Rednaxela

@Kaine894480119 @SipOfKoKo I am aware of that. My point was simply that from the fact that the simplest possible thing is uncreated, it would not follow that there is an infinite chain of creators as you claimed it would. I don't even know why that would follow.

@RednaxelLeftist @SipOfKoKo That is not the conclusion or even part of the thesis of the paper you linked. In fact, it *explicitly* calls it out as a weak argument requiring starting with the conclusion. Actually, the paper doesn't even argue for the conclusion of needing a god.

This is a silly strawman. The argument is that God is far more complex than the universe, so if the complexity of the universe is evidence it must have been created, why isn’t God’s complexity evidence that he was? Why can’t the universe be in the “uncreated” category?

@Kaine894480119 @SipOfKoKo "...requiring that the simplest thing is the thing that exists without a creator necessarily leads to an infinite chain of creators." No? God would be the simplest thing. In classical theology, God is often believed to be absolutely simple, i.e. no parts or properties at all.

@RednaxelLeftist @SipOfKoKo We still have the issue that requiring that the simplest thing is the thing that exists without a creator necessaarily leads to an infinite chain of creators. If the intermediate stepa are gods or not is moot. Things can exist without a creator. Why add any extra steps

@Kaine894480119 @SipOfKoKo If something had made God, that thing would just be God; in which case, the thing you previously thought was God actually turned out not to be. God is whatever uncreated thing stands at the end of the chain. Calling it "supergod" is a matter of semantics.

@RednaxelLeftist @SipOfKoKo That's a lot of words for little substance. But let's work with the following 1. A creator need not be more complex than their creation 2. We should use the solution that requires the least complex being to be non-created Corollary: We should introduce supergod, who made god

@Kaine894480119 @SipOfKoKo Sure, positing an uncreated universe would be favored by Occam's razor; but if God is less complex than the universe, this could come at the price of multiplying what exists at the fundamental level. In other words, atheism is fewer steps, but potentially more complexity.

@RednaxelLeftist @SipOfKoKo Irrelevant. Clearly something can exist without a creator. Why add a completely unncessary extra step by introducing a god? Occam's razor is all you need

@planksandpieces @LonghornJoker Evolution doesn't entail that one form becomes another; one can think of it as forms within forms (the animal form → the vertebrate form → the mammal form → the human form).

Genuinely curious how you personally reconcile evolution with the Christian worldview? From my perspective they just seem completely incompatible (from my limited reading on the topic). Evolution says a Universal can become another Universal. If this is the case then we lose the objective category of “Human” which just completely destroys us being “image bearers”, the incarnation, and atonement. I’m also not the most well read on this so I could totally be speaking out of turn/misrepresenting the evolution view

We do question it and have questions about it. It just remains the best explanation of the evidence.

@Willy881188 @Accounted44 @waldenpod I don't believe that babies born with crippling disabilities have those as punishment for crimes they committed in previous lives. Aside from the issues relating to personal identity and retributivism, that's simply obscene.

@RednaxelLeftist @Accounted44 @waldenpod There is really no problem of evil once you understand the laws of reincarnation and righteous karma. If everyone only reaps what they sowed in the past, then no one is ever wronged. GOD is perfectly good and just to everyone always. There is no other correct answer.

Everyone did really well, and I know there are considerations that weren’t discussed and much more to say about those that were, but if this were the final word on the debate, it’s hard to see how atheism doesn’t win outright

@Meekostuff @waldenpod I can't take total credit for it, it's my trying to harmonize together Ken Gemes and Michael Almeida's work.

@RednaxelLeftist @waldenpod The many worlds solution to the problem of suffering. Genius.

@Accounted44 @waldenpod Still working that bit out, but depends on what you think constitutes explanatory power. An evil God might have similar explanatory power in once sense but less so in another because such a God would potentially be more complex than a perfect one.

@RednaxelLeftist @waldenpod One main issue I see with this is that it removes all explanatory power from theism. You can’t say the world is a certain way and therefore God exists because all possibilities, no matter how unlikely, are made concrete by God to save the inhabitants. 2/3

@waldenpod Perhaps the only way that God could save the possible beings in his head from their atemporal state of suffering is to bring them into concrete existence so that they can be saved. In fact, he would do this not only with this world, but all the worst possible worlds.

@waldenpod On one hand, we have the dictum that God would not create a world with evil, and so he could not have created this world. On the other hand, God would also not want any innocent beings to suffer, including merely possible beings.

@JasonKPargin About 10% of any population are probably truly locked into evil behavior, 10% are truly self-sacrificing and altruistic, and 80% go in whichever direction the wind is blowing.

What percentage of the population do you think is evil

Good luck everyone. Remember that voting for Trump makes you an unequivocally bad person, is absolutely morally impermissible, and if there was such a thing as desert, you'd deserve complete social isolation for it. Hopefully tomorrow, the GOP will have fallen down the stairs.

@RivenMusicPro @DiRico_Rants Not only is it a myth that family courts are biased towards women, but in many child custody cases where the father has been accused of domestic abuse, his chances of winning custody go up.

There would be a better case to be made for this is family courts didn't have a bias toward women. By definition, if a party in the marriage is abusive, it's not due to "no fault". If a woman gets bored in a marriage and that's the only reason she wants to exit that shouldn't entitle her to half the dude's earnings, the house, or automatic custody of any kids they might have by default. That's the reason no-fault divorce doesn't make sense. Usually when they happen it's not an amicable split for ACTUAL irreconcilable differences. It's either, dude is abusive, someone cheated, etc. The literal irreconcilable differences is the outlier, but the legislation is based on the margins.

As somebody who's been divorced, I just cannot fathom the opposition to no fault divorce. None of the arguments I've heard make any sense. It really is just "society is worse because my wife can leave me anytime."

@WayPeaceful @Kalzaang @KyleKulinski Take the black flag out of your name, you pathetic fascist apologist.

@RednaxelLeftist @Kalzaang @KyleKulinski Yes it is. It's vacuous conspiracy theorizing from typical midwit blue anon. I don't even like Trump and the absurd straw grasping about 2025 makes them look absolutely retarded. I guarantee 90% of the country has no idea what she's referring to.

The right is already crying over the moderators pointing out Trump's absurd over the top preposterous lies. Maybe he shouldn't fucking lie so brazenly if you don't want him to get checked.

@Kalzaang @KyleKulinski Cry. Seethe.

@RednaxelLeftist @KyleKulinski Yes it is, and you’re a lying piece of shit.

@Kalzaang @KyleKulinski Because it isn't a lie.

@KyleKulinski Why don’t the moderators call Kamala out on the lie that Trump is behind Project 2025, @KyleKulinski? You would be outraged by that if you weren’t a hack.