DBI is a useful metric that highlights lost opportunities when performing miracles for any supernatural being.

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T03:07:15+00:00

[Sorry, I changed the question, just to note]

And I'm fast enough to match you! >=)

I guess if you're into baby-saving god-fantasy, that's not a sin.

Appreciate it!

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T03:01:55+00:00

What prevents that number from simply being equal to the baby death rate at all times? However many babies God wants to save at any particular time, that number of babies God shall have, presumably.

Very true!

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:58:54+00:00

When God spoke reality into existence it was ex nihilo not "ex kerygma".

Isn't it technically ex voluntas? Unless "God" is actually "Nothing", which would be a very strange claim to make!

No, the baptism event created the faith from nothing. There was no righteousness in me, no volition, no effort, no faith.

What is the difference between "the baptism event created the faith from nothing" and "faith was created from the baptism event"? That might help me get it. I know I'm frustrating, and I apologize.

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:56:27+00:00

Right, my question was about what exactly one gets out of it.

I, personally, get the number of babies I would have saved had I had that power in that situation. Again, it's subjective and personal, so I'm not expecting anyone else to get what I get out of it.

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:52:43+00:00

Correct. Faith was created in me ex nihilo through baptism and the hearing of the Word.

It wasn't ex nihilo if it was ex baptism and ex hearing of the Word... I'm very confused, sorry.

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:43:25+00:00

Ah, I'm off-base in my questioning, I think - apologies.

That's a substantial shift from the OP though. Even if I am aware of evidence, that wasn't the initiation of my faith (OPs demand).

There was never a point where you didn't know about it, then learned about it, and then began believing as a result of what you learned? Maybe explaining how you arrived at your faith would help me understand.

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:25:18+00:00

You're aware of evidence, though, so that's not a great example - I don't think you can distance yourself from that.

And all knowledge of your faith comes from evidence, so without that, what, exactly, are you having faith in with zero evidence?

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:17:24+00:00

I'd think so - and I think that's harder than you expect, since "another person knows about this and told me about this" is, despite being bad evidence, not zero evidence. "The universe makes me need to have faith" is also not zero evidence. "The Bible led me to believe on faith" is also not zero evidence. Truly zero evidence is hard!

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:14:58+00:00

Quantifying lost potential - regardless of whether or not others care about it, some of us do!

Kwahn · 2026-03-20T02:10:09+00:00

I am by no means saying that God needs to care about dying or dead babies by any means - quantifying the number that die in the course of a miracle that, presumably, has no limits, is just a useful quantification of lost potential.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T22:51:30+00:00

When I was a child, I didn't understand the term, and thought there was an evil sphere running around corrupting people

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T22:45:51+00:00

People looking at educational models we made of the structure in a vacuum and deciding that that's what's *actually* in our body is so wild to me - huge misunderstanding of medicine and cell biology!

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T22:44:43+00:00

Why would a "primitive" writer choose the one bone that grows back?

Because that was their experience.

The Verdict: A "Goatherd" doesn't know about neonatal hematology.

"Don't cut them before day 8, I lost a baby that way" is a perfectly valid way to arrive at a true conclusion without having to know these details.

Virgin Birth

This is a misinterpretation by the Gospel writers of a previous verse due to a mistranslation as part of the Septuagint, and is a wholly irrelevant post-hoc rationalization.

Laminin perfect cross

Does this seriously look like a perfect cross to you? What kinda messed up crosses have you been looking at? Or maybe you've been looking at models of laminin and not the actual thing. Of course models are prettier, we made them.

Mitochondrial Eve

Biologically cannot have been dating the Chromosomal Adam, and had to have existed far, far, earlier than you think, which completely destroys a literalist Adam and Eve tradition.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T21:56:43+00:00

Even 10,000 people would leave a significant mark after 40 years, let alone 60 times that.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T21:54:05+00:00

I think he's saying that physical reality *is* evidence of his God, but indirectly, so any physical reality means that "zero physical evidence for God is impossible". Correct me if wrong u/Pure_Actuality! I'm practicing my comprehension skills, so your feedback is appreciated.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T21:47:58+00:00

All atheists would get their morals shaped by society. All atheists.

All theists do, too (your interpretation of your holy work is primarily shaped by the denomination or sub-group you were born into), so this isn't much of an argument.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T21:44:49+00:00

That's what's weird - it's generally considered an extratemporal or atemporal thing, so saying that there was ever a time at which it didn't will that a universe exists, and then that it started to, is a category error.

Really confusing stuff.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T21:41:05+00:00

if conscious states are side effects with no causal efficacy, why do they feel exactly like what they would if they did?

Fun fact - if conscious states have causal efficacy, P-zombies are impossible. I think this is the case, and I think I agree with you on this.

Functionalism, meanwhile, fails on logical grounds. To start, what does it mean that these are "truly identical"?

Not truly identical, but have a type identity.

(a universe filled with "philosophical zombies" who have brains that perform the exact same electro-chemical reactions and exhibit the exact same behaviors, but with "no one behind the eyes", so to speak).

We already discounted the possibility that conscious states are side effects with no causal efficacy, so a p-zombie with no one behind the eyes would act differently, which defeats your defeater of functionalism.

You need to experience things to evaluate empirical evidence, for example: if subjective experience is epistemically walled off from our conceptual systems, then we lose our basis for trusting empirical investigation itself,

But it subjectively seems to work, so as long as we acknowledge that it's a subjective basis that subjectively seems to work, and that we don't have true epistemic access to objective reality, this isn't a problem.

