Ramshutu’s Razor

Author: Ramshutu ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 315
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    I think I shared this ages ago on DDO, but is worth restating here as it’s an interesting argument. Here it goes:


    With the presupposition that God has the power to create the universe as he chooses, and is smarter than Humans:

    1.) Religions all state that God has a generalized set of goals for the universe, and inherent properties (just, loving)). If a human can postulate a better universe that better matches those properties and fulfills those goals - that God does not exist.

    2.) The goals and properties of the gods of all current human religions can be better fulfilled with a different universe that humans can think odd - therefore those Gods do not exist.

    And the final speculative thesis:

    3.) There are no goals and properties one could speculate of god for which this universe is the most optimal solution. Therefore no Gods exist that match the listed presuppositions.

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    if the goal is for something good to come from something bad, then this universe could make the most sense. 

    if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God. 

    if it is better to be saved from sin, than to have no sin to begin with, then this world makes sense. "oh happy fault, which gained for us so great a Redeemer". 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    Religions all state that God has a generalized set of goals for the universe

    And what do you think those goals are in Orthodox Christianity?

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @n8nrgmi
    So, you’ve actually raised three subtly different points:

    1.) Bad things can happen from Good things.

    2.) If free will exists, there needs to be inperfection.

    3.) You need temptation and the possibly of sin to be saved.


    So let’s presume that’s all true - we should presume that the universe does all of that perfectly without introducing any unnecessary suffering. Let’s take a couple of specific examples:

    Loa Loa filariasis is a type of endemic parasite that lives in people’s eyes and makes them go blind, this has little to do with free will, as it’s not related to anyone’s actions. Given that it affects millions, the overall harm and suffering it presents to individuals over the centuries doesn’t appear to be commensurate to any of the positives that can be gained over eyesight loss being, say, temporary. No?

    Likewise, Volcanoes - they largely just kill people who live nearby indiscriminately, while a few hero stories of people who made it out are nice: there’s not a great deal of Good that can come out an obliterated town.

    Likewise Paedophilia. While people need to have free will in this Godly universe, there’s no necessity in any scenario for human adults to be sexually attracted children to the extent that they are driven to rape and murder three year olds.

    If these three options are the goals: then by all means, jealous, anger, murder, assault: but those at sinful temptations enough, why bother adding drive to rape children to some individuals on top of all that? 


    1.) So lets have a universe where any bad event, always have multiple individuals in a place or location to render aid or assistance; to allow humans to decide to be good, and allow all suffering to lead to a good outcome through the actions of others. Natural disasters only ever displace people, rendering them reliant on others rather than outright kill them. No pointless suffering for which there’s little objective chance of resolution.

    2.) So no child rape and torture - humans kill, mame, and can still sin, no problems!

    3.) The possibility of sin and free will are still there, just pointless suffering is removed.


    The issue with Felix Culpa is that it’s a naive excuse and dismissive non explanation for the state of the world; in reality, humans could design better scenarios and situations.







  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    You tell me.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    Are you saying that you are merely presuming and not speaking with knowledge that...

    Religions all state that God has a generalized set of goals for the universe

    Because that is what it sounds like.

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    Well, no; most flavours of Christianity are based off various concepts of free will, suffering has some benefit to some degree. The big issues are one of God being loving, just; wanting you to believe him with faith, and a whole variety of options in between. There’s variations in hell being eternal, hell being simply death, individuals just needing belief, or needing to be good people too, At its core all flavours of Christianity have some variation of the above; and explanations for evil and suffering that are mostly identical to Ngarmis above. 

    Given that your beliefs will fall under that broad umbrella - it most assuredly would be disprovable through that same umbrella.

    However, of course, asking you to to come up with your own goals andandatss is more of a specific challenge to you about how much you’ve bothered to actually justify your own faith - which I suspect is very little.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @Ramshutu
    God's existence is a prerequisite for moral realism, so "better" can't be meaningful.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    Orthodox Christianity is quite a bit different than heterodox Christianity. The heterodox are after all, not with the Church.


    The Orthodox Catholic Church is the original Christian Church. Even if you have a bad understanding of Roman papalist Christianity or protestant Christianity, you are still getting your information from schismatics and/or heretics. We actually know the God we worship.


