Ramshutu

You can say it a billion times and it won’t be any more true.

Just because you claim God is reality doesn’t make it true. This is your own fallible (and

illogical) conception.

I know reality exists. I don’t know reality has a mind and super powers. Until you can show reality has a mind and super powers, you can’t show reality is God.

Reality isn’t a conception.

You saying Reality is God is a conception.

Ultimate reality - whatever that is, presumably exists.

That it is God, that is your conception, and is fallible.

That God is the ultimate reality, that is your conception, and is fallible.

You may claim God means reality - again your conception.

Your problem is that ultimate reality doesn’t mean God.

Your conception of God is God. 

That you or someone else has defined God to be reality doesn’t mean that God exists. How we define words has no bearing on existence.

No he isn’t.

Your  argument is that God is the absolute Truth; but that doesn’t mean that’s what God is, or that he even exists.

I’m not denying absolute truth.

I’m denying your argument.

Screaming at us that you have found the absolute truth, or that you’re talking about the absolute truth doesn’t make it

true.

1.) Formulafe initial conjecture.

2.) Analyze with rigorous logic, check, double check and confirm there are no issues or inherent fallacies.

3.) Present Conjecture as a valid thesis.

You've missed step 2.

Youre argument is circular. You’re logic is ridiculous, and refuted throughout. You don’t seem to want to bother engaging on logic and are doing nothing much more than repeatedly scream about how right you are.

As you’re not adding anything to this thread, and I think you only have a tenuous grasp of any of the logic - I’m ignoring you.

However, feel free to go back and address any of the key major logical flaws in your position that have been outlined and ignored.

Considering that the entire argument inherently requires you to presuppose that there is an objective purpose to the universe, given to it by God. And given that it is this objective purpose that is being tested by the Razor, and given that I have been explaining for the last half dozen posts that this is the Pressupossition, and given that Fallacy #1 is trying to point out the objective pressupposition of purpose is the test. And is not some subjective condition imposed on by me....

... The analysis isn’t going to change at all.

Hi Everyone. 

Some work is going on to improve the Help Center, and while we can obviously make the changes we think are necessary, this is something that maybe better off inviting requests and submissions. This will be an area for Q&As about the site and

technical aspects rather than focused on debate resources and information for now at least.

With that in mind:

This is more related to technical support - debate resource links and faqs are for other threads.

Again: See Fallacy 1. You keeping injecting this same fallacy - this is the fifth time now.

What you’re doing, again, is simply accusing me of choosing subjective criteria and opinions: yet the application of the Razor is expressly using the goals and properties of God as described by a given religion.

For example, God is apparently Moral, Just, loving, abhors unnecessary suffering and wants humans to have free will, to be able to chose him over sin; he wants the choice to be free, so doesn’t want to expressly reveal himself

Are those not the properties of God as broadly described by Christianity? They’re pretty simple. Apparently in a theist world these are mostly objective properties.

If I can imagine a world where all of the above are satisfied as much as they are now - but is objectively more just using your own objective give criteria of justice laid down by your religion. That is a better universe. And that God can’t exist

Your reply here, is frankly a massive cop out.

Basically, what surprises me about the Razor in general, and is self evident from the responses here: the Razor is specific - to apply it you must spell out specific ways the universe could be better.

Once the counter universe is presented - you could find reasons why it is subjective, or wrong.

Theists won’t normally do that - they will normally do what they do here - and simply argue that I cannot come up with a better universe, by arguing absurd abstracts like you’re doing.

Normally, they won’t touch the specifics with a bargepole.

The reason is simple: When you deal with the specifics, it becomes clear that there is no meaningful argument that can be presented for why the fictional universe would not objectively uphold Gods values better. 

Dunno - for the purposes of this thread - if is irrelevant. As the entire razor operates under the presupposition that God exists, and the rules of a targeted religion are true.

This is a basic test of religions self consistency, rather than the application of anything atheist.

See Fallacy 1 in the previous page

This is the now the third or fourth time you’ve presented this straw man. It’s like you’re not even trying to accurately represent my position any more.

For the fifth time now: it is not “reality is not as I like it”. 

It is : the universe should be the best possible universe for meeting Gods goals, and intent. As religions spell our Gods goals and intent - if a universe that better fulfills these goals exists can be imagined - then a God with those goals cannot exist.

So this is a sub fallacy. Humans have free will, we can be shitty, we can kill, we can be jealous, we can steal and covet our neighbours ass. A universe where these are possible, I can presume is necessary and “best” given the goals of God.

In that respect, missed, revenge, jealousy add not condoned by God, they are necessary.

Now, regardless of who you are, how much you may or may not sin; no matter how much pressure you’re under, or what scenario you find yourself in: I would place money on the fact that at no point have you been sexually attracted to a toddler. I can imaging you have non-seriously thought of theft or murder in particularly bad moments. 

The nature of humanity means that I can imagine anyone here saying “I could murder that guy” not acting on it, nor really even meaning it: but the notion and concept is relatable. You’re more likely to have seriously considered pushing or punching someone - you may have even acted on it. Not good, but reasonable. I am also equally sure, that at no point have you!- or anyone on this forum - been in the position where they have considered paedophilia.

This raises the key fallacy.

If God created humans or the universe with the express intent of creating humans. What we may or may not do, the limits of our free will are set and controlled by God.

We kill and murder because of ourselves - sure. We have the capacity to consider murder, and the capacity to act on it because of Hod.

In this case, when God was creating humanity, he expressly, knowingly and purposefully set those limit to include Paedophilia.

So, in this case, the existence of Paedophilia is sanctioned and condones by God.

What is worse: is we are only having this conversation because he set the limit. You and I don’t have the capacity - it’s not something we even consider. God had the ability to create humans and say “You know, I could make a small percentage of people sexually attracted to Toddlers - but I see no need to make that a thing”.

Conversely, can you imagine God placing the finishing touches on his creation and thinking: “You know thisnis perfect, the best I can do... but it’s missing something.... ahh yes *snap* now there is a small number of humans that will be attracted to children. Now it’s Perfect!

See Fallacy #1

The razor intentionally judges reality by the objective purpose religions enumerates. I’m not arguing the universe is not perfect because I don’t have more money, or broken legs are a thing: I’m arguing that based on the universe not being the best manifestation of the objective purpose various religions attach to reality.

Fallacy #2 “best means perfect”

This is worth reiterating again: as it’s being used multiple times by multiple people.

The “Best” universe, is one that does EVERYTHING God wants it to. To the greatest degree possible.

God is not going to create the universe and say “Meh, I could have done better”.


Now - and brace yourself, this will come as a shock - I am not using my personal opinion on what “best” is.

From my opening post, I have made it clear that the “best universe” is one that best fulfills Gods Goals.

If God wants the universe to be imperfect to allow free will; then the “best” universe will be imperfect - and has to be to satisfy Gods goals.


This pernicious assumption that the razor applies solely my own criteria, is bellied by the fact I expressly started this is not the case.

It appears, given the arguments made and fixation on the meaning of perfection: that those making this argument either haven’t read the razor, or don’t really understand it.

So in this case, let’s be clear: a perfect universe is one that best meets the requirements God has, God is not incompetent, and made no mistakes: and given the combination of goals and intent he has for the universe - a mere human can make no improvement to better fulfill those goals.

Fallacy #1 “It is subjective when you all ply our objective rules”

I’m not entirely sure how much simpler, or slower I can explain this. It seems no matter how simply I explain this, multiple people are making this same insane argument.

But let me try again!

So let’s assume that in the reality in which we exist: God exists. Morality is objective. Values are Objective. Yay.

As an Athiest, I should be able to take this Morality (which I share or can derive from religious explanations), and take these objective values - and apply them to the universe.

Lo and behold - in a universe where morality and these religious values are objective - the universe would be the best possible universe that could be imagined.

I would not be able to, say, imaging a small change that would objectively improve it as it pertains to those objective values or objective morality.

There maybe subjective areas where you could argue, but there’s unlikely to be any areas where you’ll be completely stumped.

Now let’s presume for a moment - that there is no God in this reality. You guys still claim your morality is objective, and your values are objective: but you just think that - it’s not really the case, because your God and religious is fictitious.

In this universe, I can apply these “Objective” morals and “objective” values to the universe and show that I can EASILY invent a universe that it is better by your own objective values and morality;  then as I should be able to do that in the best universe. It proves that we don’t live in a universe where God exists.


Everyone here appears to be making the claim that when you make a value judgement, it’s objective and valid: yet when I make a value judgement - it’s subjective and meaningless.

