Reason

@Michael13765618 Sounds like you’re not really looking for a debate, right? Just self-rationalization?

@Conserberal Yes atheist reject objective truth and objective morality. People who try and convince you GOOD and EVIL dont exis lt then try run society. Canada slaughtering itself now with euthanasia breaking records.

Yikes….

I agree that forming and exploring underdetermined hypotheses is part of science. But, that’s not really the issue. The question is what justifies treating one of those hypotheses as especially likely. Right now, from what I can determine, the black hole multiverse seems like a creative way to connect a few suggestive ideas, but I’m not seeing what evidence actually distinguishes it from other possibilities. So I’m all for investigating it; I just don’t see a reason yet to elevate it beyond ‘interesting but speculative.’

@Conserberal @MartinTweats @AleMartnezR1 Science starts by forming underdetermined conjectures about patterns that might not be coincidences. ‘Leave it open’ doesn't seem humbler if it prevents investigation. Epistemic humility limits *confidence*, not prevents building & testing ideas... ...IMO...

"You've probably heard about the big bang and but that's an embarrassment actually for atheists or people who want to think that matter is ultimate because matter is not ultimate it wasn't always here how did it come to be and how did it come to be with the complexity that we see around us" youtube.com/watch?v=GJy4ix…

@LukeDashjr “They just don’t want it to be true” isn’t a proof—it’s what you say when you don’t have one.

@Conserberal Anyone can prove Catholicism is true. People just don't want it to be because it means they have to stop sinning.

Math isn’t accepted because we were “taught it as kids.” Rather, it’s accepted because it can be proven and verified. If God’s existence were “the most well-proven fact ever,” you should be able to present a proof with that same level of clarity and agreement. The fact that people have argued about it for thousands of years suggests otherwise.

You’re still conflating how people first encounter something with how it’s justified. Yes, people are definitely taught math as kids. But math isn’t accepted because it was taught. It’s accepted because it’s demonstrable, testable, and consistently verifiable. Anyone can check that 2+2=4, derive proofs, and apply it to the real world with reliable results. That’s why there’s near-universal agreement. If God were “proven with the same level of clarity,” we’d expect the same features: •clear, repeatable demonstrations •independent verification •broad convergence across cultures and backgrounds But that’s not what we see. Instead, we see deep disagreement between religions, denominations, and individuals—often all claiming certainty. So the issue isn’t “were you taught it as a kid?”—that applies to everything. The issue is: can it be independently checked and consistently confirmed? Math can. If God can too, then show the equivalent of a proof—not just the claim that one exists.

@Conserberal No, most people accept math because they were taught it as kids. And God can be proven with the same level of clarity and agreement.

Art, I think you’re mixing up two different questions: where our cognitive faculties come from and whether they’re reliable. Evolution doesn’t select for “truth” in the abstract, it selects for useful accuracy. Organisms with wildly unreliable perceptions don’t survive very long. If your senses and reasoning consistently misrepresented reality, you wouldn’t be able to navigate the world, find food, or avoid danger. So there’s a strong evolutionary incentive for generally reliable cognition. And, you should notice the symmetry problem: your objection doesn’t just undermine evolution; it undermines every worldview, including theism. If our minds are untrustworthy, then the reasoning used to arrive at belief in God is untrustworthy too. So your argument ends up sawing off the branch you’re sitting on. And, finally, saying “a purposeless process can’t produce reliable minds” is just your assertion. We have a clear model for how incremental selection can produce increasingly accurate perception and reasoning. If you think that model fails, that’s the part that needs to be shown—not assumed.

@BigBrainPhiloso It's self-defeating. If the mind came from a purposeless process, then we cannot trust it. This includes philosophical ideas such as Darwin's. C.S. Lewis was correct; if the Universe has no meaning, we wouldn't know it.

Daniel Dennett: "If I gave a prize to the best idea anybody ever had, I'd give it to Darwin." Not Newton. Not Einstein. Darwin. In a 2015 documentary, philosopher Daniel Dennett makes a striking case for why Darwin's idea of natural selection is the single greatest intellectual achievement in human history. His reasoning isn't just about biology. Dennett argues that what makes Darwin's idea so extraordinary is what it unifies. Before Darwin, the world was split into two seemingly incompatible realms: the physical world of cause and matter, and the world of meaning, purpose, and consciousness. These felt like they belonged to different categories entirely. One explained by science, the other by something else. Darwin's idea, Dennett says, is the backbone that bridges them: "The Darwinian idea of natural selection unifies the world. It unifies the world of cause and matter and physics with the world of meaning and purpose consciousness. The whole spectrum of life depends on uniting the living with the non-living, the meaning with the non-meaning, the purposeful with the merely mechanical and merely physical." That's not a small claim. It's a philosophical revolution disguised as a biology paper. What Dennett is pointing to is that natural selection gives us a mechanism: a purely physical, purposeless process that generates purpose. Organisms don't need a designer to have goals. The appearance of design, the reality of meaning, emerges from the bottom up. The best idea anyone ever had. No prize for second place.