    We know that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and there is no argument that stands against this God.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    But to go even further, to think that belief in one's vain imaginings can somehow disprove the ultimate reality's existence is ridiculous.

    Think about it.

    "I don't like the way things are, so I'm going to imagine a better world... reality overturned!"


    Rather silly. I think your razor is rusty.

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Fallaneze
    If God’s the predicate for Moral realism, and we find a scenario that is objectively better - then God doesn’t exist and he isn’t the predicate for moral realism.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    You believe in be Christian God. That has limited scope and meaning, and limited only in marrow imterpretational differences.

    While there are differences in orthodoxy and regular Christianity, they’re within the same umbrella: God is loving to some degree, free will is important, suffering has a necessary purpose.

    As a result, if I can make a better universe for what you think God wants; your God does not and cannot exist - no matter what other nonsense arguments you make.

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    You’re missing a key issue.

    You’re implicitly claiming that God is smarter than me, and made the perfect universe.

    I can prove that this implicit claim is untrue - which means that your claimed God can not logically exist - no matter how much you emphatically shout at how true it is.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu


    You are saying that The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist. That is the Christian God.


    If you are saying The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, you have adopted a self defeating and nihilistic position.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    If you think you are smarter than God, that is a sure sign that you are delusional.

    I don't think you know what you are saying.

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    I’m saying that if I can think of a better universe than the Christian God can, then the Christian God cannot exist.

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    You seem to be irrationally misunderstanding the nature of the argument.

    I’m not saying I’m smarter than God; I’m saying that if I can imagine a better universe that better serves the properties of your God - than your God can’t exist - no matter how many times you irrationally shout at how he is the ultimate reality.

    If can do better, your God can’t exist.

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,766
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Ramshutu
    If God’s the predicate for Moral realism, and we find a scenario that is objectively better - then God doesn’t exist and he isn’t the predicate for moral realism.
    There are a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals floating around here but the question is how do you come up with a better without an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unchanging, eternal Being? IOW's, should I believe your opinion is better than mine?

    What gives a limited subjective human knowledge of objectively understanding what is better? What is the standard you use to come up with better?

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    The fact that reality does not conform to your arbitrary sense of aesthetics is not any indication that you can somehow poof it out of existence through your vain imaginings.

    If the ultimate reality doesn't exist, then nothing is ultimately real. As there is clearly some form of existence as is scientifically proven by everyones experience... there is clearly some form of reality. Even if illusory, it still exists as illusion. If there is reality at all, and there is, the ultimate reality is a necessary existence.

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    The beauty of the argument is that I’m not appealing to my sense of aesthetics, but to Gods.

    If I can do better than your God at meeting his desires - your god doesn’t exist. Something else would be “the ultimate reality”. But kudos on the ridiculous circular argument.


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    The Ultimate Reality is God. If you make God to mean anything else, you are no longer talking about the same thing as me, but are propping up a straw man.

    If God doesn't exist, then what you are calling God does not even fulfill the basic essence of what God is. 

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @PGA2.0
    What standard do I use at judging why is better? The very standards the religious give me about God’s desires and wants. This is not operating in a vacuum driven by my opinions - that’s the point.


    If you tell me God wants X, and I am able to provide A universe that better satisfies X, your God cannot exist. 

    In reality that proof would look like a theist saying “While there is no plausible or reasonable condition that I can posit why your posited universe is not objectively better - I am forced to believe it is, and the benefit is just unknown”. 


  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    I’m not going to go down the insane irrational Circular rabbit hole where you assert that God is reality.

    Reality is reality. Whether it is God or not depends on what you can prove, not how loudly you can shout that God is reality.


    Unfortunately, as your God appears unable to create a universe that is as good as mine at meeting his own goals - it is probable that yoe God cannot exist; and therefore the ultimate reality cannot be your God.



  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    The Church has always understood God as such.

    And nothing about our spirituality can make sense without the understanding that we worship The Truth as God.

    Your reasoning is nonsense, and utter folly. You cannot create a universe through your vain imaginings. You cannot even create an ant.


    You don't know God, you are arguing from a position of ignorance.