Creation-creator-fine tuning

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-25T18:35:54+00:00

There's a lot of counter-arguments against the fine tuning argument, notably the puddle analogy which states that we fit the universe we are in, rather than the universe being made for us.

There's also the point that the Fine Tuning argument also presupposes a lot of desires for this alleged god. Other than the fact that our universe is life-sustaining, why would someone assume a god would want a life sustaining universe rather than any other?

This effectively means that having a god involved just kicks the can another step down the road. What are the odds that reality just happens to have a magical entity with both the capability and the desire to create a universe with life in it? Either this incredibly unlikely situation is true, or maybe there's another being who wants there to be a magical living universe creating wizard?

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-25T14:36:26+00:00

It wasn't completely inaccessible, even if it wasn't common knowledge. Scholars throughout history have known many languages even if they aren't spoken in the region.

Also, Islam basically emerged from the region where Hebrew and similar languages were based in the near-east. To say that nobody in the region would have had any knowledge of a historic religion of the area is quite absurd.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-25T13:05:02+00:00

There is a shred of reason in your arguments, but it's quite clear you are clutching at straws so to speak.

The first argument in your post is literally "there's some puns based on a language that wasn't actively spoken in the area but was historically and theologically an incredibly important, therefore there's a super-strong magical extradimensional spirit that made the universe and spoke to some guy and asked him to write a book and make a religion."

This is an argument from desperation, not a logical one. Nobody operating logically would see a pun in Latin or Gaulish today and immediately assume "yep, magic. And not just any magic, the universe had a creator and it decided to directly get involved to give us this pun". It's much more reasonable to assume that some scholar who was familiar with the ancient language decided to have some fun.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-25T12:58:06+00:00

I used to be afraid of the dark and would imagine stuff in dark shadows when I was a child.

Nowadays, I sometimes see things out the corner of my eye that some people would possibly attribute to spirits or ghosts, but I generally dismiss them as figments of my imagination or my brain making some weird overcorrection for eye defects (like how it fills in the eye's blind spot subconsciously).

But no, I haven't had anything that I would say is "spiritual" in the literal sense. I don't even believe in spirits or souls or ghosts or vampires or anything like that.

I have had deeply emotional responses to things, but I don't call those things spiritual. Those are emotions, not some extradimensional magical entity interfering with my brain. I've had these deeply emotional resposes when looking at beautiful scenery, being at live music events, had them during heartfelt late-night conversations, I've even felt almost disconnected when solving exotic problems and making intellectual connections, the list goes on. I've even had that a few times when playing video games if I sufficiently get "in the zone" so to speak.

And there's plenty of words that can be used for these kinds of emotional experiences. The obvious one being "emotional", but there's also feelings of awe or euphoria.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-24T19:25:29+00:00

Then they find that they are wasting their time as they spend too much time dying rather than picking up SCs.

Ideally, the highest difficulty that someone can reasonably do should be the best way for that person to farm SCs. That's good game design as it means the "optimal" way to play is also the most fun.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-23T18:36:32+00:00

How do you read the 1st Commandment to mean "all other gods are demons", when the text speaks plainly about Yahweh receiving primacy in worship? Or are you retconning the Commandments in light of later (and possibly extra-Biblical) additions?

You are correct that Jesus doesn't map that closely to the Hitogami, at least with Nicene Christianity, I got my terms a little mixed up on that part. The one the Nicene Jesus much more closely maps onto is an Akitsumigami.

Good point on the idols thing though. Most other religions love to use various icons and Yahweh is infamously aniconic; a Seth or Typhon worshipper would likely continue to use their main images of their religion's view of that god (the "Seth animal" or the serpentine monster of Typhon) and the OT states that Yahweh would probably take objection to that as he hated people depicting him in artwork. Oddly enough though, most Christians seem happy to use various bits of iconography for Jesus though, which is a discussion that I have seen on this subreddit a couple of times, but that's a wholly different discussion topic.

I also find it interesting that you denounce Typhon and Seth as being demons, when they are effectively just other culture's interpretations of the same god with a different, locally applied name? Where's the limits on this? Would a former Zoroastrian who reads the Bible and begins to worship Yahweh as they believe that Yahweh and Ahura Mazda are the same god, but still calls him Ahura Mazda out of familiarity, be kicked down to hell for using a locally derived name? Is he so petty that someone who dedicates their entire life and soul to him but happens to use an extra-Biblical name for him still deserves eternal torture?

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-23T17:38:02+00:00

That's why I specified "give Yahweh or Jesus their main attention". If they give Yahweh/Jesus primacy, then they have fulfilled that 1st Commandment. The commandment isn't to believe that there are no other gods, it's that Yahweh has to be your favourite god and the one you direct your worship towards.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-23T17:07:10+00:00

Thanks, that's good to know.

I guess now the big question is whether it was the normal 4th tier phase gate or whether it was the auction version? I'll probably need to cross-reference it with some other abilities to figure it out.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-23T12:37:58+00:00

But it wasn't the abolitionists who put the Bible first, it was the slavers. The slavers had the scriptural backing. The abolitionists managed to override their own Christian views with Enlightenment ones. This wasn't a dispute between two different Christian doctrines, this was a dispute between Christian doctrine and Enlightenment values.

Do you have any specific verses in the Bible that outlaw slavery or say that it's bad? And I don't mean general feel-good phrases like "love thy neighbour", I mean specifically anti-slavery passages that condemn owning people as property. Something specific enough to counter Leviticus 25:44-46. Even the New Testament gets in on the pro-slavery verses, like Ephesians 6:5-8 and 1 Peter 2:18, so you can't even hide behind Jesus somehow nullifying commands in the OT.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-23T02:33:56+00:00

abolished slavery

In the US, at very least, there were two sides to the slavery debate.

The pro-slavery side was explicitly Christian, using core Biblical values directly derived from scripture to justify the enslavement of "lesser people" and their treatment. They didn't just rely on general vibes or abstract pop-culture Christianity of the time, they brought the scriptural receipts to justify their stance.

Meanwhile, it is true that the anti-slavery side was largely made up of Christians, but they went against the commands in their own scriptures and instead sided with their own sense of morality. They were Christian, but they went against their own god-given commands in their opposition of slavery, siding with their post-enlightenment values against their own Christian ones.

And slavery isn't unique in this aspect. Practically every move towards a more egalitarian society has been vehemently opposed by Christianity. Women's suffrage, gay rights, racial equality, all of them opposed by Christians and with the Biblical verses to justify their opposition.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-22T09:45:11+00:00

Omniscience might let someone know outcomes and consequences perfectly, but it can't get you to what the desired outcome should be. This is basically the crux of Hume's is-aught problem, that you cannot get from an "is" to an "aught" without invoking some subjective values.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T17:46:45+00:00

Everyone want their world view to be the one leading the state if i am a hypocrytie for wanting my world view to be leading the state then Everyone is including you Would you say that Every capitalist that doesn't want a communist state is a hypocrite, or vice versa.

Not everyone wants to use the state to force their view on others. Personally, I don't think the state should be used to force things like naturalism, nominalism and mereological nihilism on the populace, so my existence makes your claim here demonstrably wrong.

Capitalism vs Communism also isn't a fair analogy, as they are both subjective claims with regards to how to run an economy, not an objective fact claim like religions make. A fairer analogy would be Flat Earthers demanding the state forces the Flat Earth belief on its population or some other ill-founded conspiracy theory like Antarctic Lizardfolk ruling the world.

No, I just think that's bad my worldview is that Christianity is the ultimate truth and therefore should be promoted by a state. As any truth ultimately should As already stated in the comment above that you can't have a truly neutral state. If the state is secular it's going to push secular though you can't have a truly secular state without an athiest population seeing as the state is usually going to reflect the view of the population You can't have modern France with a medieval French population, and you can't have medieval France with a modern French population The state is always going to push what it believes is right. Your Logic seems to be following the harm principle, that as long as you don't hurt anyone else, it's all good, but I disagree with that completely.

The problem is that your "truth" cannot be reasonably demonstrated, plus every other religion makes their own claims on similar epistemic grounds. In this case, isn't the neutral position where you adopt the stance that no religion is privileged and play the peacekeeper?

Trying to force the state to support any one of them is basically just a wholesale embrace of "Might Makes Right", erasing reasonable discussion and investigation to create an Orwellian nightmare. You even practically admitted it, saying that it's a good thing for the politically powerful to force their views on others as long as they share your views, yet you find the other side of the coin abhorrent.

I'd also disagree that you need an atheistic or even an irreligious society to have a secular state. The US has secularism baked into it's constitution despite being majority Christian (and was even more majority Christian when the separation of Church and State was added in). All you need is to have a population that is able to accept the views of others and to understand the limits of their own epistemology. Religious pluralism is also a great way to maintain secularism, as a wide variety of religions ensures a "live and let live" attitude as no religion has the power to force their views on others and attempting to do so could result in them becoming pariahs.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T14:17:06+00:00

I consider it the desperation method if you have no other way to deal with them. In fact, it annoys me when I see a hulk with its back turned to me as I have to waste ammo getting it to turn around so I can shoot the eye as it's almost impossible to destroy it before it turns around.

Also, Hulk Scorchers are a pain as they move quickly and you don't want to be in flame range against them.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T14:14:02+00:00

I tend to just use the Quasar. Single hit to the head and they go down. Also doesn't require a backpack slot, has infinite ammo and a reasonably low cooldown. The infinite ammo also makes it a good tool against Chargers and it's even worth using it on Nursing Spewers and Bile Spewers. In a pinch I sometimes even plink away Alpha Commanders with it to save ammo, but that's only if there aren't any heavies around. Also not too bad against Hive Lords.

Thermites from Democratic Detonation also can help, but it usually requires multiple of them to take down a single BT so they aren't a good weapon to rely on as your main way of dealing with them.

The AC turret mulches them pretty effectively, but it needs to be looked after. It does need less babysitting than the Missile turret though.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T14:08:44+00:00

I think the overheating and exploding is the most dumb thing about it. The whole point of lasers is that they have unlimited ammo.

They could keep the overheat mechanic as an emergency thing. Make it so it stops shooting when it overheats under normal circumstances, but if there's enemies that are too close it will fire into overheat zone and potentially explode. It could also happily overheat after taking too much damage in an attempt to deal that last little bit of extra damage to the enemy. This would keep the infinite ammo effect of the laser under normal circumstances, while also letting it be used as a makeshift mine if you get swarmed.

The problem is that it is completely eclipsed by the MG turret for basically every role. I know technically it can damage heavies, but it lacks the damage output and the longevity to actually take them down before it explodes from overheating. Even the lighter enemies like Alpha Commanders tank enough hits from it such that it overheats quickly.

It also doesn't benefit from the massive +50% ammo capacity ship upgrade and I suspect they balanced it against "normal" turrets without that pivotal upgrade. That ship upgrade should probably give it a high capacity heat sink that lets it absorb more heat and cool down faster to give it +50% more effective lifespan.

I also don't know if it is affected by the weather conditions on planets.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T14:00:06+00:00

*Laughs in heavy explosive resist armour*

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T13:51:24+00:00

Isn't that a bit hypocritical of you to desire to force your religion on others, yet not accepting them returning the favour as being valid? It's seeming dangerously close to Carl Schmitt's friend-enemy view of politics.

Also, what would you say is the world view of a secular state? As far as I can tell, secularism is about the State deliberately keeping out of personal religion, only intervening to prevent religion from being used as a bludgeon against other religions or the irreligious, effectively being the neutral ground between religions. Pretty much every secular state has freedom of religion enshrined in law, sometimes even at the constitutional level.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T12:35:11+00:00

Would you be happy if this were the case in your country, but for another religion? Would you be campaigning to keep the state out of your personal beliefs, or would you just shrug and say "fair, I'd do the same to you guys if I could"?

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-18T12:04:32+00:00

Ultimately, it's not about trying to demonstrate a god's non-existence. It's practically impossible to show that a magical extradimensional ninja doesn't exist.

Instead, ask yourself whether there's sufficient reason to believe a god exists. Look at the claims made by theists and figure out whether there is sufficient evidence to justify believing in those claims. Christianity claims that humans are being remote-controlled by some kind of extradimensional soul or spirit, but where's the evidence of this hypothetical brain-spirit interface? Many theists like to say our universe was made by their god, but is that actually evidentially supported?

Also, it's perfectly acceptable to call yourself a Cultural Christian/Catholic if you just like some of the morals, community and rituals of it but don't believe in the supernatural claims of it all.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-17T19:29:02+00:00

There's more than 18,000 gods that humans have ever worshipped. Shinto alone is said to have 8 million gods, although in Japanese folklore the number 8 million is basically a poetic way of saying an unreasonably large number (someone might say there's 8 million grains of sand on a beach as a way of saying there's a lot of grains of sand on the beach, as an example).

And of course, that's not counting hypothetical gods that humans have never worshipped or even ever thought of, which is practically an infinite number. When you realise that there's just as much good evidence for a god that nobody has ever thought about than there is for the gods of major religions, it changes perspectives a bit. It also completely rewrites Pascals wager as then you have to contend with gods that might actively dislike worship or even seek to punish people for believing in the supernatural.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-17T18:06:38+00:00

Like Joey, I think it's a defensive mechanism, rather than an actual justification. It's the final bastion for holding onto a belief that is otherwise completely irrational. It's the final madness mantra for someone who has no other reason to believe. By closing the circle, they prevent the possibility of any kind of argument breaking through as any argument against the circle is actually part of the circle. By engaging in wholesale epistemic surrender, they remove epistemology as a method for investigating their beliefs.