That is nonsensical.

If we both agree that Hitler is worse than Adam Sandler; if you feel that is true based on your objective morals and your objective values - then how on earth is it possible for me making the same statement to be arbitrary and subjective? Especially when I’m applying the same rules as you.


If I can’t apply your rules, your morals and your values objectively - then by definition your rules, morals and values are not objective - and you God doesn’t exist.

If I can apply your “objective” rules, morals and values objectively - and use this to show a better universe judged by these values - then your God can’t exist either for the reasons I covered.



This utterly nonsensical argument put forward by multiple people here makes no sense:

You are arguing that your objective morals, rules and values can be applied and are objective.... but hey, wait... an atheist is applying those morals, rules and values... so it’s... uhh... subjective...


It’s nonsensical, as I said.


What is worse; your mostly arguing in the abstract. 

Why don’t we actually try and see?

How about we compare a different universe and compare whether YOU with your objective values and morals can think of a reason why this universe is better?

It seems everyone is adamant that we shouldn’t even try - that doesn’t strike me as a particularly healthy way of expressing an open mind and strong faith.

You could have made the entire debate about his position on Abortion.

I am actually very much using your religious framework - you may not like that, but I’m effectively evaluating the religions self-consistency.

I have clearly elaborated on how it’s clearly possible to show some things are better than others in this context, and while it’s neat that you simply reject summarily my ability to use what the biblical says, does and wants: the precepts set out are fairly clear. I invite you, as I did Mopac to explain what elements ove

goggen wrong and why, 

You keep making a series of fundamental blunders, however such the clearly absurd notion that I am claiming that paedophilia is condoned by the Bible. How on earth did you get that?

I’m pointing out that if paedophilia wasn’t created - there’d be less unnecessary suffering of the innocent for little if any loss.

boredom mostly.

You always need to keep scrutinizing. If you don’t, you run the risk that you’re more like him, than a reasonable rational human.

then explain what I got wrong

right now you’re just making post after post repeatedly opining at how wrong I am - no posts explaining exactly why I am wrong.

If you’re an irrational and illogical fool who believes what he believes because of faulty reasoning and ignorance - then I would be able to prove your god illogical.

If you’re not, and you believe in a valid God that exists for real - then I can’t.

So I would not be proving a real god doesn’t exist - only your fake Hod.

This is presumably why you’re trying to shield your God from any logical scrutiny - you know how illogical it is.

What’s foolish about asking the person who has repeatedly told you how wrong you are exactly what you are wrong about?

It strikes me that this is reasonable and logical.

so I ask again: I outlined 3 general points in maybe my second posy - which one of them are wrong with respect to your Gods goals and intent?

I’m a Brit in Canada, I eat Pies, watch football, wear my Union Jack T shirt (which goes over much better than when I wore it when I lived in the USA on the 4th of July). I retain and celebrate my own culture whilst assimilating and enjoying Canadian culture at the same

tome.

Assimilation isn’t a zero sum game of cultures.

As I outlined and explained, your argument is illogical and circular.

I am able to disprove your god by showing that the properties of the universe could be changed to better match his desire and intent.

By all means, as I’ve said for dozens of posts nonsense - feel free to correct those broad desires and intent where I spelled them out.

If you are not able to tell me what I’ve gotten wrong, whilst you continue to repeatedly and vociferously assert how wrong I am : the only logical conclusion is that I’m actually paraphrasing your religion and God quite accurately - and as you know I’m broadly correct, you’re only left with the ability to wildly assert how wrong I am, as you are doing here.

As I just said to N8garmi - I’m not arguing that the universe is perfect by our standards, or “perfectly ordered”, but that it is the best configuration of the universe for meeting Gods goals

Your free to posit that imperfection as we know it fulfills a purpose; but that can’t be true if a different l configuration of the universe better meets the criteria for that purpose.

A perfect world is best: the definition of perfect in this context is one that most and best fulfills the specific goals God has.

The universe may not meet our criteria for perfection, but unless your willing to argue that God did a sloppy Job and could do better, it should be perfect by his definition; no?

So the issue is that you seem to be arbitrarily mixing and matching my opinion, and the presuppositions of an argument. It appears to that you believe that I as an Atheist are unable to pressupose that morality, for example, is objective and that my judgement is subjective whilst you also argue that you; sitting in the same universe that operates by the same rules don’t have the same problem.

So, as I pointed out: religions are normally very clear on what God wants or doesn’t, what is general desire and aims are with the universe. free will, faith, etc: we can presuppose some aspects of those can be justified with the universe.

Now: the part of tour argument that makes no sense, is that its impossible for me to render a value judgement, even if I know the value your religio gives me. You’ve highlighted objective morality you hold, and the values by which you assess.

The issue is that whilst I may have a hard time assessing whether Hitler is better than Stalin, I have no issues if I pressupose your moral and religious framework I’m assessing that Hitler is morally worse than Adam Sandler.

Sure, in an atheist framework, you could argue that neither could be argued as “better”.... but I’m not arguing from an Atheist Framework. I’m arguing from your own religious framework. I am adopting your rules and applying them to the universe.

In this case, if God abhors unnecessary suffering; a universe that minimizes unnecessary suffering is preferential by the standard religion sets for itself. At the same time - if God also wants suffering to lead to positive things, then we can also concurrently judge the world by that criteria too. Given that humans are also supposed to understand morality, and justice - on what basis can we not apply common accepted principles of morality and justice too.

Is this point your not seeming to grasp. This is an assessment of the religious framework to asses the universe, rather than mine. There are many ways (as I’ve outlined) where we can indeed make a value judgement based upon them.

By all means feel free to explain how I am misinterpreting the religious framework - or explain to me the reason some humans being sexually attracted to children, leading them to rape and murder toddlers could be considered “more perfect” than a system where no human has that problem

*If*

i don’t think he has, and I believe I have explained in detail why I can make that claim.

”hatever the ultimate reality is, that is God.”

so if the ultimate reality isn’t a spiritual super being, and has no mind: that’s God?

Whoo! Straw man again!

I’m not defending her botany, I’m defending the broad point she’s making - for which she used yucca and cauliflower as examples and up until one post ago - you broadly agreed.

You’re argument is ridiculous, circular; and thus illogical. But you came so close.

Lets presume, for a moment, that your not a raving madman, and you were logical.

You ask yourself what if God was the ultimate reality. No amount of my arguments could prove it wrong...

So if one of my arguments could prove it wrong... he can’t be the ultimate reality

I like the way the point you claimed was valid in the last page is now perjuratively referred to as a “rant” now. Did you change your mind over the last 5 posts? Or are you simply exposing some pathological need to vilify AOC by any means necessary?

While I like the honest way that you’ve given up all pretence that you are portraying what AOC said accurately, without wildly misrepresentative accusations of race baiting you’ve pulled from your own presuppositions: the fact remains the communities she was referring to are almost exclusively communities made up of different ethnicities than “white people”. Given that, there appears to be no accuracy issues with referring to these communities as “communities of color”.

Of course, this is not taking into account the reaction of the right and their pathological need to attack every aspect of everything she says: I am certain that you would have found some other non-existent and irrational objection to vilify her had she used any other term instead. 

No I don’t.

For the purposes of the argument, I assume he is the ultimate reality. It is literally one of the presuppositions I make.

The video was talking about local groups of individuals that live and socialize in a particular neighbourhood.

I think that communities is probably the best description of those groups.

 By all means, feel free to point out what aspects of God I have Hotten wrong and why; I broadly covered them in one of my first replies to N8garmi, and in my first general reply to you.

What have I gotten wrong, or mischaracterized?

such as?

There you go again. The same Straw Man. It was a straw man the last half dozen times you’ve mentioned it and I’ve pointed it out, and will continue to be a straw man for the next dozen times. 

Its not used as a placeholder for beleifs - but a description of a given set of communities.

So let’s unpack this nonsense.

Firstly, I’m not denying the existing of reality, I’m denying that reality is your God. No matter how much feet stamping you do, it doesn’t make Yor God unto realty any more than me vociferously claiming that Godzilla is reality suddenly summons the beast into existence.

By all means explain what evidence through which you conclude that reality has a mind (note: claiming reality is God and so it has a mind is called beginning the question)

Secondly, vociferously denying that I am using Gods criteria and measurement is not an argument. I am most assuredly using the criteria laid down by religions about what God is and what he wants and am using this to disprove God.