Math isn’t actually something people “believe in” the way you’re using the word. It’s a formal system built on definitions and axioms, and its claims are justified by proof. If you think 2+2=4 is true, you can demonstrate it step by step, and anyone can verify it independently. But, God isn’t like that. There’s no comparable method where we can derive “God exists” from agreed premises and have it universally checkable. So no, it’s not the same. One is demonstrable within a formal system; the other is a metaphysical claim that’s still debated.

@D_Preacher_1 Do people believe in math because they found evidence, or because they were taught to believe as children? Yes, it's the same. God's existence is the most well-proven fact ever.

Do people believe in God because they found evidence, or because they were taught to believe as children?

@darwintojesus Self-rationalization.

Atheists have no holy book, no commandments, no worship, and no doctrine not to kill anyone either. In fact, atheists have no standard of morality they’re accountable to, they have no justification for believing humans are valuable, and they have no purpose. Is it really strange that they murdered 100 million people in a single century?

@W0DEHOUSE @BibleMilitant @darwintojesus Hilarious, bewildering, predictable, etc. My goal was to give him a platform to parade himself and he did not disappoint.

@Conserberal @BibleMilitant @darwintojesus This conversation is hilarious. We have a universe, and we have a book. Nothing supports this claim that the book explains the origin of the universe. The origin of the universe is not something any of us can claim to know. Claiming that you know it because of the book is mad.

Babies shouldn't get cancer and Adam shouldn't have rebelled against God. This is why sin is so serious, because of the fallout it causes. Blaming God for your choices and their consequences only makes you look ignorant.

@BibleMilitant @darwintojesus I’ve enjoyed hanging out with you, this afternoon. It was an amusing and educational experience. I wish you the best! And, now, you go right ahead and get in the last word – I know you’re just dying to :)

@Conserberal @darwintojesus Actually nothing to win.... I just exposed what a fake and fraud you are... I do that to your kind on a daily basis so its really not a big deal for me

As an amusing experiment, I hung out with this guy for a little bit, today (scroll through the conversation if you wish to experience what I experienced). I was treated to a wonderful mix of identity defense, cognitive bias, and social signaling. And, now, we await his inevitable response to this post in three… two… one… 🙄

@BibleMilitant @darwintojesus Saying ‘I win either way’ isn’t an argument—it’s just a way to avoid making one.

@Conserberal @darwintojesus Then If you said NO i was right the first time and you were exposed as a fraud.. you lose either way bro...its hilarious how pathetic you are about this bro LOL

@BibleMilitant @darwintojesus I did answer your question: I said ‘no, I’m not convinced it’s true.’ You keep ignoring that and repeating insults instead of supporting your claim. If you have evidence that the Biblical God created the universe, present it. Otherwise, there’s nothing to discuss.

@Conserberal @darwintojesus i get it bro you are too much of a coward to answer questions as you are asked... You can't answer my questions lol that's even worse...🤦‍♂️🤣🤣🤣👍✝️

You spelled "beliefs" incorrectly. And, I did answer, my friend. I said ‘no, I’m not convinced it’s true.’ What you did, then, is redefine that as something I didn’t claim so you don’t have to support your own position. Don't worry - you're not alone; it's a common theist tactic. So, back to your claim that the Biblical God created the universe. What’s your evidence for that?

@Conserberal @darwintojesus So now you are claiming you were too much of a coward to answer a simple yes or no question about your beleifs. You lose either way bro LOL TOO EASY!!

Nope, that’s not how it works, Tim. Saying "I’m not convinced a claim is true" is not the same as claiming it’s false. For example, if I’m not convinced a claim is true, that just means I don’t think it’s been demonstrated; not that I’ve proven the opposite. You’re still the one making the claim that the Biblical God created the universe. So, again... what’s the evidence for that?

@Conserberal @darwintojesus You said NO in accordance with my question if you believed it was false....that means its false bro. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.. you were exposed as a fraud yet again. you aren't very good at this bro 🤦‍♂️🤣🤣🤣👍✝️

I didn’t claim the Bible is false; you just added that. What I said was I’m not convinced your claim is true. That, of course, is a different position, my friend. And I don’t need to identify the ultimate cause of the universe or rule out God to question the claim you're making. You’re the one asserting that the Biblical God did it. So, what’s the evidence for that?

You just emphatically and unequivocally claimed The bible was false on universe origination. NOW PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!! So where did the Universe ultimately come from and can you provide empirical, testable evidence identifying the true first cause of the universe — and conclusively rule out God as that cause as you just claimed?

@Joseph782383456 @BibleMilitant @darwintojesus Ah, yes... of course. We should have known the rules apply to us, but not him 🙄

@Conserberal @BibleMilitant @darwintojesus According to him. You are allowed to say, "No because..." and that is still a definitive yes or no.

@BibleMilitant @darwintojesus No, I’m not convinced that’s true. But a yes/no answer isn’t an argument. What evidence do you have that the Biblical God is the uncaused creator, rather than just asserting it?

@Conserberal @darwintojesus Provide an unequivocal YES or NO answer: Is the Biblical God the uncaused Creator who brought the entire universe and everything in it into existence as the Bible decrees?

@Joseph782383456 @BibleMilitant @darwintojesus Indeed. I'm quite certain that, on some level, he understands why we view him as something of a child - He must have at least some semblance of self-awareness.

@Conserberal @BibleMilitant @darwintojesus Oh he also doesn't know what an argument is.