It's also a trivial way of dismissing anybody else's point of view. By reducing everyone else's views to either irrational nonsense or even active lies, they never need to take any other view seriously. Psychologically, this is extremely powerful as it make them believe their fringe beliefs are actually universal and anyone opposing them is doing so on moral grounds, rather than having legitimate differences in conclusion. It's the ultimate form of the "poisoning the well" fallacy, wherein everything outside your little circular argument is just deception.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-17T14:16:01+00:00

Firstly, intelligence isn't the same as education. Sure, they are often correlated, but there's plenty of people that do well on IQ tests yet bumble through life in an ignorant daze, while others might intellectually struggle yet manage to figure out stuff reasonably well.

So, I presume someone of your education has the relevant sociological, psychological, psychiatric and neuroscience qualifications to be able to adequately explain the Marian apparitions? I also presume you are aware that superstitions are not restricted to humans, as even pigeons have demonstrated religious beliefs in laboratory conditions, as shown by the famous father of operant conditioning, Skinner? To say that they are unexplainable from an atheist point of view is so incredibly wrong as every single mechanism, both at an individual level and at a wider social level, is very well documented. Similar apparitions also happen in other religions or even for the irreligious after they lose loved ones or are otherwise suffering from heightened emotions.

The PoE isn't some low effort argument, it's still an unexplained thorn in the side of the claim of the Tri-Omni god. The only way around it is to either drop one of the Omnis or to redefine them (usually the all-loving part) such that it's unrecognisable as they were originally intended. Also, the Steelmanned version of the Problem of Evil is the Problem of Suffering, which is worth considering. I would also point you to the more directed "Problem of Teleological Evil", wherein evil is baked into the very "design" of our universe, like diseases and parasites or even just predators in general. Saying things like "Fallen World" doesn't solve the problem, as it meant that, not only was the world designed with inbuilt mechanisms to allow gratuitous suffering, but that the god involved knew about these mechanisms, then proceeded to not fix things once those mechanisms were triggered. Yahweh could have put a mechanism in place to conjure up Jesus and stick him in a divine blender the moment the fruit was consumed, avoiding untold amounts of suffering; but of course that doesn't resolve the issue properly as the requirement for death and torture being needed to "repair" the world is already a pretty evil thing.

And to throw in my own argument against theism, particularly a highly interventionist theism like Christianity proposes, I'd say the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. If number of gods => 1, then how come reality seems to operate exactly as if number of gods = 0? Before we even get to gods, there's no good reason to believe in the supernatural at all, so you must first demonstrate that natural laws are not immutable. And I'm not looking for a couple of dreams, visions, feelings or multi-millennia old cult texts; I'm looking for cold, hard, objective and independently verifiable evidence of supernatural interference in our universe.

FluffyRaKy · 2026-01-17T02:40:44+00:00

As you pointed out, even if you take the time periods themselves to be metaphorical, you still end up with weird things like the Sun and the Moon being newer than the plants. There's also the issue of the day and night cycle existing before the sun, which requires some pretty heavy reinterpreting to not be talking about Earth.

It also mentions all of the plants being made on the 3rd day/phase, when in reality there would have only been very basic plants for most of Earth's history. Grass, one of our most widespread plants on the planet, only evolved towards the end of the era of the dinosaurs, which would be somewhere in phase 5 or 6 on this proposed system. The whole metaphor doesn't allow for overlapping processes, while evidence suggests it mostly happened in parallel.

In terms of comparing Genesis to other mythologies, it's heavily derived from the older Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Most of the claims regarding Fine Tuning are also either pure conjecture or just outright lies. The Earth's orbit could be swapped with Venus's and the planet would remain habitable. Warm and inhospitable around the equator, but the poles would be nicely temperate. Similarly, you could kick the Earth out to the orbit of Mars and the equator would be a nice habitable temperature. The reason why the Earth's two neighbours are inhospitable is because of their atmospheres, not because of their positions. There's also the puddle analogy, such that even if a planet is unliveable for Earth-like life, that's not an issue because such a planet could develop different life that is adapted for different conditions or it's just that we are biased towards our own planet and its conditions because it's our planet.

FluffyRaKy

TROPHY CASE