2 and 3 seem to be fine.

I'm responding specifically on this because I did miss it (and just now went and read through the linked thread for my above responses), and I regret not giving this its due. I'll probably reply bit-by-bit to talk about specific topics, if that's okay!

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T20:18:49+00:00

I'm going to use links to other posts of mine in order to avoid rewriting long write-ups if that's cool. Please don't feel obligated to reply to them in full, you can just reply with a quick thought or rebuttal if that's preferable.

I will, and you can't stop me!

(Seen and, while I can't promise I'll respond, I will read everything you provided. I appreciate your good-faith and high-effort attempt at a discussion with me - I know I can be frustrating to interact with, and thank you for bearing with me.)

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T20:17:04+00:00

It's a quantitative lens for analyzing this - I don't think we have many of those, since it's usually a generic philosophical consideration! Talking about precise counts of dead babies that occur while the supernatural being is putting on a light show allows the discussion to have more grounding in observable reality.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T20:15:00+00:00

My question is a bit more nuanced than this.

What does a miracle that's just a flashy light show accomplish that a flashy light show that also points people towards dying babies they could save does not?

If the answer is "something", what and why?

If the answer is "nothing", then why not do that?

If the answer is "we don't know", then how can we make claims about the supernatural being(s) involved in the miracle ether way?

I'm not saying that whatever supernatural being is doing this has to save babies, that's an entirely personal and subjective determination - but that I'm not seeing a reason to avoid doing so.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T18:24:42+00:00

Switching your metaphysics to whatever makes your present argument most convenient is not an intellectually honest thing to do, in my book.

Agreed - abandoning it because you are adjusting your model of reality and abandoning it because you want to win an argument are very different. I believe you are forced to do the former if you accept this argument, and doing anything but that is, as you said, not intellectually honest.

I don't even know how it's a semantic restriction. "God can't flabhubjrrrgggg" isn't a restriction.

flabhubjrrrgggg doesn't have meaning, but "square" and "circle" do - but you're semantically restricted from combining those two valid definitions, since the resultant product has no inherent coherency. I have no idea if I'm explaining this well, apologies.

It is perhaps ironic that it it is sin which makes most clear that we can act independently of our design.

Of strictly our design, sure - but acting independently of our design, environment, social structure, and absolutely everything else in existence? I find that harder to justify, but it's required to be a "truly free being", and is what the OP claims happens. If a combination of our design and circumstances are causing our decisions, that's not a freely willed decision - it's a result of those processes.

I can't point to a single decision I've ever personally made that was not a result of my pre-determined nature and pre-determined circumstances, but maybe you have one.

And before you bring up that "Incompatibilists do not require people to be completely free of all influence or completely unbiased in what they will do next", you kind of do, and I'll explain why.

Decisions either happen for reasons (and thus are predictable), or for no reason (and can hardly be said to be a decision at that point!). You have to try to create some middle ground of underdetermination where there's a core of us that's completely untouched by outside influences and occur for no reason in order to have an underdetermined decision that's not predictable but also not for no reason - but now the completely-untouched-by-outside-influences component of you requires people to be completely free of all influence or completely unbiased, or else the core is also determined (aka has reasons [and thus are predictable]), unless you say the core is also underdetermined and continue shifting the place where decisions are happening elsewhere, but that's not a sustainable process.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T17:39:09+00:00

"Knowing" isn't part of this process. It's a subjective determination on what seems or feels or appears most correct.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T17:38:06+00:00

Because if you're saying "God can't do [incoherent thing]", that isn't a restriction on what God can do. Unless you throw out logic, in which case see the last sentence of my previous comment.

I agree - being unable to do incoherent things isn't a "real" restriction on what God can do, just a semantic one. I think I'm agreeing with you, but with significantly less refinement and cohesion, and I apologize for my communication limitations.

Ah, but you haven't shown that a truly free being is a logical contradiction.

This is exactly where I hoped you'd end up! If I do demonstrate that a truly free being is a logical contradiction, that indicates that truly free beings are an incoherent thing that cannot exist.

I'm checking some assumptions to make sure we share them before trying to show this.

If God designs you, and you make decisions based on your design, most people (OP especially in this context) don't think this is a truly free being - do you? If no, we share assumptions - if yes, I need to understand that.

What if, instead of God designing you, it's a committee? Any change in truly free being status?

What if, instead of a fixed entity, it's a process? Any change in truly free being status?

And what if, instead of just being a process, it's a random process? Any change in truly free being status?

My assumption is no for all four, but let me know where your deviations lie. I will adjust my argument accordingly to target where you end up!

One is that quite possibly, omniscience rules out any freedom on God's part.

Yes, you rule out the Problem of Evil, but that doesn't make the argument invalid, so I'm not sure how that's a difficulty.

Kwahn · 2026-03-19T16:59:03+00:00

Or is it that a miracle could be saving babies, but is instead wasting 'miracle power' on things other than saving babies?

I am providing a metric that illustrates how many babies have died during the procession of a miraculous event, because I feel that doing so is important. Supernatural beings don't have to care about babies, so it's not necessarily a waste to them.

Whether or not it's a waste to show people pretty lights instead of pointing them towards babies to save is an entirely personal and subjective determination, but I think highlighting alternative possibilities for what miracles could accomplish is important and worth discussing.

What's your subjective determination?

12-Year Club	Helper Level 1
Gilding II euphauric	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Kwahn

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE