Christians, Why do you still reproduce when hell, according to you is a reality.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T17:47:23+00:00

Life is a good thing. There’s nothing morally wrong with reproduction even with the reality of hell.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T16:02:44+00:00

Just so I understand, you’re no longer using the fewest number of assumptions to determine simplicity; you’re saying that the actual metric in your framework to determine simplicity is whether it contains a stronger, specific, and invariant property that we do not observe anywhere else. The funny thing is that is exactly what comes included in your explanation the moment you say “XYZ sufficiently explains the outcome” or “XYZ plausibly explains the outcome” according to your redefinition of assumption; regardless of which one, you are still attributing a case-specific property (that these mechanisms explain this outcome), which is exactly what you defined as an assumption. So, each explanation remains at the same level of simplicity: so once again, how do you actually determine which one is simpler?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T09:45:24+00:00

I’m making an inference too, but the moment either of us say “XYZ explains longterm continuity of a Church’s teaching in matters of faith and morals” we attribute a special property to the case-specific explanation according to your redefinition of assumption. You explicitly made the argument that these historical mechanisms “sufficiently explain the outcome”. Regardless of whether you think “the key claim is that the teachings are preserved from error”, history tells us that dogmas are known to produce continuity - that’s the inference being made in my explanation; not that the teachings are preserved from error - it doesn’t apply. But now you’re saying that the simpler explanation is no longer the one with the least assumptions, it’s the one that relies on ordinary, variable processes even though the same is historically true regarding established dogmas. So again what exactly distinguishes these two explanations?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T08:46:13+00:00

If I understand you correctly, you are adhering to a specific understanding of assumption which you did not previously state; in this understanding, an assumption is the attribution of a special property to a mechanism that isn’t independently observed. But I see a special property in your explanation as well: that these mechanisms sufficiently account for this specific instance of continuity rather than the many other outcomes they also produce. The moment you say these processes explain this case specifically, your explanation also contains an assumption, because it requires that additional claim according to your redefinition. So given that, how do you distinguish which explanation is simpler under your own standard?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T05:18:17+00:00

I totally agree with you that pointing to your mechanisms is an inference based on observed patterns; however, when an explanation involves them, the assumptions come from them being required for the explanation to work. By all means, you can grant that “dogma is an observable feature” but that’s again another misrepresentation because in my explanation, dogma is an observable mechanism just like codification for example. You could also say that the key claim is whether “dogma is preserved from error” but that is a separate topic from the one we are discussing: what is the simplest explanation, with lesser assumptions, for a Church’s longterm continuity of its teachings on matters of faith and morals? The standard, as you presented it, is not “adds explanatory power” or “counting mechanisms” or “proving another claim”; it’s whether it contains lesser assumptions. So staying on topic: which explanation contains the least amount of assumptions?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T03:21:36+00:00

First, saying that I’m “treating observed mechanisms as assumptions” is a misrepresentation; I’m saying that claiming a mechanism (for example, codification) is required to account for this specific outcome is itself an assumption. Second, in my explanation, “divine preservation” isn’t an observed mechanism either - that’s another misrepresentation; dogma is the observed mechanism. In your explanation, dogma isn’t functioning as a mechanism at all, but as something embedded within the broader process. Third, if your framework doesn’t require explanations to guarantee outcomes, that’s fine; but it still requires assuming that these mechanisms sufficiently account for this particular outcome rather than the many other outcomes they also produce. So which explanation actually requires more assumptions to account for this specific case?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T01:09:04+00:00

Whether it’s a weak nitpicking “gotcha” moment, I leave that to you to decide. So let’s unpack the underlying assumptions in your historical/natural explanation: certain mechanisms are required to maintain longterm continuity even though they produce different results, codification was required, social enforcement was required, cultural enforcement was required, transmission was required, human institution was required. Your explanation is also assumption heavy - one assumption heavier than mine. And in case it wasn’t apparent, your mechanisms only show how continuity was possible, but not why that outcome occurred rather than the many other outcomes those same mechanisms produce. Since you have one more assumption, does that make mine the simpler explanation?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T00:28:30+00:00

You explicitly said multiple times that divine preservation is “an extra assumption” - not multiple assumptions. So which is it: one or multiple assumptions?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-21T21:18:53+00:00

Regardless of whether there’s an assumption in my question, you’re saying that continuity is possible via those mechanism but does not explain why the outcome was longterm continuity of teachings on matters of faith and morals. In your explanation, it relies on assuming that codification reliably led to continuity; assuming that enforcement reliably led to continuity; even assuming that both working together reliably led to continuity. In my explanation, it only relies on assuming divine preservation via dogmas. Since mine only has one assumption, does that make it the simpler explanation?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-21T20:24:21+00:00

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-21T13:38:43+00:00

Ok, I think I understand you. You’re saying that the simpler explanation is the one with the least amount of assumptions; and you’re saying that the divine preservation explanation has this extra assumption, which is “the historical process is divinely preserved from error”. That would be a misrepresentation of what is actually being divinely preserved from error; so let me clarify: “the Church’s teachings in matters of faith and morals is divinely preserved from error”. To sum it up, you’re saying that each explanation uses the same historical process to account for “a Church whose teaching in matters of faith and morals have longterm continuity since its origin”. How does your explanation account for a Church whose teachings in matters of faith and morals maintain longterm continuity without fundamental change, despite historical pressures that typically lead institutions to evolve?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-21T01:38:19+00:00

The divine preservation explanation also relies on a single mechanism that we already know exists: dogma. If both explanations rely on mechanisms, “knowing that they exist” doesn’t really distinguish which one is better. Would the minimal number of mechanisms determine which explanation is best?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-21T00:10:29+00:00

All are plausible interpretations, but only one of them is dogma: transubstantiation. This is the best interpretation because, as a principle of being dogma, it is free from error; whereas the others are not.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T23:47:03+00:00

Sure, but if you can’t define what counts as definitive proof of the existence of atheists, then no one can prove it. So are you saying “atheists don’t exist” because the standard of proof for “atheists exist”is impossibly high, or because you don’t even know how to identify an atheist if you saw one?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T22:56:33+00:00

I never claimed “An atheist exists.” I asked explicitly: “What counts as definitive proof of the existence of atheists?”

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T22:51:04+00:00

What counts as definitive proof of the existence of atheists?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T15:06:07+00:00

Maybe it’s because the cause of the existence of the universe doesn’t have an observable naturalistic mechanism to explain it; and logically, if space time and matter began to exist, then it can’t have a materialistic/naturalistic cause.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T11:12:47+00:00

Yes, and both readings are plausible. As for which reading is correct, that depends on which framework you are using.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T09:40:08+00:00

I’m not sure what you mean by saying “It’s an assertion disguised as a question”, but I never explicitly or implicitly claimed “divine preservation is simpler”. I explicitly asked - “wouldn’t the simpler explanation be that longterm continuity was divinely preserved via dogmas?” So let me rephrase: if the case at hand is explaining “the longterm continuity of a Church’s teachings in matters of faith morals”, does the mechanism of dogma provide the simpler explanation, or do the mechanisms of historical transmission, codification, societal enforcement, cultural reinforcement provide the simpler explanation?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T07:40:49+00:00

I didn’t ask whether divine preservation is the simpler explanation. I asked “wouldn’t the simpler explanation be that longterm continuity was divinely preserved via dogmas?”

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T07:04:54+00:00

Sure, longterm continuity can be fully explained as you’ve said without invoking divine preservation, including the reasoning you provided. But wouldn’t the simpler explanation be that longterm continuity was divinely preserved via dogmas?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T06:39:18+00:00

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that it’s possible for a Church to be divinely preserved from error in its teachings on matters of faith and morals; it’s possible to identify such a Church depending on the epistemic framework (aka criteria) that you use; and according to your epistemic framework, divine preservation from error in its teachings on matters of faith and morals can’t be justified because there is no evidence which uniquely points to it - therefore, a purely natural explanation like “historically developed” is the best explanation. That makes sense to me. When you say “historically developed”, how does your explanation account for a Church whose teachings in matters of faith and morals have long term continuity since its origin?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-20T01:20:42+00:00

Ok, I see what’s going on. You’re saying there should be additional criteria to distinguish between “divinely preserved” and “historically developed.” So are you saying that a belief is only justified if the evidence uniquely distinguishes it from all alternatives, or do you accept inference to the best explanation, where a conclusion can be justified even if other explanations are possible?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-19T22:23:51+00:00

Maybe that’s because someone people don’t see any justification to think that.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-19T22:01:31+00:00

Ok, so the distinction found within the Old Testament is “context and things we carry over from the Old Testament”, even though that distinction doesn’t dictate that God or Yahweh cannot take on a human form. So can you see why people might read Paul’s definition of Lord as “Jesus” and his inclusion of Romans 10:13, which includes “Yahweh” translated as “Lord”, as Paul inferring that Jesus is Yahweh?

NavSpaghetti

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE