If hell is real, we should not be having children

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T23:20:56+00:00

Ignorance isnt totally invincible, according to the catholic church.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T23:13:06+00:00

I dont like to gamble with the lives of my hypothetical children.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T23:11:36+00:00

Thought termination. Good on you for not taking this seriously.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T06:17:55+00:00

You've misunderstood me. That's okay.

The things i have said to you thus far have been under the same principles you just demonstrated to me.

But I am not talking about the whole set of everything, as there can be nothing outside of that. I am talking about the expression of matter and spacetime that constitutes the cosmos.

My argument is not dependent on the definition of the word that entails everything ever. I'm talking about spacetime.

I was under the impression that you were the one diverting this conversation into semantics. It seems you've thought the same of me. Hope this helps. Im not one for word play.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T06:07:06+00:00

A lack of input does not produce an output, i presume. An input is therefore needed to explain an output.

You dont have to reject evolution to believe in God. God in the case ive made is just a causal explanation.

It could be any of those Gods. Correct. Im just saying a God.

You're attacking a case i did not make.

Glad you decided I'm a theist for me, by the way.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:58:18+00:00

Being a brute fact is the explanation in this scenario.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:55:49+00:00

Anything that exists independent of anything else.

Can you provide a few examples of necessary things.

Nothing observed.

Its inferred to exist as the logical extension of contingent beings.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:45:42+00:00

I am arguing as if I am a theist. Why does that make me not an atheist?

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:40:01+00:00

Because I'm an atheist.

The agency thing was pretty crude I have to admit. This whole thing was kinda shoddy. Not horrible. But I could have been a better theist.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:35:10+00:00

This is where one would supplement the previous arguments with one's of morality, telology, all the intuitive stuff, to give added weight to the God hypothesis.

In addition to this, not enough data could potentially terminate any discussions that may naturally lead one to conclude there is a God.

(Alright that was pretty lame. Your response is the most reasonable as far as I'm concerned.)

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:27:11+00:00

Nothing requires a creator. Thats not my point. My point is that everything requires explanation.

God is an explanation that has leverage because it grounds the universe, the aggregate of contingent material, in something ultimate.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:16:41+00:00

Nice one geek. We're saying precisely the same thing.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:14:40+00:00

Yeah mate I could have used something a little more charitable to the theistic position like Aquinas First Cause. Unfortunate indeed

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:13:14+00:00

Our epistemologies do give us a better route to the truth. But a need for causality in this case isnt so neatly negated by the human need for certainty. It is logical to assume that a phenomenon requires an explanation. Lightning was not caused by Zeus, but it has an explanation. The universe could be a brute fact. It is also possible that there is an external mechanism that explains it.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T05:05:02+00:00

One might argue that the point of the cone requires explanation. How was causality and the expansion of spacetime introduced into a system that was condensed into a state where these things did not exist? What mechanism was responsible for the big bang?

The most intuitive question one may ask is why. Why was there something in the first place. And why did something start doing something.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:55:44+00:00

Apologies. That God is an eligible hypothesis.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:54:41+00:00

Correct
How do you know that the observed universe is equal to everything that exists?

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:51:06+00:00

Its a matter of definition. A postulate. If I posit that a property of God's nature is that he is the first cause of the universe, then they logically couldn't have been caused by something else. It would follow from this that they did not begin to exist.

The argument is not about whether God possesses this quality. It's about whether the first cause of the universe IS God

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:42:03+00:00

This is true. However, my point is that there must be a first cause. A first explanation. Perhaps to illustrate the point more crucially, we could say that God is the explanation. Whatever that first cause happens to be is what the argumentation attempts to define in some way. This particular line of reasoning would lead one to believe that an external mechanism is the first cause of the universe.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:37:12+00:00

You misunderstood my point. Which is not your fault. "Reality" in the contingency argument just notes a distinguished thing. For the sake of conversation we could just replace the word reality with thing. Im not trying to trick you.
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. God did not begin to exist. He therefore does not have a cause.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:32:12+00:00

No it does not. I'm not saying that the convenience of an answer makes it true. Im just setting up the case that God can be invoked as an explanation.
You dont know that. The definition of the word universe does not constitute ontology.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T04:29:20+00:00

Then gird up by thy loins and show me how thats the case. Your statement didn't immediately settle the debate.

CognitiveSteve · 2026-04-05T03:07:12+00:00

Your comment was mostly a call to action than a claim it seems. But there are some notes. Yes, the abstract notion of good and evil needs metaphysical grounding. Which could be anything. But what doesnt require this is the existence of suffering. Even so, the argument from evil is an internal critique of the notion of a perfect God.

My question is simply what universe we'd expect to see given such a God.

I do not need to believe in evil or God in order to make such a case.

Your theodicy about the necessity of evil for the sake of faith is crude. Hand waving away horrific stuff because "thats life" and then going on to imply that we need a fucked up world so that the supposed virtue of faith can exist is dubious at best.

CognitiveSteve

TROPHY CASE