In fact, I laid out the key logical error with your position, and posted my exact logical reasoning: if all you have is unwarranted denial, no matter how ardent; it’s fairly clear that you have no meaningful objection.

Only you are viewing this as a label outlining people’s beliefs, as opposed to an accurate and relevant description of the communities involved.

Again, no: as you seem to now be ignoring my points and degenerating into freewheeling straw men, I guess you accept that your position is incorrect and you’re diving straight into face saving nonsense.

Refering to the communities that have the biggest issues as communities of colour, is relatively accurate, looses little nuance, and captures the primacy of the issue at hand: after all we’re not discussing an enclave of Norwegians.

The wider strategy of the right - and this includes innumerable comments by yourself, is to change the narrative of aspects like Police Brutality, poverty, voter suppression, and issues in the criminal justice system to try and make these aspects not racist by ignoring the racial component of these examples.

 

Again no.

I’m judging based on the Goals and rules of Morality you claim God adheres to. So I’m hanging your God bu his own rules, not mine. I know you don’t seem to want to deal with that, but this is an issue with your own ability to accept criticism than an issue with my argument.

Likewise, while you maybe completely comfortable accepting whatever belief you have without question or investigation. This really is a recipe for self delusion.

If youre not willing to explore,  investigate and scrutinize your beliefs, and challenge them where possible: you’re basically hiding your opinions away from reality and protecting them from any correction.

Your lack of willingness to explore demonstrates that you realize how fragile and illogical your belief is. People who believe they are correct have no problem or reticence in exposing their beliefs to challenge or refutation

Thats not what I’m doing : what I’m doing is pointing out that you’re irrationally ceasing upon a reference to skin color used as an accurate and reasonable description of those impacted in order to incorrectly pressure the issue is being billed solely as one of race.

I am very sorry your not able to seperate a description of a group from an attributed causation of a problem, but this is really looks like your own inability to look beyond mention of race in it’s appropriate context.

Your position in this regard is wholly unreasonable and incorrect, and I suspect is part of a broader right wing PC push to sanitize and eradicate Racism - not by improving anyone’s position, but inherently change the conversation about what is being discriminated against.

I replied to the only message in this thread you directed at me. In this reply you appeared  blamed AOC for the video making the media (fair), for making the video onto social (fair), and for being derided as artificially talking about race (unfair). I’ve broadly explained what actually happened.

I’m not entirely sure why you’re objecting to my reply.

Again, the issue here is that you appear to be focused and intent on injecting an inherently racial or racist connotation to a discussion where that is neither the inherent context or the intent.

I’m sorry you feel triggered by this; but unfortunately this is more your own inability to view discussions or mention of race outside the inherent lense of racism, rather than anything specifically said by AOC.

The problem was valid, accurately described, and raised for discussion. It was picked up by the right wing media, who misrepresented it as “calling cauliflowers racist”, taken largely out of context and intent, and is irrationally accused of race baiting by people who object to the broadly accurate and valid description of the communtiea where the issue is most problematic. 

You them have those such as GP; who largely manufacture this into an argument about the inherent racial component of the original video, and spin this out of all proportion and context to make largely misrepresentative arguments that AOC is making this an issue of race, when it doesn’t really appear to be.

It isn’t race baiting. It’s a fairly broad and accurate description of the communities and the problems being faced. The implication that the problem is caused by racism, or is inherently racial in nature is really something your artificially injecting into the conversation.

May I ask why you think you were triggered by that comment? Given the context, why do you feel that an issue was being made solely about race rather than as part of a wider and more complex issue?

You’re making a major logical error in your response here. Your issue appears to be divorcing itself from the realities.

So you feel you have an objective mechanism of measuring good, bad, evil. Etc. You believe that is based upon Gods revelation.

Whether God exists or not, you are still posting on this forum that you have a method of objectively determining good, bad and better.

So; if your god exists, your mechanism is objective, and I should never be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better: because this universe I must already be the best.

if your Or doesn’t exist, your mechanism is not objective, and I would be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better; because everything is arbitrary.

So even if EVERYTHING you say about arbitrary and objective mechanisms for measuring good, bad and better - the only universe in which I could postulate a universe that is better - is one where your god doesn’t exist.

Skin color is not the main argument - this appears to be something your trying to shoe horn as the main argument despite this not being the implication or the context of what was said: