutionary morality leads to relativism, where moral values are reduced to what is most beneficial for survival—not what is truly right or wrong. However, most of us intuitively recognize that some things are objectively wrong—no matter what evolutionary pressures or societal norms might say. Objective moral values require a transcendent source, something that evolution cannot provide. Without God, morality becomes just another survival mechanism, subject to change and negotiation.



logic in and of itself is immaterial and transcendent therefore cannot be founded within materialism

Logic isn’t based purely on empirical observation. The laws of logic—like the law of non-contradiction—are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. They don’t ‘evolve’ with human brains or depend on physical processes. If logic were just a product of the brain, then it could differ from person to person, and you’d have no reason to trust your conclusions or engage in rational discourse. But logic transcends individual minds, and that’s why it requires a grounding in something that is also transcendent—namely, God. Without a transcendent source, you cannot account for the immaterial, universal nature of logic itself.


Christian consistency in the eyes of an brainier gaytheist ignoramus

The existence of different Christian denominations doesn’t undermine the consistency of the core Christian worldview. The foundational claims of Christianity—God’s existence, Christ’s divinity, and the moral order—remain consistent across denominations. Disagreements on secondary theological issues don’t disprove the coherence of the entire system. In fact, Christianity has historically demonstrated remarkable consistency in its metaphysical, moral, and epistemological claims about the nature of reality. These internal debates are no more a problem for Christianity than disagreements among scientists are a problem for science. They reflect differences in interpretation, not a lack of coherence in the worldview itself.

Using Occam’s razor is ironic considering Gaythiests leave us with unexplained questions with no true foundation.

Occam’s Razor doesn’t simply say ‘simpler is better’; it says ‘don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.’ Theism doesn’t multiply entities; it provides a necessary explanation for why there’s anything rather than nothing. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves several crucial issues unexplained—like why the universe exists, why there’s order in nature, and why we can trust our reasoning faculties. These are metaphysical problems that require a metaphysical solution, and theism provides a coherent, consistent explanation as opposed to atheism. This is FAR from violating Occam’s Razor, theism

Wow you just might be the biggest snake oil salesman sophist I've ever seen, it's palpable how satisfied you are with yourself after spewing your internal word games. Do you know the difference between making something sound smart and valid internally if you just use the right words vs something that actually aligns with external and objective reality? You are the former.

>Your claim that the material world is all we have is itself a philosophical assumption that cannot be empirically verified. You’re operating on a kind of self-imposed limitation that says only material phenomena are worth considering, but this is circular reasoning.

I said it's all we have to work with as a foundation to build models of reality, it's called methodological naturalism. This doesn't touch on the question that materialism is all that there is on an ultimate cosmic level. So there's nothing for you to correct here.

>But things like logic, morality, and consciousness don’t fit neatly into a purely materialistic view of reality.

They do, and I explained why in my previous post. If you wanted to refute it you should have come back with actual arguments that counter that rather than repeat your empty assertions.


>Your critique of the cosmological argument overlooks the fact that causality itself needs a ground outside of the contingent universe.

Again, you're distorting everything just to be able to use your rehearsed script. I didn't deny the need for an ultimate foundation of causality (if the universe in fact had a beginning), I said you're making a leap of logic when you said the foundation is a god out of all possible explanations. I don't even need to elaborate much further on this, it's just a lazy and childish line of argumentation where you're just squeezing in your favorite explanation with no justification and calling it a day. How did you rule out quantum fields?

>The issue isn’t that theism is some ‘extra component’ tacked on to the material world; rather, it’s that theism provides the very preconditions for intelligibility.

It doesn't, you're just translating the vague idea of ultimate foundation into an anthropomorphic being and saying this being is necessary because it merely represents this idea within its own internal description. Again this touches on the issue of internal vs external. You don't get to just invoke the internal idea of something that aims to solve a problem and affirm it in fact does externally. This is no different from mental masturbarion.

>Why should your mind, as a product of random evolutionary processes, be able to grasp universal truths?

Because it's a mechanism that's capable of doing that and it has produced results, just like all processes and mechanisms observed in the world have their internal way of functioning. How this came about is another issue but once your mind proves capable in and of itself of assessing truths of the world accurately, your appeal to an ultimate eternal foundation is redundant.

>If morality is just a byproduct of evolution and societal constructs, then it’s not truly objective.

It doesn't need to be. All you need is unanimous agreement as to what is most beneficial to society at large, you observe this through experiences and come to the conclusion that this is what we need if we want to thrive as a society that values well being, and the people that deviate from this will be dealt with by being locked away. It's Iike the rules of chess or any other game that don't exist in nature as a necessary or objective component but once you lay down and establish the rules they become the set of principles by which you need to operate. Unanimous agreement through trial and error as to what will achieve the ultimate goal does not necessitate a transcendental foundation. How are you stupid enough to not get this? This is the part in which your violation of occams razor is the most glaring, and yet you pretend I don't know Occam’s razor is about multiplying entities beyond necessity when this is precisely what you are absolutely doing.

> What’s ‘right’ for one society could be ‘wrong’ for another,

Which is exactly what fucking happens? Explain to me, genius, how is it that we have this morality code intrinsically embedded in us by a god if what constitutes as moral or correct has changed throughout all history? It's almost as if we build a foundation for morality based on experiences and assessing how they affect our well being which is exactly what I'm saying.

>most of us intuitively recognize that some things are objectively wrong—no matter what evolutionary pressures or societal norms might say.

You already have a problem when you say "most of us" when like I said it should be intrinsically embedded in all of us if it were objective, instead this "most of us" model fits more accurately into a description of reality that posits we are fallible beings that learn from experience and errors, and at the end of the day we'll operate based on the golden rule which is a necessity for the long term survival of any conceivable intelligent civilization. Also you made a bizarre claim by trying to paint "intuition" and evolutionary pressures as mutually exclusive. I don't think you have a clue how evolution works on a fundamental level.

>The laws of logic—like the law of non-contradiction—are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. They don’t ‘evolve’ with human brains or depend on physical processes.

How on earth did you get that "logic is a byproduct of the brain" from what I said? Logic is a language we use to describe reality but the main thing here is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning it wasn't externally and intrinsically imposed by the universe, we just look at things and conclude this is how they work regardless of an ultimate purpose or intrinsic set of rules.

>The existence of different Christian denominations doesn’t undermine the consistency of the core Christian worldview.

It does, we need to look at it more at length if it is to provide any meaningful worldview that provides a foundation for the optimal way to live your life or whatever the worldview aims to posit. If you think the mere claim that a man was raised from the dead and that there is an invisible being who has a specific plan for all of us is enough to offer anything anywhere near substantial for a worldview to take shape you are laughably wrong. You can't possibly have consistency when you have people butting heads about virtually everything that came out of your tale, your saying wetness doesn't undermine how dry a surface can be. Please.

>Occam’s Razor doesn’t simply say ‘simpler is better’; it says ‘don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.’ Theism doesn’t multiply entities; it provides a necessary explanation for why there’s anything rather than nothing. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves several crucial issues unexplained—like why the universe exists, why there’s order in nature, and why we can trust our reasoning faculties.

I've already covered that multiplying entities is exactly what you're doing and an attempt at an explanation is light years away from an objectively correct explanation. The difference between your ilk and intellectually honest people is that you pretend to know things you couldn't possible know and then try to claim victory because the other side of things isn't making positive claims about something that can't be investigated with our current tools. You think a god could be argued into existence with word salads when it should be self-evident. You think a god would use a book to communicate his message when it's indistinguishable from people making up stories and characters. You think a god would rely on carrier pigeons. Your belief is an easily refutable joke.

Please let's just leave it at this, don't respond with another long post. This is very exhausting and could go on forever. Trust me when I say you will never leave me without an answer, everything you say has been addressed at length over and over for millenia. You're not smart and you're not right, I promise you.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Wow you just might be the biggest snake oil salesman sophist I've ever seen, it's palpable how satisfied you are with yourself after spewing your internal word games. Do you know the difference between making something sound smart and valid internally if you just use the right words vs something that actually aligns with external and objective reality? You are the former.

>Your claim that the material world is all we have is itself a philosophical assumption that cannot be empirically verified. You’re operating on a kind of self-imposed limitation that says only material phenomena are worth considering, but this is circular reasoning.

I said it's all we have to work with as a foundation to build models of reality, it's called methodological naturalism. This doesn't touch on the question that materialism is all that there is on an ultimate cosmic level. So there's nothing for you to correct here.

>But things like logic, morality, and consciousness don’t fit neatly into a purely materialistic view of reality.

They do, and I explained why in my previous post. If you wanted to refute it you should have come back with actual arguments that counter that rather than repeat your empty assertions.


>Your critique of the cosmological argument overlooks the fact that causality itself needs a ground outside of the contingent universe.

Again, you're distorting everything just to be able to use your rehearsed script. I didn't deny the need for an ultimate foundation of causality (if the universe in fact had a beginning), I said you're making a leap of logic when you said the foundation is a god out of all possible explanations. I don't even need to elaborate much further on this, it's just a lazy and childish line of argumentation where you're just squeezing in your favorite explanation with no justification and calling it a day. How did you rule out quantum fields?

>The issue isn’t that theism is some ‘extra component’ tacked on to the material world; rather, it’s that theism provides the very preconditions for intelligibility.

It doesn't, you're just translating the vague idea of ultimate foundation into an anthropomorphic being and saying this being is necessary because it merely represents this idea within its own internal description. Again this touches on the issue of internal vs external. You don't get to just invoke the internal idea of something that aims to solve a problem and affirm it in fact does externally. This is no different from mental masturbarion.

>Why should your mind, as a product of random evolutionary processes, be able to grasp universal truths?

Because it's a mechanism that's capable of doing that and it has produced results, just like all processes and mechanisms observed in the world have their internal way of functioning. How this came about is another issue but once your mind proves capable in and of itself of assessing truths of the world accurately, your appeal to an ultimate eternal foundation is redundant.

>If morality is just a byproduct of evolution and societal constructs, then it’s not truly objective.

It doesn't need to be. All you need is unanimous agreement as to what is most beneficial to society at large, you observe this through experiences and come to the conclusion that this is what we need if we want to thrive as a society that values well being, and the people that deviate from this will be dealt with by being locked away. It's Iike the rules of chess or any other game that don't exist in nature as a necessary or objective component but once you lay down and establish the rules they become the set of principles by which you need to operate. Unanimous agreement through trial and error as to what will achieve the ultimate goal does not necessitate a transcendental foundation. How are you stupid enough to not get this? This is the part in which your violation of occams razor is the most glaring, and yet you pretend I don't know Occam’s razor is about multiplying entities beyond necessity when this is precisely what you are absolutely doing.

> What’s ‘right’ for one society could be ‘wrong’ for another,

Which is exactly what fucking happens? Explain to me, genius, how is it that we have this morality code intrinsically embedded in us by a god if what constitutes as moral or correct has changed throughout all history? It's almost as if we build a foundation for morality based on experiences and assessing how they affect our well being which is exactly what I'm saying.

>most of us intuitively recognize that some things are objectively wrong—no matter what evolutionary pressures or societal norms might say.

You already have a problem when you say "most of us" when like I said it should be intrinsically embedded in all of us if it were objective, instead this "most of us" model fits more accurately into a description of reality that posits we are fallible beings that learn from experience and errors, and at the end of the day we'll operate based on the golden rule which is a necessity for the long term survival of any conceivable intelligent civilization. Also you made a bizarre claim by trying to paint "intuition" and evolutionary pressures as mutually exclusive. I don't think you have a clue how evolution works on a fundamental level.

>The laws of logic—like the law of non-contradiction—are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. They don’t ‘evolve’ with human brains or depend on physical processes.

How on earth did you get that "logic is a byproduct of the brain" from what I said? Logic is a language we use to describe reality but the main thing here is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning it wasn't externally and intrinsically imposed by the universe, we just look at things and conclude this is how they work regardless of an ultimate purpose or intrinsic set of rules.

>The existence of different Christian denominations doesn’t undermine the consistency of the core Christian worldview.

It does, we need to look at it more at length if it is to provide any meaningful worldview that provides a foundation for the optimal way to live your life or whatever the worldview aims to posit. If you think the mere claim that a man was raised from the dead and that there is an invisible being who has a specific plan for all of us is enough to offer anything anywhere near substantial for a worldview to take shape you are laughably wrong. You can't possibly have consistency when you have people butting heads about virtually everything that came out of your tale, your saying wetness doesn't undermine how dry a surface can be. Please.

>Occam’s Razor doesn’t simply say ‘simpler is better’; it says ‘don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.’ Theism doesn’t multiply entities; it provides a necessary explanation for why there’s anything rather than nothing. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves several crucial issues unexplained—like why the universe exists, why there’s order in nature, and why we can trust our reasoning faculties.

I've already covered that multiplying entities is exactly what you're doing and an attempt at an explanation is light years away from an objectively correct explanation. The difference between your ilk and intellectually honest people is that you pretend to know things you couldn't possible know and then try to claim victory because the other side of things isn't making positive claims about something that can't be investigated with our current tools. You think a god could be argued into existence with word salads when it should be self-evident. You think a god would use a book to communicate his message when it's indistinguishable from people making up stories and characters. You think a god would rely on carrier pigeons. Your belief is an easily refutable joke.

Please let's just leave it at this, don't respond with another long post. This is very exhausting and could go on forever. Trust me when I say you will never leave me without an answer, everything you say has been addressed at length over and over for millenia. You're not smart and you're not right, I promise you.

Your so fucking retarded it’s u believable your entire epidemic framework is riddled with the same issues of circularity and hypocrisy it’s HILARIOUS.

Now now please baby don’t go my little child no need to run away if you do I’ll count that as you forfeiting the debate


Do you concede are you going to run away my little sweet

 

[hypernormie]

Atheism is dumb and so is religion

The answer to the riddle of existence is that no one knows and probably no one ever will know and perhaps such an idea as knowing the meaning of life is absurd

Trying to ease your anxiety about this existential reality by claiming definitively there is no god or that there definitively is a god are both copes

The truth is that there is no answer and no certainty and that you must learn to live with the ambiguity if you hope to be at all honest about your situation

I will rep you tho cause it’s always fun to read the arguments in the replies to these posts

 

[vanillaicecream]

Your so fucking retarded it’s u believable your entire epidemic framework is riddled with the same issues of circularity and hypocrisy it’s HILARIOUS.

Now now please baby don’t go my little child no need to run away if you do I’ll count that as you forfeiting the debate


Do you concede are you going to run away my little sweet

There is absolutely nothing circular about what I'm arguing, you can't even explain why it's circular, you just heard the term circular reasoning and like to drop it as a buzzword at any given opportunity because you lack actual explanatory power. That's why you can't even address anything I say directly and that's why I keep spotting distortion after distortion in your replies, because you're just interested in dropping your rehearsed script. In fact you even said it yourself that you just copy and paste this stuff. Lmao, typical William lane Craig puppet. When you don't have your script to fall back on your true intellectual colors emerge and you say "your" instead of "you're".

What makes you think I am running away when I have thoroughly responded to every single one of your stupid talking points, don't make me laugh again, I just don't have the time or patience to entertain your gish gallop all day. We can single out a specific argument if you want, there is no way I will keep writing walls of text with no prospect of it ever ending. Respond to my paragraph where I began with "morality doesn't need to be objective" and explain why you're not violating occam's razor there, and you do this by actually addressing the points instead of repeating your script. I'll wait.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

There is absolutely nothing circular about what I'm arguing, you can't even explain why it's circular, you just heard the term circular reasoning and like to drop it as a buzzword at any given opportunity because you lack actual explanatory power. That's why you can't even address anything I say directly and that's why I keep spotting distortion after distortion in your replies, because you're just interested in dropping your rehearsed script. In fact you even said it yourself that you just copy and paste this stuff. Lmao, typical William lane Craig puppet. When you don't have your script to fall back on your true intellectual colors emerge and you say "your" instead of "you're".

What makes you think I am running away when I have thoroughly responded to every single one of your stupid talking points, don't make me laugh again, I just don't have the time or patience to entertain your gish gallop all day. We can single out a specific argument if you want, there is no way I will keep writing walls of text with no prospect of it ever ending. Respond to my paragraph where I began with "morality doesn't need to be objective" and explain why you're not violating occam's razor there, and you do this by actually addressing the points instead of repeating your script. I'll wait.

So you wanna carry on the debate my little sweet?

If so just say because you asked me not to write you an response that’s why I’m saying you conceded like the atheist bitch you are

 

[vanillaicecream]

So you wanna carry on the debate my little sweet?

If so just say because you asked me not to write you an response that’s why I’m saying you conceded like the atheist bitch you are

Stop embarrassing yourself dude. I say don't bother responding if you're going to keep this as a gish gallop sort of thing with a barrage of different points because it's exhausting. So respond to the morality paragraph if you want or even can, I will just continue this if you focus on one specific point. Why would you think I'm conceding anything when I responded to your points one by one and ended that reply on the note I did, this makes about as much sense as the omnipotent god that relies on carrier pigeons and demands a bloody sacrifice to forgive humanity for mistakes he already knew would be committed when he chose to create this specific world. I will point out how and why your response is stupid if you don't dodge once again when I come back later.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Wow you just might be the biggest snake oil salesman sophist I've ever seen, it's palpable how satisfied you are with yourself after spewing your internal word games. Do you know the difference between making something sound smart and valid internally if you just use the right words vs something that actually aligns with external and objective reality? You are the former.

>Your claim that the material world is all we have is itself a philosophical assumption that cannot be empirically verified. You’re operating on a kind of self-imposed limitation that says only material phenomena are worth considering, but this is circular reasoning.

I said it's all we have to work with as a foundation to build models of reality, it's called methodological naturalism. This doesn't touch on the question that materialism is all that there is on an ultimate cosmic level. So there's nothing for you to correct here.

>But things like logic, morality, and consciousness don’t fit neatly into a purely materialistic view of reality.

They do, and I explained why in my previous post. If you wanted to refute it you should have come back with actual arguments that counter that rather than repeat your empty assertions.


>Your critique of the cosmological argument overlooks the fact that causality itself needs a ground outside of the contingent universe.

Again, you're distorting everything just to be able to use your rehearsed script. I didn't deny the need for an ultimate foundation of causality (if the universe in fact had a beginning), I said you're making a leap of logic when you said the foundation is a god out of all possible explanations. I don't even need to elaborate much further on this, it's just a lazy and childish line of argumentation where you're just squeezing in your favorite explanation with no justification and calling it a day. How did you rule out quantum fields?

>The issue isn’t that theism is some ‘extra component’ tacked on to the material world; rather, it’s that theism provides the very preconditions for intelligibility.

It doesn't, you're just translating the vague idea of ultimate foundation into an anthropomorphic being and saying this being is necessary because it merely represents this idea within its own internal description. Again this touches on the issue of internal vs external. You don't get to just invoke the internal idea of something that aims to solve a problem and affirm it in fact does externally. This is no different from mental masturbarion.

>Why should your mind, as a product of random evolutionary processes, be able to grasp universal truths?

Because it's a mechanism that's capable of doing that and it has produced results, just like all processes and mechanisms observed in the world have their internal way of functioning. How this came about is another issue but once your mind proves capable in and of itself of assessing truths of the world accurately, your appeal to an ultimate eternal foundation is redundant.

>If morality is just a byproduct of evolution and societal constructs, then it’s not truly objective.

It doesn't need to be. All you need is unanimous agreement as to what is most beneficial to society at large, you observe this through experiences and come to the conclusion that this is what we need if we want to thrive as a society that values well being, and the people that deviate from this will be dealt with by being locked away. It's Iike the rules of chess or any other game that don't exist in nature as a necessary or objective component but once you lay down and establish the rules they become the set of principles by which you need to operate. Unanimous agreement through trial and error as to what will achieve the ultimate goal does not necessitate a transcendental foundation. How are you stupid enough to not get this? This is the part in which your violation of occams razor is the most glaring, and yet you pretend I don't know Occam’s razor is about multiplying entities beyond necessity when this is precisely what you are absolutely doing.

> What’s ‘right’ for one society could be ‘wrong’ for another,

Which is exactly what fucking happens? Explain to me, genius, how is it that we have this morality code intrinsically embedded in us by a god if what constitutes as moral or correct has changed throughout all history? It's almost as if we build a foundation for morality based on experiences and assessing how they affect our well being which is exactly what I'm saying.

>most of us intuitively recognize that some things are objectively wrong—no matter what evolutionary pressures or societal norms might say.

You already have a problem when you say "most of us" when like I said it should be intrinsically embedded in all of us if it were objective, instead this "most of us" model fits more accurately into a description of reality that posits we are fallible beings that learn from experience and errors, and at the end of the day we'll operate based on the golden rule which is a necessity for the long term survival of any conceivable intelligent civilization. Also you made a bizarre claim by trying to paint "intuition" and evolutionary pressures as mutually exclusive. I don't think you have a clue how evolution works on a fundamental level.

>The laws of logic—like the law of non-contradiction—are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. They don’t ‘evolve’ with human brains or depend on physical processes.

How on earth did you get that "logic is a byproduct of the brain" from what I said? Logic is a language we use to describe reality but the main thing here is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning it wasn't externally and intrinsically imposed by the universe, we just look at things and conclude this is how they work regardless of an ultimate purpose or intrinsic set of rules.

>The existence of different Christian denominations doesn’t undermine the consistency of the core Christian worldview.

It does, we need to look at it more at length if it is to provide any meaningful worldview that provides a foundation for the optimal way to live your life or whatever the worldview aims to posit. If you think the mere claim that a man was raised from the dead and that there is an invisible being who has a specific plan for all of us is enough to offer anything anywhere near substantial for a worldview to take shape you are laughably wrong. You can't possibly have consistency when you have people butting heads about virtually everything that came out of your tale, your saying wetness doesn't undermine how dry a surface can be. Please.

>Occam’s Razor doesn’t simply say ‘simpler is better’; it says ‘don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.’ Theism doesn’t multiply entities; it provides a necessary explanation for why there’s anything rather than nothing. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves several crucial issues unexplained—like why the universe exists, why there’s order in nature, and why we can trust our reasoning faculties.

I've already covered that multiplying entities is exactly what you're doing and an attempt at an explanation is light years away from an objectively correct explanation. The difference between your ilk and intellectually honest people is that you pretend to know things you couldn't possible know and then try to claim victory because the other side of things isn't making positive claims about something that can't be investigated with our current tools. You think a god could be argued into existence with word salads when it should be self-evident. You think a god would use a book to communicate his message when it's indistinguishable from people making up stories and characters. You think a god would rely on carrier pigeons. Your belief is an easily refutable joke.

Please let's just leave it at this, don't respond with another long post. This is very exhausting and could go on forever. Trust me when I say you will never leave me without an answer, everything you say has been addressed at length over and over for millenia. You're not smart and you're not right, I promise you.

Ok here’s my sexy reply my sweet baby cakes atheist slave

1. Methodological Naturalism and Self-Defeating Assumptions

You’re conflating methodological naturalism—the tool scientists use to investigate the physical world—with metaphysical naturalism, the assumption that the material world is all there is. These are not the same thing. Methodological naturalism is useful for studying material phenomena, but to assume the material world is all we have is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific fact. You’re using this framework to try to explain away any reality beyond the material, but that’s already a circular argument—it’s assuming what you’re trying to prove.

2. Internal vs. External – Metaphysical Principles Are Not Word Games

You dismiss metaphysical arguments as “internal word games,” but these arguments describe the very structure of reality. The fact that we’re discussing abstract concepts like causality, existence, or logic means we’re already operating in a metaphysical realm. These aren’t just “internal ideas” but point to truths that underpin reality itself. Arguments like the cosmological argument don’t leap to a specific God arbitrarily—they show the need for a necessary being to ground the existence of anything at all. You’re conflating inference with arbitrary assertion. Metaphysical principles are not empty words but reasoned conclusions drawn from reality.

3. Morality Isn’t Just a Social Construct or Evolutionary Tool

Your view of morality as a product of social consensus or evolutionary adaptation leads to moral relativism. If morality is based on what’s “beneficial for society,” then it’s ultimately subjective. What happens when societies disagree? For instance, certain societies have justified genocide or slavery as beneficial, but does that make them moral? Without a transcendent source, there is no objective morality, just a changing set of preferences. Christianity grounds morality in the unchanging nature of God, which explains why we recognize certain things as universally wrong—even if societies deviate from these truths. If morality is merely a survival mechanism, it loses its objective force.

4. Logic Requires a Transcendent Source

You claim logic is simply descriptive and not prescriptive, but this ignores the fact that logic is immaterial, universal, and unchanging. If logic were just a product of human evolution, it would be subject to change, just like any other biological trait. But the laws of logic apply universally and timelessly. This points to a transcendent grounding beyond the physical world. Logic isn’t something we invented, it’s something we discovered. If you deny that logic is grounded in something eternal and unchanging, then you’re left with no reason to trust logic itself as a reliable guide to truth.

5. Christian Denominations and Consistency

You bring up denominational differences as if they undermine Christianity’s consistency, but this is a misunderstanding. The core truths of Christianity—such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection—are consistent across all major denominations. Theological disagreements on secondary issues don’t invalidate the essential claims of the faith. It’s like arguing that because scientists disagree on the finer points of quantum mechanics, the entire field of physics is inconsistent. Christianity’s core worldview remains coherent despite these differences.

6. Occam’s Razor Misunderstood

You’ve misunderstood Occam’s Razor. It doesn’t just mean “simpler is better”; it means “don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.” Theism doesn’t add unnecessary components to reality; it provides the necessary grounding for things like the universe, logic, and morality. Atheism, on the other hand, leaves major questions unanswered: Why does the universe exist? Why is there order in nature? Why should we trust our reasoning abilities? Theism provides a complete explanation for these questions, while atheism avoids them by focusing only on the material world. Theism, in this case, is the simpler and more coherent explanation—it doesn’t multiply entities, it offers a necessary foundation for everything that exists.

To wrap up, it’s not about “arguing God into existence” but about demonstrating that God is the necessary precondition for everything we experience. A purely materialist worldview can’t fully explain why things like logic, morality, and the universe itself exist, and without a transcendent source, these concepts lose their grounding. Atheism leaves too many critical issues unexplained.


JFL was a fucking nightmare ngl took me a hot min. And out of respect for you I decided to write using correct grammar be happy

 

[vanillaicecream]

Dnr I fucking told you I wasn't going to spend any more time on these long ass replies addressing multiple different points jfl at being this insufferable on top of being completely illiterate in logic

 

[Bars]

https://looksmax.org/threads/we-will-never-die.1142896/

https://looksmax.org/threads/by-chance-not-by-law.1145070/

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Dnr I fucking told you I wasn't going to spend any more time on these long ass replies addressing multiple different points jfl at being this insufferable on top of being completely illiterate in logic

Because you lost @Bars @Alucard69 @FascisstChad @borntosuffer @i_love_roosters @noobs @ElTruecel @shia.jihadist

Notice how the gaythiest just repeats the same unjustified babble time and time again “MUH I DONT BELIVE IN YIUR GOD BUT BELIEVE IN WHAT I BELIVE BECAUSE I BELIVE” or “MUH WHY CANT SHIT JUST BE “ like if we go down this route I can just say “god exists because he exists “ this is the most gaythiests can do they have 0 way to make justification of anything even saying GOD ISNT REAL IMPLIES THEY KNOW METAPHYSICS IS REAL LMFAO .

Never be intimidated by Gaythiests simple philosophy cucks them every time and this guy is one of the better ones that’s the joke

 

[Deleted member 67937]

Because you lost @Bars @Alucard69 @FascisstChad @borntosuffer @i_love_roosters @noobs @ElTruecel @shia.jihadist

Notice how the gaythiest just repeats the same unjustified babble time and time again “MUH I DONT BELIVE IN YIUR GOD BUT BELIEVE IN WHAT I BELIVE BECAUSE I BELIVE” or “MUH WHY CANT SHIT JUST BE “ like if we go down this route I can just say “god exists because he exists “ this is the most gaythiests can do they have 0 way to make justification of anything even saying GOD ISNT REAL IMPLIES THEY KNOW METAPHYSICS IS REAL LMFAO .

Never be intimidated by Gaythiests simple philosophy cucks them every time and this guy is one of the better ones that’s the joke

In the grand scheme of things we don't understand shit about the universe, so I don't understand retard atheists pretending like they know everything, when even the smartest scientists don't know shit. I'm not even religious rly atm, but this is BS from these wannabe smartasses.

Humans don't understand shit, and probably won't in our lifetime end of

 

[Deleted member 68081]

In the grand scheme of things we don't understand shit about the universe, so I don't understand retard atheists pretending like they know everything, when even the smartest scientists don't know shit. I'm not even religious rly atm, but this is BS from these wannabe smartasses.

Humans don't understand shit, and probably will not in our lifetime end of

High iq

 

[Deleted member 67937]

High iq

More like easy common sense, but too many retard midwits going around thinking they are smarter by being atheist

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

In the grand scheme of things we don't understand shit about the universe, so I don't understand retard atheists pretending like they know everything, when even the smartest scientists don't know shit. I'm not even religious rly atm, but this is BS from these wannabe smartasses.

Humans don't understand shit, and probably won't in our lifetime end of

That my friend is what I’m trying to state and that the only way to make sense of this is with a power above our very own to ground these foundational presuppositions

 

[Deleted member 67937]

That my friend is what I’m trying to state and that the only way to make sense of this is with a power above our very own to ground these foundational presuppositions

I'm areligious for the time being

I don't think there's any way to make sense of the universe tbh, it's too much for human mind, maybe forever

 

[vanillaicecream]

Because you lost @Bars @Alucard69 @FascisstChad @borntosuffer @i_love_roosters @noobs @ElTruecel @shia.jihadist

Notice how the gaythiest just repeats the same unjustified babble time and time again “MUH I DONT BELIVE IN YIUR GOD BUT BELIEVE IN WHAT I BELIVE BECAUSE I BELIVE” or “MUH WHY CANT SHIT JUST BE “ like if we go down this route I can just say “god exists because he exists “ this is the most gaythiests can do they have 0 way to make justification of anything even saying GOD ISNT REAL IMPLIES THEY KNOW METAPHYSICS IS REAL LMFAO .

Never be intimidated by Gaythiests simple philosophy cucks them every time and this guy is one of the better ones that’s the joke

Like how did you get that I'm just saying that "I believe in what I believe because I believe". Just how. You're so laughably delusional lmao, this is one of the most lopsided discussions ever where one of the sides get their ass handed to them in spectacular fashion every single time. You think a god can be argued into existence with WORDS as opposed to being self evident and yet you think you're on some pedestal of intellectual superiority. You and your ilk are a fucking joke dude.

 

[vanillaicecream]

In the grand scheme of things we don't understand shit about the universe, so I don't understand retard atheists pretending like they know everything, when even the smartest scientists don't know shit. I'm not even religious rly atm, but this is BS from these wannabe smartasses.

Humans don't understand shit, and probably won't in our lifetime end of

Wtf, why would you not say that about the people that are making positive claims of knowledge in regards to this shit??? You think the people that are rejecting a positive proposition and not demanding that the universe work the way they want to are the ones pretending they know everything?? Humans don't understand shit according to you, then why would you not say this about the people that are so confident that the creator of the whole universe has a special relationship with them and created all of this with them in mind. Lmao you're so fucking retarded, dumbass motherfucker.

 

[Deleted member 67937]

Wtf, why would you not say that about the people that are making positive claims of knowledge in regards to this shit??? You think the people that are rejecting a positive proposition and not demanding that the universe work the way they want to are the ones pretending they know everything?? Humans don't understand shit according to you, then why would you not say this about the people that are so confident that the creator of the whole universe has a special relationship with them and created all of this with them in mind. Lmao you're ao fucking retarded, dumbass motherfucker.

Clearly i'm referencing to people who think that religion is dumb and atheism is conclusive, we don't understand ANYTHING about what's at the core of all this, we will not have a theory of everything or anything to that direction probably ever, certainly not in our lifetime, believe me. How can't you understand that even if god is a dumb concept to you, it's hardly more absurd than how we became to be. There's no logic that could begin to understand it

 

[Bars]

I'm areligious for the time being

I don't think there's any way to make sense of the universe tbh, it's too much for human mind, maybe forever

Tbh universe would be pointless without us. We have billions of stars, planets, galaxies so what? What's the point?

What's the point of god honestly? IMHO God created everything to porve "he" is the God. Without us, the creator is nothing. "He" needs us.

Something exists and that's the only thing that matters. I define nothingness as a concept that does not exist. Nothingess is not even a thing - it doesn't exist. Nothingness doesn't interact obviously while "somethingness" does. If nothingness exists it's already something.

Doesn't matter what "somethingness" is; it can be whatever, somethingness exists - exists another thing that interacts with it. Somethingness can't exist alone because it can't be differentiated from nothingess. The same with two or more identical things; they do not interact and they seem to be like nothingess. They interact and at the same time they affect each other. They are different. The whole point of existence is to differentiate. We know we exist because we can differentiate/compare things. Ok to prove we exist we need at least two things and compare them, so we know we exist. Three things.

I thought it was enough to exist but it didn't answer how things interact. Between two things, there is another thing that interacts with both of them. It can be whatever, that thing let's say transmitter interacts with us, transmitter's and our state changes, and that transmitter interacts with the second thing and both of their state changes, transmitter interacts with us, both our state changes and so on. We know that thing exists because of transmitter. So we can't actually prove that that thing exists; we only interact with the transmitter.

But how do we know "he" exists? Through that transmitter. But we can't prove in any way "he" exists. We only interact with the transmitter that interacts with "him".

Tbh I need to make a thread about this idea to explain it better.

Edit: edited

 

[vanillaicecream]

Clearly i'm referencing to people who think that religion is dumb

But it absolutely fucking is, you just think people saying this are close minded and that there is any room of possibility left for this stupidity to be true because you have not taken the time to examine this subject thoroughly from both a historical and logical standpoint. There are infinite lines of reasoning in which RELIGION specifically can be debunked with a high enough degree of certainty. That's why people like this @PrinceLuenLeoncur character are a fucking joke, even if we concede this "necessary being" stuff it does not move us any milimeter closer to his specific favorite god that he only believes in because the culture he was born in made him. Christianity is the most easily debunked joke ever, it's not even INTERNALLY consistent and logical.

 

[Deleted member 67937]

But it absolutely fucking is, you just think people saying this are close minded and that there is any room of possibility left for this stupidity to be true because you have not taken the time to examine this subject thoroughly from both a historical and logical standpoint. There are infinite lines of reasoning in which RELIGION specifically can be debunked with a high enough degree of certainty. That's why people like this @PrinceLuenLeoncur character a fucking joke, even if we concede this "necessary being" stuff it does not move us any milimeter closer to his specific favorite god that he only believes in because the culture he was born in made him.

I'm areligious, we don't know anything, it's all too absurd anything could be true, just accept it. Stop your high horse, there have been many religious scientists that made huge advancements (isaac newton was one IIRC). Which field do you study/work in?

 

[Bars]

I edited it pls those who read it, re-read

Tbh universe would be pointless without us. We have billions of stars, planets, galaxies so what? What's the point?

What's the point of god honestly? IMHO God created everything to porve "he" is the God. Without us, the creator is nothing. "He" needs us.

Something exists and that's the only thing that matters. I define nothingness as a concept that does not exist. Nothingess is not even a thing - it doesn't exist. Nothingness doesn't interact obviously while "somethingness" does. If nothingness exists it's already something.

Doesn't matter what "somethingness" is; it can be whatever, somethingness exists - exists another thing that interacts with it. Somethingness can't exist alone because it can't be differentiated from nothingess. The same with two or more identical things; they do not interact and they seem to be like nothingess. They interact and at the same time they affect each other. They are different. The whole point of existence is to differentiate. We know we exist because we can differentiate/compare things. Ok to prove we exist we need at least two things and compare them, so we know we exist. Three things.

I thought it was enough to exist but it didn't answer how things interact. Between two things, there is another thing that interacts with both of them. It can be whatever, that thing let's say transmitter interacts with us, transmitter's and our state changes, and that transmitter interacts with the second thing and both of their state changes, transmitter interacts with us, both our state changes and so on. We know that thing exists because of transmitter. So we can't actually prove that that thing exists; we only interact transmitter.

But how do we know "he" exists? Through that transmitter. But we can't prove in any way "he" exists. We only interact with the transmitter that interacts with "him".

Tbh I need to make a thread about this idea to explain it better.

Edit: edited

 

[vanillaicecream]

there have been many religious scientists that made huge advancements (isaac newton was one IIRC). Which field do you study/work in?

The fact that you think this validades the objective truths of religious claims in any way just shows how unprepared you are for this and how little research you did ln the whole subject. I'm not on any high horse, I promise you that if you stop to think just for a moment you will realize that when you have thousands of religions that have been historically preodminant in specific parts of the world, the simplest and most logical conclusion is that people make up Gods according to their culture and their own desires. Does it make an iota of sense that the one true god that created the universe would only reveal and manifest himself to people from the middle east in the bronze age? Look me in the eye and tell me this makes sense.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Like how did you get that I'm just saying that "I believe in what I believe because I believe". Just how. You're so laughably delusional lmao, this is one of the most lopsided discussions ever where one of the sides get their ass handed to them in spectacular fashion every single time. You think a god can be argued into existence with WORDS as opposed to being self evident and yet you think you're on some pedestal of intellectual superiority. You and your ilk are a fucking joke dude.

You say you believe in things that you have no empirical evidence for as you cannot empirically measure these things hence why I say you believe in it because you do lol. That’s what I was saying dude….

Buddy your an Gaytheidt you once again cannot make an account for metaphysics, logic and ethics yet you insist these are real things your the only idiot here in fact your a fucking retard I have dismantled your bullshit and humiliated you on this topic in every reply and your are made my intellectual inferior and my BITCH YOU DINT EVEN KNOW WHAT OCCAMS RAZOR MEANS YOU ABSOLUTE DOLT

 

[vanillaicecream]

You say you believe in things that you have no empirical evidence for as you cannot empirically measure these things hence why I say you believe in it because you do lol. That’s what I was saying dude….

Buddy your an Gaytheidt you once again cannot make an account for metaphysics, logic and ethics yet you insist these are real things your the only idiot here in fact your a fucking retard I have dismantled your bullshit and humiliated you on this topic in every reply and your are made my intellectual inferior and my BITCH YOU DINT EVEN KNOW WHAT OCCAMS RAZOR MEANS YOU ABSOLUTE DOLT

Your account isn't justified or based on any model that makes novel predictions, you're just making shit up from the projections of your deluded brain that wants to feel special and saying you solved everything because the other side isn't pretending to know things that aren't possible to know. That's why you're a complete joke, you don't know the first thing about any of this, you don't know how discourses of truths work, your arguments are founded in presuppositionalism.

It doesn't make an iota of difference if you're proposing an account that ATTEMPTS to explain something if you're not substantiating it with novel predictions to distinguish imagination from reality, your account is post hoc bullshit from the projections of your brain. You don't even know the difference between novel predictions and post hoc rationalizations and how important this is for building models of reality regarding this kind of stuff, you can't even tell you're using post hoc rationalization because you don't know how any of this works and you don't know how to spot fallacies as the logically illiterate buffoon you are. You can continue to bark your delusions all you want, I'll continue to explain how much of a complete idiot and dangerously deluded religious imbecile you are.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Your account isn't justified or based on any model that makes novel predictions, you're just making shit up from the projections of your deluded brain that wants to feel special and saying you solved everything because the other side isn't pretending to know things that aren't possible to know. That's why you're a complete joke, you don't know the first thing about any of this, you don't know how discourses of truths work, your arguments are founded in presuppositionalism.

It doesn't make an iota of difference if you're proposing an account that ATTEMPTS to explain something if you're not substantiating it with novel predictions to distinguish imagination from reality, your account is post hoc bullshit from the projections of your brain. You don't even know the difference between novel predictions and post hoc rationalizations and how important this is for building models of reality regarding this kind of stuff, you can't even tell you're using post hoc rationalization because you don't know how any of this works and you don't know how to spot fallacies as the logically illiterate buffoon you are. You can continue to bark your delusions all you want, I'll continue to explain how much of a complete idiot and dangerously deluded religious imbecile you are.

You replied back ok Im in gym ima send you all that shit nigga I’m ready to leave you prolapsed I mean you haven’t said anything different tbh all you have done is reinstate your position…. And yet you haven’t justified it but don’t worry I’m coming your YOUUUU

 

[vanillaicecream]

You replied back ok Im in gym ima send you all that shit nigga I’m ready to leave you prolapsed I mean you haven’t said anything different tbh all you have done is reinstate your position…. And yet you haven’t justified it but don’t worry I’m coming your YOUUUU

You will only demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept of novel predictions you stupid bitch. Name one novel prediction that your retarded "account for metaphysics and logic" makes so we can distinguish it from post hoc rationalization, just fucking one. I'll wait and watch you fail miserably.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You will only demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept of novel predictions you stupid bitch. Name one novel prediction that your retarded "account for metaphysics and logic" makes so we can distinguish it from post hoc rationalization, just fucking one. I'll wait and watch you fail miserably.

Ngl took a hot min… so you better read it

1. Presuppositionalism and Truth

It seems you’re accusing me of being “presuppositional” as if that in itself is a flaw. However, presuppositionalism (in the philosophical sense) just acknowledges that everyone operates from presuppositions—including you. The assumption that the material world is all there is or that only empirical evidence leads to truth are themselves presuppositions. They aren’t self-evident or provable. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, recognizes that there are truths about reality that transcend the material world—truths that we encounter through revelation, tradition, and experience.

In fact, Orthodox epistemology (how we know what we know) is rooted in the lived experience of the Church, the saints, and the direct encounter with God. It’s not just abstract philosophy, but an experiential knowledge grounded in the reality of God’s presence throughout history. So, it’s not a matter of my “deluded brain” making things up. The entire tradition of Orthodoxy has been built on the spiritual experience of countless people who have encountered God directly and whose lives and teachings reflect that reality.

2. The Importance of Experience Over Mere Prediction

You argue that models must make novel predictions to be considered valid. But you’re applying a scientific standard of empirical predictability to realms where it doesn’t fully apply. In Orthodox theology, we’re not talking about material phenomena subject to testable predictions but about spiritual realities—which cannot be confined to the empirical method. Truth in Orthodoxy is encountered through theosis—the process of becoming united with God. It’s an experiential and transformative process that cannot be reduced to scientific testing or predictive models.

In Orthodox thought, truth is encountered in a deeply personal, transformative relationship with God. Saints like St. Gregory Palamas argued that God can be known through His uncreated energies, which are experienced directly by those who are in communion with Him. These are not abstract ideas, but the lived and ongoing reality of the Church.

3. Empirical Science Doesn’t Own Truth

The insistence that all truth must come from empirical predictions is a self-limiting worldview. You’re assuming that the only things that exist or matter are those that can be measured and predicted. But this leaves out vast areas of human experience—love, beauty, morality, and yes, spiritual reality—that are real but not subject to scientific models. Orthodox Christianity doesn’t reject science; it understands that science is one tool among many for understanding reality, but it is limited to the material world.

The Orthodox worldview offers a broader scope for understanding existence. The physical world is not the only reality, and empirical science cannot account for everything—particularly immaterial truths like logic, morality, and God. The Christian claim is not that these truths are post-hoc rationalizations, but that they are deeply rooted in the consistent revelation of God through Scripture, Tradition, and the lives of the saints.

4. Misunderstanding of Reason and Faith

You’ve misrepresented what faith is in Orthodoxy. Faith isn’t a blind leap or a fallback because there are no empirical models. Faith, in the Orthodox context, is a relationship of trust and knowledge. It’s founded on revelation and experience, built over millennia by the collective spiritual life of the Church. Orthodox theology has always emphasized that faith and reason are not in opposition—they work together to bring us into a deeper understanding of both the material and spiritual realities.

You claim that the lack of empirical predictions invalidates my position, but this misunderstands the nature of spiritual knowledge. It’s not reducible to the scientific method, yet it is no less real for that. Many things we value in life—love, justice, beauty—are not subject to empirical testing in a predictive sense, but we know they are real. In Orthodoxy, God’s existence and the truths of the faith are grounded in the transformative experience of the saints, the miracles witnessed by the Church, and the revelation given to humanity, not in speculative post hoc rationalizations.

5. Logical Coherence of the Christian Worldview

Orthodoxy offers a coherent explanation of existence that you dismiss without fully engaging. You accuse me of merely asserting things, but Eastern Orthodoxy’s metaphysical claims are rooted in a rich tradition of theological thought that includes centuries of philosophical engagement. The cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments point toward a transcendent source not as a leap of faith, but as a rational conclusion about the nature of existence itself. The universe’s existence, the presence of order, and the ability to reason are all signs that point to a divine source. The Orthodox Church doesn’t claim to “know everything,” but it does provide a consistent framework that explains why anything exists at all.

summarryyiieieieieieieieiiei TLDR

Your dismissal of my views as “post-hoc rationalizations” misses the depth of what I’m actually presenting. I’m not merely proposing arbitrary explanations to fill gaps—I’m articulating a worldview that accounts for the very things your materialism cannot. While you insist that empirical science holds the monopoly on truth, I am pointing out that it has limitations and that truth encompasses much more than the material world. The Orthodox tradition offers a fuller, richer understanding of reality—one that is grounded in revelation, experience, and a coherent explanation of the universe.

 

[vanillaicecream]

Ngl took a hot min… so you better read it

1. Presuppositionalism and Truth

It seems you’re accusing me of being “presuppositional” as if that in itself is a flaw. However, presuppositionalism (in the philosophical sense) just acknowledges that everyone operates from presuppositions—including you. The assumption that the material world is all there is or that only empirical evidence leads to truth are themselves presuppositions. They aren’t self-evident or provable. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, recognizes that there are truths about reality that transcend the material world—truths that we encounter through revelation, tradition, and experience.

In fact, Orthodox epistemology (how we know what we know) is rooted in the lived experience of the Church, the saints, and the direct encounter with God. It’s not just abstract philosophy, but an experiential knowledge grounded in the reality of God’s presence throughout history. So, it’s not a matter of my “deluded brain” making things up. The entire tradition of Orthodoxy has been built on the spiritual experience of countless people who have encountered God directly and whose lives and teachings reflect that reality.

2. The Importance of Experience Over Mere Prediction

You argue that models must make novel predictions to be considered valid. But you’re applying a scientific standard of empirical predictability to realms where it doesn’t fully apply. In Orthodox theology, we’re not talking about material phenomena subject to testable predictions but about spiritual realities—which cannot be confined to the empirical method. Truth in Orthodoxy is encountered through theosis—the process of becoming united with God. It’s an experiential and transformative process that cannot be reduced to scientific testing or predictive models.

In Orthodox thought, truth is encountered in a deeply personal, transformative relationship with God. Saints like St. Gregory Palamas argued that God can be known through His uncreated energies, which are experienced directly by those who are in communion with Him. These are not abstract ideas, but the lived and ongoing reality of the Church.

3. Empirical Science Doesn’t Own Truth

The insistence that all truth must come from empirical predictions is a self-limiting worldview. You’re assuming that the only things that exist or matter are those that can be measured and predicted. But this leaves out vast areas of human experience—love, beauty, morality, and yes, spiritual reality—that are real but not subject to scientific models. Orthodox Christianity doesn’t reject science; it understands that science is one tool among many for understanding reality, but it is limited to the material world.

The Orthodox worldview offers a broader scope for understanding existence. The physical world is not the only reality, and empirical science cannot account for everything—particularly immaterial truths like logic, morality, and God. The Christian claim is not that these truths are post-hoc rationalizations, but that they are deeply rooted in the consistent revelation of God through Scripture, Tradition, and the lives of the saints.

4. Misunderstanding of Reason and Faith

You’ve misrepresented what faith is in Orthodoxy. Faith isn’t a blind leap or a fallback because there are no empirical models. Faith, in the Orthodox context, is a relationship of trust and knowledge. It’s founded on revelation and experience, built over millennia by the collective spiritual life of the Church. Orthodox theology has always emphasized that faith and reason are not in opposition—they work together to bring us into a deeper understanding of both the material and spiritual realities.

You claim that the lack of empirical predictions invalidates my position, but this misunderstands the nature of spiritual knowledge. It’s not reducible to the scientific method, yet it is no less real for that. Many things we value in life—love, justice, beauty—are not subject to empirical testing in a predictive sense, but we know they are real. In Orthodoxy, God’s existence and the truths of the faith are grounded in the transformative experience of the saints, the miracles witnessed by the Church, and the revelation given to humanity, not in speculative post hoc rationalizations.

5. Logical Coherence of the Christian Worldview

Orthodoxy offers a coherent explanation of existence that you dismiss without fully engaging. You accuse me of merely asserting things, but Eastern Orthodoxy’s metaphysical claims are rooted in a rich tradition of theological thought that includes centuries of philosophical engagement. The cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments point toward a transcendent source not as a leap of faith, but as a rational conclusion about the nature of existence itself. The universe’s existence, the presence of order, and the ability to reason are all signs that point to a divine source. The Orthodox Church doesn’t claim to “know everything,” but it does provide a consistent framework that explains why anything exists at all.

summarryyiieieieieieieieiiei TLDR

Your dismissal of my views as “post-hoc rationalizations” misses the depth of what I’m actually presenting. I’m not merely proposing arbitrary explanations to fill gaps—I’m articulating a worldview that accounts for the very things your materialism cannot. While you insist that empirical science holds the monopoly on truth, I am pointing out that it has limitations and that truth encompasses much more than the material world. The Orthodox tradition offers a fuller, richer understanding of reality—one that is grounded in revelation, experience, and a coherent explanation of the universe.

You will only demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept of novel predictions

I called it and you delivered it. There is absolutely nothing about novel predictions here, you didn't even attempt to go anywhere near it and try to present a point that fits that even if the prediction isn't ultimately fulfilled (one example would be prayers but you would have to pray for very specific things that can be distinguished from natural causation and it would have to happen at a high enough rate to be distinguished from chance). All you did was dismiss the concept of novel predictions because of course you can't offer anything remotely in that ballpark. It's just clear to me you're just either flat out copying and pasting random shit or just blabbering on about your rehearsed script because you just can't engage directly with what I say, you just randomly mentioned "faith" and tried to argue in favor of it out of the blue when I never brought it up.

Your whole belief system is such a fucking cartoonish and retarded epistemological framework, I can only laugh at statements like "Faith, in the Orthodox context, is a relationship of trust and knowledge" because what you're doing here is creating an internal model of reality where things operate within the boundaries and confines of what you defined, you're essentially allowing things to be in complete incongruence with external reality and only going off of what you determined reality to be like in this internal world. "Hey, it doesn't matter that faith is defined as hope based on no evidence in common and conventional language, as long as I can create an internal model of reality where I can paint it as a reasonable and more evidence-based concept, my assertions are warranted". "Centuries of philosophical engagement" isn't mutually exclusive to empty assertions either because people can make empty assertions for centuries while framing them in philosophical language. It's really not hard at all. There is a whole "field" where this comes into play and it's called sophism. You don't get to equate the "presuppositionalism" grounded in "I think therefore I am" which is subject to the internal experience of an agent to the presuppositionalism that you fall back on to try to prove an external concept that does not rely on our subjective experience and assumptions. That is not how sound epistemology works on any level whatsoever, that is not how you distinguish reality from imagination. This is all a recipe for self-deception.

You don't have anything that aligns with external and objective reality, you just have an internal model of mantras and self-defermined assertions where everything is allowed to escape all the conventional understanding of language and epistemology. This is extremely easy for me, it's baffling that you think you're winning anything and "humiliating" me. Holy shit the delusion is palpable.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You will only demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept of novel predictions

I called it and you delivered it. There is absolutely nothing about novel predictions here, you didn't even attempt to go anywhere near it and try to present a point that fits that even if the prediction isn't ultimately fulfilled (one example would be prayers but you would have to pray for very specific things that can be distinguished from natural causation and it would have to happen at a high enough rate to be distinguished from chance). All you did was dismiss the concept of novel predictions because of course you can't offer anything remotely in that ballpark. It's just clear to me you're just either flat out copying and pasting random shit or just blabbering on about your rehearsed script because you just can't engage directly with what I say, you just randomly mentioned "faith" and tried to argue in favor of it out of the blue when I never brought it up.

Your whole belief system is such a fucking cartoonish and retarded epistemological framework, I can only laugh at statements like "Faith, in the Orthodox context, is a relationship of trust and knowledge" because what you're doing here is creating an internal model of reality where things operate within the boundaries and confines of what you defined, you're essentially allowing things to be in complete incongruence with external reality and only going off of what you determined reality to be like in this internal world. "Hey, it doesn't matter that faith is defined as hope based on no evidence in common and conventional language, as long as I can create an internal model of reality where I can paint it as a reasonable and more evidence-based concept, my assertions are warranted". "Centuries of philosophical engagement" isn't mutually exclusive to empty assertions either because people can make empty assertions for centuries while framing them in philosophical language. It's really not hard at all. There is a whole "field" where this comes into play and it's called sophism. You don't get to equate the "presuppositionalism" grounded in "I think therefore I am" which is subject to the internal experience of an agent to the presuppositionalism that you fall back on to try to prove an external concept that does not rely on our subjective experience and assumptions. That is not how sound epistemology works on any level whatsoever, that is not how you distinguish reality from imagination. This is all a recipe for self-deception.

You don't have anything that aligns with external and objective reality, you just have an internal model of mantras and self-defermined assertions where everything is allowed to escape all the conventional understanding of language and epistemology. This is extremely easy for me, it's baffling that you think you're winning anything and "humiliating" me. Holy shit the delusion is palpable.

Arguing with you is like smashing my brain against a wall it’s beginning to piss me off your so low IQ it’s ridiculous I’m bored at this point arguing with you isn’t stimulating anymore


Your argument rests on the idea that everything must be explained through novel predictions that align with external, objective reality, but this demand already presupposes certain unproven assumptions that you don’t seem to acknowledge. Let’s break it down:

1. Your Reliance on Novel Predictions Presupposes a Framework

You insist that novel predictions and empirical validation are the only valid way to build knowledge. However, this very claim—that knowledge must come from testable predictions—is not itself the product of novel predictions. It is a presupposition of your worldview, one grounded in methodological naturalism, which assumes that only material and observable processes are valid. But what justifies the notion that reality must be confined to what can be predicted or measured?

• Your worldview assumes that all truth claims must be empirically validated. However, this assumption itself can’t be empirically validated, so you’re working from a circular position.

2. You’re Presupposing the Validity of Logic and Reason

The entire structure of your argument relies on logic and reason, but atheism and materialism struggle to justify the existence of these immaterial concepts. If everything, including our reasoning faculties, is the product of random evolutionary processes, how can you trust your mind to produce valid, rational conclusions? Evolution is concerned with survival, not truth.

• Your presupposition that reason is valid, reliable, and leads to truth needs to be justified. In a materialistic worldview, where the brain is just the result of evolutionary accidents, there is no inherent reason why your cognitive processes should consistently reflect objective reality.

3. Materialism Can’t Account for Universals

You demand that all claims align with “external, objective reality,” but what counts as objective reality? You’re relying on universals like logic, morality, and reason to make your case, yet materialism can’t account for these. Universals are immaterial—they aren’t objects in the material world, nor do they evolve. They simply are. In a purely materialistic worldview, where do these laws come from? How can they exist in a world where everything is reduced to atoms and molecules?

• Materialism lacks the explanatory power to account for universals, like the laws of logic or moral absolutes, yet you rely on them as the foundation of your argument. This creates an inconsistency within your own worldview.

4. Your Understanding of Faith is Misguided

You claim that faith is “hope based on no evidence,” but this is a caricature, not a definition. Faith in the Orthodox Christian context is about trusting in what has been revealed and experienced, grounded in centuries of philosophical and theological reflection. It isn’t some blind leap in the dark, as you portray it.

• Faith is a rational response to evidence of a different kind: experiential, moral, historical, and yes, even philosophical evidence. Not all evidence needs to be empirical in the narrow sense you describe. Historical events, eyewitness testimonies, and philosophical deductions are all valid forms of evidence that are commonly used in many disciplines, including law, history, and ethics. Your arbitrary narrowing of the definition of evidence doesn’t diminish the reality of these other forms.

5. You Fail to Justify Objective Morality

You seem to hold that morality can be derived from social consensus or evolutionary biology, but this is problematic. If morality is just a byproduct of social constructs or evolutionary pressures, then there is nothing inherently objective about it. What’s “right” for one society might be “wrong” for another.

• For example, if morality is simply about what helps a society survive, then practices like slavery or genocide, which may have benefitted certain societies historically, can’t be condemned as objectively wrong. Without an objective moral lawgiver, morality becomes relative and changes with time, culture, or biology. Yet, you likely act as though some things—like genocide, murder, or child abuse—are always wrong, regardless of cultural context.

6. You Can’t Explain the Existence of the Universe

Your rejection of the cosmological argument based on the idea that the universe could be self-explanatory or that quantum fields provide a sufficient explanation fails to engage with the deeper metaphysical issues. Quantum fields or any other proposed explanation are still contingent—they exist under certain conditions and could have been otherwise. They require a further explanation.

• You haven’t shown why the universe or quantum fields should exist necessarily. Without an external cause or explanation, you’re left with the universe just “popping into existence” uncaused, which violates the very principles of reason and causality that you seem to hold in high regard.

7. You Are Engaging in Post-Hoc Rationalization

You accuse me of post-hoc rationalization, but by dismissing theism without offering a coherent alternative explanation for the issues raised (like morality, logic, and the origin of the universe), you’re engaging in the very thing you accuse me of. Your entire argument amounts to assuming materialism is true and then dismissing anything that doesn’t fit into that framework as nonsense, without critically examining whether

 

[vanillaicecream]

Arguing with you is like smashing my brain against a wall it’s beginning to piss me off your so low IQ it’s ridiculous I’m bored at this point arguing with you isn’t stimulating anymore


Your argument rests on the idea that everything must be explained through novel predictions that align with external, objective reality, but this demand already presupposes certain unproven assumptions that you don’t seem to acknowledge. Let’s break it down:

1. Your Reliance on Novel Predictions Presupposes a Framework

You insist that novel predictions and empirical validation are the only valid way to build knowledge. However, this very claim—that knowledge must come from testable predictions—is not itself the product of novel predictions. It is a presupposition of your worldview, one grounded in methodological naturalism, which assumes that only material and observable processes are valid. But what justifies the notion that reality must be confined to what can be predicted or measured?

• Your worldview assumes that all truth claims must be empirically validated. However, this assumption itself can’t be empirically validated, so you’re working from a circular position.

2. You’re Presupposing the Validity of Logic and Reason

The entire structure of your argument relies on logic and reason, but atheism and materialism struggle to justify the existence of these immaterial concepts. If everything, including our reasoning faculties, is the product of random evolutionary processes, how can you trust your mind to produce valid, rational conclusions? Evolution is concerned with survival, not truth.

• Your presupposition that reason is valid, reliable, and leads to truth needs to be justified. In a materialistic worldview, where the brain is just the result of evolutionary accidents, there is no inherent reason why your cognitive processes should consistently reflect objective reality.

3. Materialism Can’t Account for Universals

You demand that all claims align with “external, objective reality,” but what counts as objective reality? You’re relying on universals like logic, morality, and reason to make your case, yet materialism can’t account for these. Universals are immaterial—they aren’t objects in the material world, nor do they evolve. They simply are. In a purely materialistic worldview, where do these laws come from? How can they exist in a world where everything is reduced to atoms and molecules?

• Materialism lacks the explanatory power to account for universals, like the laws of logic or moral absolutes, yet you rely on them as the foundation of your argument. This creates an inconsistency within your own worldview.

4. Your Understanding of Faith is Misguided

You claim that faith is “hope based on no evidence,” but this is a caricature, not a definition. Faith in the Orthodox Christian context is about trusting in what has been revealed and experienced, grounded in centuries of philosophical and theological reflection. It isn’t some blind leap in the dark, as you portray it.

• Faith is a rational response to evidence of a different kind: experiential, moral, historical, and yes, even philosophical evidence. Not all evidence needs to be empirical in the narrow sense you describe. Historical events, eyewitness testimonies, and philosophical deductions are all valid forms of evidence that are commonly used in many disciplines, including law, history, and ethics. Your arbitrary narrowing of the definition of evidence doesn’t diminish the reality of these other forms.

5. You Fail to Justify Objective Morality

You seem to hold that morality can be derived from social consensus or evolutionary biology, but this is problematic. If morality is just a byproduct of social constructs or evolutionary pressures, then there is nothing inherently objective about it. What’s “right” for one society might be “wrong” for another.

• For example, if morality is simply about what helps a society survive, then practices like slavery or genocide, which may have benefitted certain societies historically, can’t be condemned as objectively wrong. Without an objective moral lawgiver, morality becomes relative and changes with time, culture, or biology. Yet, you likely act as though some things—like genocide, murder, or child abuse—are always wrong, regardless of cultural context.

6. You Can’t Explain the Existence of the Universe

Your rejection of the cosmological argument based on the idea that the universe could be self-explanatory or that quantum fields provide a sufficient explanation fails to engage with the deeper metaphysical issues. Quantum fields or any other proposed explanation are still contingent—they exist under certain conditions and could have been otherwise. They require a further explanation.

• You haven’t shown why the universe or quantum fields should exist necessarily. Without an external cause or explanation, you’re left with the universe just “popping into existence” uncaused, which violates the very principles of reason and causality that you seem to hold in high regard.

7. You Are Engaging in Post-Hoc Rationalization

You accuse me of post-hoc rationalization, but by dismissing theism without offering a coherent alternative explanation for the issues raised (like morality, logic, and the origin of the universe), you’re engaging in the very thing you accuse me of. Your entire argument amounts to assuming materialism is true and then dismissing anything that doesn’t fit into that framework as nonsense, without critically examining whether

Why would you say arguing with me isn't stimulating and then go on to say the exact same things you have already said you absolute spaz. Are you even capable of discussing this without copy and paste, holy shit this is embarrassing. You don't even know the difference between VALID AND SOUND which is like logic 101, you just keep walking in circles within your internal model. You're basically saying "rocks or ice cream don't account for logic or metaphysics therefore my account is true because it proposes a solution internally". Do you not understand that when you do this you're defining things into reality? It's like you're looking at all those things you think God would account for FIRST and then you define God in a way that fits them. This isn't how examination of reality works at all, how do you not understand this us monumentally dumb and fallacious.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Why would you say arguing with me isn't stimulating and then go on to say the exact same things you have already said you absolute spaz. Are you even capable of discussing this without copy and paste, holy shit this is embarrassing. You don't even know the difference between VALID AND SOUND which is like logic 101, you just keep walking in circles within your internal model. You're basically saying "rocks or ice cream don't account for logic or metaphysics therefore my account is true because it proposes a solution internally". Do you not understand that when you do this you're defining things into reality? It's like you're looking at all those things you think God would account for FIRST and then you define God in a way that fits them. This isn't how examination of reality works at all, how do you not understand this us monumentally dumb and fallacious.

Yeah ima use AI to fuck you cos your annoying and low IQ all you keep doing is reinstating your position.

I’m not doing anything you said it’s a simple if A exist therefore Y. If logic, metaphysics and ethnics exist then God exists as he’s the precondition for these concepts and things to exist in the first place for they come from HIM.

As an atheist you have NO ACCOUNT for this you can’t say what it is or where it came from all you can say is “ ” it’s pathetic tbh very cringe. Ima just use AI to debate you for now like my last comment because you’re an absolute idiot. The term “reality” presupposes you believe in metaphysics something you cannot epically evidence and justify which is self defeating for your argument.

Essentially your saying the house just exists and I can’t say why the house exists or how it exists but that it exists, I’m saying if the house exists then it must had somebody who laid down the foundations to build the house in the first place and your response is “WE CANT KNOW THAT WE JUST DUNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” ok buddy you keep telling yourself that. Your such a fucking retard, usually I try to write nice to people in debates like this but your a prick I will no longer be writing in an respectful manner nor will I be using grammar ima treat you like the troglodytes I see irl and on this form

You don’t even know the 3 laws of logic… you violate the 3rd rule every time and don’t get me started on the 4th rule which was added later on known as the law of principle sufficient reason which states “Everything that is is for a reason, or for all real things, there is a cause”

Your argumentation is in violation of 2 of these rules how can you claim to be winning or holding your ground when all you can do is contradict yourself use circular augmentation and then deny the justification for metaphysics which allows you to even use concepts such as “Reality” literally self defeating position. I brought up my specific God because he meets all the prerequisites to meet all of the fundamental questions such as where does epistemology come from, logic, metaphysics and ethics that was my reason for bringing up my EO worldview you still have yet to state what kind of Gaytheiet you are but either way you have lost as you have yet presented a credible account for any of the 4 things mentioned other than “It just is broooooo”

 

[meropeu]

After analysing both science and religion the truth is you need faith for both

If ur an atheist you need to believe that space and time and life could literally come from an explosion in nothing

You have to believe life came to be from non life

Both of these require faith as if u remove a creator from the equation shit hardly makes any more sense

If u're not a believer it's over. I don't believe in man-made religion. The only true God is mother nature and it's my duty to keep it better and sun the father.

 

[vanillaicecream]

Yeah ima use AI to fuck you cos your annoying and low IQ all you keep doing is reinstating your position.

I’m not doing anything you said it’s a simple if A exist therefore Y. If logic, metaphysics and ethnics exist then God exists as he’s the precondition for these concepts and things to exist in the first place for they come from HIM.

As an atheist you have NO ACCOUNT for this you can’t say what it is or where it came from all you can say is “ ” it’s pathetic tbh very cringe. Ima just use AI to debate you for now like my last comment because you’re an absolute idiot. The term “reality” presupposes you believe in metaphysics something you cannot epically evidence and justify which is self defeating for your argument.

Essentially your saying the house just exists and I can’t say why the house exists or how it exists but that it exists, I’m saying if the house exists then it must had somebody who laid down the foundations to build the house in the first place and your response is “WE CANT KNOW THAT WE JUST DUNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” ok buddy you keep telling yourself that. Your such a fucking retard, usually I try to write nice to people in debates like this but your a prick I will no longer be writing in an respectful manner nor will I be using grammar ima treat you like the troglodytes I see irl and on this form

You don’t even know the 3 laws of logic… you violate the 3rd rule every time and don’t get me started on the 4th rule which was added later on known as the law of principle sufficient reason which states “Everything that is is for a reason, or for all real things, there is a cause”

Your argumentation is in violation of 2 of these rules how can you claim to be winning or holding your ground when all you can do is contradict yourself use circular augmentation and then deny the justification for metaphysics which allows you to even use concepts such as “Reality” literally self defeating position. I brought up my specific God because he meets all the prerequisites to meet all of the fundamental questions such as where does epistemology come from, logic, metaphysics and ethics that was my reason for bringing up my EO worldview you still have yet to state what kind of Gaytheiet you are but either way you have lost as you have yet presented a credible account for any of the 4 things mentioned other than “It just is broooooo”

Won't read. End it, you're dumber than a rock.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Won't read. End it, you're dumber than a rock.

The irony of a guy who uses presups arguments for a worldview he cannot justify and acts as if that’s an justification which proves his worldview is entirely relative meaning he has no basis for truth claims which means his position is ultimately untenable and thus self refuting as he can’t even prove his worldview to be true.