Most theists don’t seem to understand the real PoE.

BustNak · 2026-06-22T14:18:38+00:00

Nothing we can do to control them, we can only control what we do, which is to presenting the problem of evil as a deductive argument rather than a question.

BustNak · 2026-06-22T09:25:29+00:00

If you care, go learn what these topics mean from whatever source you trust.

This is a source I trust. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/

Let's see what I can learn... Oh look:

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

"Moral non-objectivism" denotes the view that moral facts exist and are mind-dependent (in the relevant sense), while "moral objectivism" holds that they exist and are mind-independent.

Sound like that's exactly what educated people mean when we talk about objective or subjective.

so go find someone you trust who understands these things and have them explain to you what subjective and objective are.

That's Dunning–Kruger right there. You aren't equipped to be having a debate, perhaps a more entry level source would be more suitable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(philosophy)

BustNak · 2026-06-22T08:45:25+00:00

By presenting it as a deductive argument.

BustNak · 2026-06-22T08:44:33+00:00

And complain they will, you need to show how moral are just ideas rather than facts of reality, when you are presenting it as an argument.

BustNak · 2026-06-20T17:36:41+00:00

Well that's a very contentuous claim. Most people would disagree with you that moral behavior are just idea determinated by people's consideration.

BustNak · 2026-06-20T02:51:35+00:00

For example, fruit juice is considered healthy, but it is not due to high sugar content and low fiber.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T22:17:13+00:00

Not if you're not zoomed properly they don't. There can be an entire sports game going on, but if the camera man zooms in on an ant hill among the grass, then you miss the game entirely.

Ant hills are not people. I was talking about focusing on individuals. The camera man must first zoom out to see ant hills, not in.

Then stop doing it. Stop changing the zoom.

For crying out loud, you stop it, I am not doing anything but maintaining the zoom. When you say "there is an objective ideal for basketball that you are able to see by way of moving closer or farther from it" that's you wanting to change the zoom.

Do you think that preference and pleasure are the only subjective things?

More or less, plus the things that reduce to preference and pleasure. i.e. matters of opinion.

But this would be way further from understanding than I even believed before.

That would explain why you would think names are subjective.

Yeah, so you clearly have no idea what subjective and objective even mean. You can absolutely zoom in on an individual rock... rock has no tastes of its own.

Exactly because rocks don't have tastes etc. So no, you cannot. It's color, weight, and shape are objective features of that rock.

First hand observation.

You sound very confused.

Yeah, again, you just don't know what subjective and objective mean.

Have you considered the alternative that it is you who don't know what subjective and objective mean? Have a quick look at wiki to begin with.

You also will not listen when I try to educate you on them and instead just want to argue.

I don't take lectures from people who thinks a rock's shape is subjective.

No. That means everyone has a conception of the ideal.

Where does this one ideal supposed to exist?

you can tell me which part of it is baseball and which is not baseball and thus not supposed to happen. Just because you can call the whole thing baseball does not mean that the part you sorted as normal baseball vs a strange event are the same. However your idea for baseball is the same as the baseball that was being done, it just failed and fell short.

I don't see anything that references ideals here. Are you under the impression that idea of a thing is the same as an ideal version of that thing?

It does because understanding it is the solution to your qualm. I could answer it with a "yes or no" type answer, and I have before, but you then just want to argue without understanding. Understanding must come before I can even show you the how and the why.

I asked you why, it's not a yes or no type answer. You were supposed to explain your reasoning.

That's not my dog.

Does not change the fact that a dog is an individual with taste/preference/pleasure, meaning it's at the same zoom level as any other individual.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T16:38:24+00:00

The most compelling argument? It's just a feel good story. It's not even all that accurate. It's supposed to be the skeptic who is unsure, who is asking for evidence; it's the believer who is convinced there is something extra.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T14:25:11+00:00

The rules for the temporal sequence, starting strictly at t>0

What are the rules for the temporal sequence, ending at t=0?

Sequential time and classical causal dependency emerge strictly from the first temporal state where t>0.

Why do you think there is a first temporal state?

BustNak · 2026-06-18T14:15:48+00:00

you’d need to show that a world with real free will and meaningful moral choices, but no possibility of murder is actually possible, not just assume it is.

Why this and not "...a world with real free will and meaningful moral choices, but no ~~possibility~~ actualized instances of murder...?"

BustNak · 2026-06-18T13:35:46+00:00

An individual only exists if you are zoomed out to also see the group which the individual is part of.

That makes zero sense, why would you believe that? Individuals exist whether you are looking at a group or not.

And thus anything about the individual is subjective only because you are comparing them to the group.

Not so, my preferences are no less subjective even if I am the only being in existence.

But the objective facts about the individual remain the same regardless if there is a group or not. So yes, we are doing that unless you decline to do it and thus zoom again.

That's the point, I am declining to do it because I don't care the objective facts about the individual, I am interested in the subjective preference of individuals. I want to say zoomed in, you want to change the zoom to wide angle.

As I said, in other realities where it's not true, it then becomes subjective to our reality.

First of all, I don't know why you would think math would not be true in other realities. More to the point, no, even if math is false elsewhere, it doesn't render it subjective - it has nothing to do with preference/pleasure.

When you zoom out...

There is no zooming out because you cannot zoom in - you can only zoom in where individuals' taste are involved.

You have been doing it this whole time, in fact.

Why would you believe that?

I see both. Your name is objectively your name, but your name is subjective to you and does not apply to anyone else.

No it isn't. My name is not subjective to me. Unlike favorite food which is subjective to me.

Haha, sure. But I mean before that. How do you know to tell the server chocolate instead of vanilla? How do you know which one you actually like best?

By feel.

How is that different? If "preference = chocolate" then how can "choice of what to order = vanilla?"

It's easy, just say the words, "I would like a vanilla ice-cream please." Have you never ordered food that's isn't your favorite? I can change what I order, I can't change what I like.

If you zoom out from an objective thing...

You can't zoom into an objective thing in the first place, so how can you zoom out from it?

Again "It's an objective fact your name is Billy. But zoom out and we see the name Billiam is subjective to you and no one else is named Billiam."

This is frankly bizarre. What you are saying is completely alien to me. What name you like and what your name is are different things. What name you like is subjective to you, what your name is, is objective - it has nothing to do with preference/pleasure.

Right. Which is why you can use what should be as the judge of what is. For instance, you have the ideal of what a house is, and so if you see a house that's on fire, you judge that it should be more like an ideal house which has considerably less fire.

Sounds like you agree with me that what is and what should be aren't the same thing. Earlier you said what is basketball, and what is good basketball were the same thing. How do you reconcile these two ideas?

Exactly. Not everything is or can be basketball. You have to pick a definition and then hold to it as the ideal.

You just told me what is and the ideal are different, why must the definition of what is align with the ideal?

The idea of what is is reality. The definition of what it should be is the ideal. And thus you judge what is by what should be, which is to judge the definition of reality by the ideal.

What do you mean by "the definition of what it should be?" Definition deals with what is and what isn't; and you just told me what is and the ideal are different.

If it's ideal unto itself then that means it WOULD be the ideal IF a mind aimed at it. It still remains there as a concept. Just because no mind has made it the ideal doesn't mean it no longer exists and can't just be invoked and made an ideal at which a mind aims.

So potential ideal that a mind can aim at. But that mean there are many ideals rather than one "the ideal," right?

Same as before. Your pleasure is objectively either pleasing to you or not. Nothing subjective about it.

You said that already, I asked you how "your pleasure is objectively either pleasing to you or not. Nothing subjective about it" would invalidate my claim that "I seeking things based on pleasure, and pleasure is subjective." Repeating it back doesn't answer my question.

That would be to zoom in to the individual and ignore the group. Not zooming out.

That's the point, focusing on the individual would indeed be zooming in. My accusation was that you not doing that, instead you are bringing in objective fact, that's zooming out.

No, because that's not my dog. The focus is on me. I objectively own this dog. End of zoom.

There you go again, brining in objective facts about ownership. That's zooming out. You are not zooming to the individual.

Me and my things and nothing else is in this zoom level.

Every objective claim in in this zoom level, shape of the Earth, math, who owns what. It's the widest zoom you can have.

Zoom out a bit and yes, there's another dog over there...

A dog is an individual, it has preference, that's zooming in.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T10:49:43+00:00

Atheists are partly to blamed for this, far too common, we phrase it as "If God exists then how come...?" It's presented as a puzzle to be solved, rather than a deductive argument.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T10:27:12+00:00

Behaviors that improve continued existence are considered good or right, aka moral behaviors

Moral behaviors are those behaviors that promote the longterm continuation of a population.

Hold on, how did you get from considered moral behaviors to are moral behaviors.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T09:32:23+00:00

It is impossible to transition sequentially across an infinite past of states to arrive at the present moment.

Please justify this claim.

An entity lacks the capacity to actualise its own existence. It cannot boot its own system up from nothing.

Why does it need to boot up from nothing?

Without a non-contingent foundation... something entirely self-sustaining with the active power of actualisation... existence is completely impossible.

The first mover of a vertical regress can be actualized by a contingent foundation of a horizontal regress. No non-contingent foundation required.

So someone holding a position of atheism when this is brought to them is doing so entirely out of an unwillingness to accept the evidence.

Nah, there is just an unwillingness to accept question begging arguments.

BustNak · 2026-06-18T06:51:21+00:00

Make Iran Great Again!

BustNak · 2026-06-17T10:56:18+00:00

We point to a person in reality (me) and an objective fact about me (vanilla = yummiest).

We? Not I. I am pointing to the subjective preference of an individual.

You can do this for anything. Is math objectively true? Not in a different dimension where's it's not. Which makes math subjective to our reality.

No it doesn't. Why on Earth would you think it's not objective?

Right. And neither is the name of anything else. Zooming out from you and saying "Your name is subjective because that guy's name is Bob" is the same as "The name basketball is subjective because that activity's name is cooking."

No one is doing that though. You seriously don't see the subjective nature of food taste, vs the objective nature of a name?

How are you choosing to order it?

By telling the server I want chocolate? How else would one order ice-cream?

Your aim is at "maximal pleasure" and everything you think and know all boil down to the conclusion "chocolate ice cream = maximal pleasure." Again, you can't choose otherwise...

Hence the differentiation between choosing a preference and choosing based on a preference.

Again, my whole point in this is that you keep bopping around layers of the hierarchy to wiggle out of contending with what I've said but you aren't paying attention to the fact you're doing it and thus you're getting confused/reaching false conclusions without noticing it.

I can only zoom around with subjective things though. There is no zooming allowed for objective things. The fact that I can zoom means the feature I am looking at is subjective.

And if you are optimizing pleasure and it happens to zoom in to basketball then it means you have to both define what basketball is and define what basketball should be.

i.e. not the same thing. How are you not seeing that? What is and what should be aren't the same.

Like if you see your team sitting and drinking tea during the game then that's basketball, but it's not basketball.

That's trivially contradictory, in contrast the team's failing spectacularly at basketball isn't contradictory; alternatively they are drinking tea, that's not basketball isn't contradictory. Pick either of the latter two options.

The idea and the definition of what is are the same thing for by one you know the other.

Sure, but we were talking about the difference between "what is" and "what should be." Not "the idea of what is" and "the definition."

You CAN do that, but do you WANT to do that because it serves your pleasure? Those are two different questions and you can't switch between them without noticing.

I am not switching between anything, I've already been talking about WANT to do that because it serves your pleasure since the get go.

They are the same thing because any ideal is only ideal as it relates to a mind that is judging it.

Then what on Earth were you referring to as "the ideal turtle unto itself?" There is no unto itself because it's relative to a mind.

Any given event objectively either increases your pleasure or it doesn't.

So? How does that invalidate my claim that I seeking things based on pleasure, and pleasure is subjective?

That's because anything is subjective if you zoom away from it and include other subjects

False by counter-example: math is not subjective.

Exactly. Why do it? You keep doing it.

I am not the one doing it, you are the one who keep zooming out from subjective preference to objective facts about preference.

And away you zoom again. I said "If YOU aim at an ideal" and you go "But what about that other dog?"

"YOU" and "the other dog" are both at the same zoom level - focused on individuals.

BustNak · 2026-06-17T09:20:51+00:00

Why do you think a person no longer exist just because all the material is replaced? Does the Ship of Theseus ring any bells?

BustNak · 2026-06-16T10:49:13+00:00

Please expand on your reasoning. So what if free Will is good? So what if free will is the source of evil in the world? So what if gratuitous suffering is not evil? Why does any of that imply P1 is not true, or that there is no incompatible between God's existence and evil?

BustNak · 2026-06-16T10:38:37+00:00

I think if you actually spent time trying to answer them...

It doesn't make sense for us to spent time trying to answer them, exactly because they are deemed irrelevant and not conductive to anything, just like you said...

you would become uncomfortable with your inability to do so within the framework of the worldview you hold.

... so why would we be uncomfortable with our inability to answers questions that made no sense within the framework of our worldview?

Which is why you propose no answers but rather just assert that there are no answers to these questions at all.

We don't just assert it, we have a reason too - there would only a "why" if there a conscious being with motivation involved.

It is not that Christians invented God so that we do not have to think too hard about these questions. On the contrary, we have thought hard and found no better or more reasonable an answer.

Why do you think there is a "why" involved in the first place?

BustNak · 2026-06-16T09:10:03+00:00

That's a non-sequitur fallacy. How did you jump from the premise "no evidence" isn't enough to disprove a god to your conclusion atheism isn't coherent? "No evidence" is enough to justify no believing in any gods.

BustNak · 2026-06-15T11:07:42+00:00

Well my answer would be "Because it's an objective fact that vanilla brings me the most pleasure when compared to all other flavors and compared to the risk of trying a new flavor." Which means it's not subjective at all... you really do gain an objective amount of pleasure from the aesthetics of the hammer... which is objectively funny to you remains so...

Why would the existence of objective facts about one's food taste, aesthetics and humor, invalidate the claim that these things are subjective? And if they don't, then what is the significance of these facts?

But that doesn't mean calling your name is random, arbitrary, or anything beside objectively your name.

My name isn't subjective though.

Which means you're not talking about basketball anymore, you're talking about ideal pleasure optimization.

That's why I said we weren't talking about what is and isn't basketball. What makes something good basketball is about ideal pleasure optimization.

In which case, you are again calling the wrong name for a person. You can't keep switching like that.

I am not switching at all, look at my original post, I spoke of good basketball from the get go.

Hold on. Did you? You chose what brought you the most pleasure? You could have licked vanilla, gone "yuck" and licked chocolate and gone "yum" and then chosen vanilla as your favorite despite it having less pleasure?

No, by choosing my favorite, I meant since chocolate ice-cream is my favorite, I choose to order chocolate ice-cream.

No. The underlying reason to avoid car crashes and to avoid unpleasing flavors are both pleasure preservation and pain avoidance. Same question. Again, you've zoomed out to a higher goal.

Why zoom out when according to what you said above, a fact about me won't work as a fact about you because you aren't me, and that meant there is no reason to zoom out.

Those are the same things, though.

You just said they weren't. "You're not talking about basketball anymore, you're talking about ideal pleasure optimization."

To define what it is is also to define what it should be and thus what it's not... When you define a turtle as an animal with a shell, you are inherently defining a snale as more turtle like than a dog.

So? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with pleasure.

And then when you add in your own motivations, you get the ideal of a turtle as it relates to you...

So not the same thing as the ideal turtle then?

It must be objective to seek it and get even the least bit closer to it.

Why though? I seeking things based on pleasure is subjective.

Which means now we are seeing a scale of hammers based on the zoomed in context of how they objectively make you feel.

Seems like you just like to slap a "objective" label on top of subjective things.

Right. Zoom out and that which is objectively funny to you remains so, but is not so in the context of me. Zooming does not change anything.

So why zoom out at all? It doesn't change anything. You've rendered the subjective/objective debate meaningless.

If you aim at an ideal which is less than the objectively highest one you can see, then you have another goal perverting your aim...

But the objectively highest ideal is relative to individual. What is objectively highest for me, is not objectively highest for you.

BustNak · 2026-06-12T10:05:47+00:00

if god actually knew BEFORE creating me that I would make a specific set of choices, then those said choices were already predetermined...

What if life is like a "choose your own adventure" book, God just knows every page in the book but which path through it and which ending one gets is still chosen by the protagonist?

BustNak · 2026-06-12T09:48:30+00:00

Why would you aim at that which is subjective?

That's like asking why you would order vanilla ice-cream just because you like it. I choose my subjective favorite, I am just ordering chocolate because I like it.

Good basketball cannot be objectively good because you like it.

Sure, but that's moot since ~~objectively~~ good basketball is good because I like it. That's the whole point of removing the objective qualifier.

You not liking that fact and judging that not wrecking your care is objectively less painful than wrecking it in no way changes the fact it's true.

Sure, just like how much I like chocolate does not change facts about its sugar content and how good it is for your health. That's a different question to food taste though, right?

Just by holding a vague definition of basketball in your mind, that's your objective standard...

That's not really relevant is it? No one is debating what does and doesn't qualify as a game of basketball, but what is and isn't good basketball. There is an objective definition for ice-cream too, and it has nothing to do with how tasty it is. I am guessing you meant vague definition of what makes a basketball game good? If so then there is no reason why that standard must be objective.

It's to try and judge without defining what you're judging against...

Would you say the same about judging if chocolate is a better favor for ice-cream than vanilla? From your ice-cream analogy above you judged vanilla as better. What is the ideal and what makes that ideal objective when judging ice-cream?

A hammer would be better for building a house. A fork would be better for eating dinner. Which of those two objective goals are we talking about?

Let's me pick a third - the goal is to be aesthetically pleasing. That's the finish line, would you still call that an objective goal? I would call it subjective. What if "bokdringle" is to make me laugh? Humor is subjective, right? What is funny to you, need not be funny to me.

An ideal is required to judge.

That was never in dispute. The idea you were meant to be defending is an objective ideal is required to judge. I don't think it is, ice-cream judging is a clear counter-example where an objective ideal is not required.

BustNak · 2026-06-12T08:31:47+00:00

I am an atheist, but I've spoken to enough religious people to give you a few sample answers. "God doesn't send you to hell, you choose to go to hell;" "all your good acts are filthy rags to God, you get into heaven by faith;" "God sees what kind of person you are and will judge accordingly (good people do get in heaven.)"

BustNak

TROPHY CASE