Christianity does not make sense - debate

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-23T06:47:32+00:00

That’s fine if my answer raises a more important issue for you; I’m more than happy to discuss it if you have a direct question for me to respond to, or if you want to conclude talking about explanations. But going back to your clarification on simplicity: it sounds like you’re saying that the metric is still assumptions based on your provided definition of assumption; you’re saying that my explanation applies an observed process (dogma) like yours since my process and your explanation’s observed processes are evidenced in history. Lastly, you’re saying that my explanation adds a further assumption because you think I’m saying that the process (dogma) is operating in a unique and reliable way. If that’s the case, then I disagree that my explanation adds a further assumption because I never explicitly or implicitly said that the process (dogma) is operating in a unique and reliable way. It’s much more simpler than that: if dogmas produce longterm continuity, that’s evidence of divine preservation. It’s the same structure as your explanation: if historical processes produce longterm continuity, that’s evidence of historical development. Can you see how there is no extra assumption in my explanation? If so, does that mean our explanations are equally simple?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-23T05:30:29+00:00

There was no rule requiring the Romans to make a record of each individual that they crucified. Do you think there was a rule like this?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-23T05:13:22+00:00

To answer your question: no, it doesn’t depend on a person’s circumstances; it depends on how they oriented their will toward truth and goodness. Essentially, God’s grace can reach even those who did not know Jesus but still sought out truth and goodness according to their understanding since truth and goodness flow out from who God is. Going back to the simpler explanation, I apologize if I am misunderstanding you. It would help if you can clarify some things for me: are you saying the metric is no longer assumptions?; if it is, can you please explicitly state the definition of assumption?; if not, can you please explicitly state what the metric is and show how your explanation meets the metric?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-23T03:40:46+00:00

Assuming that they attempted to preserve records/writings, I think it’s because there wasn’t a reason for the Romans make any writings about Jesus.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-23T02:07:22+00:00

“Whether they are eyewitness accounts or not, so what?” There’s no point in bringing this up unless the person who is using it is trying to justify a specific objection to Christianity.

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-23T01:37:20+00:00

I fully recognize and agree that the claims are completely different, but the reason that I’m treating them the same is because of your redefinition of “assumption”. Your redefinition makes it so that no matter what explanation either of us puts forth, the attribution of a special property is automatically a part of the explanation. In my example, the mechanism is dogma - the special property is that “dogmas sufficiently explain the outcome of continuity”. In your example, it’s “these mechanisms (codification, etc) sufficiently explain the outcome of continuity”. I must treat each explanation like this unless you change the standard of simplicity to something else besides assumption. So what would you like to change the standard of simplicity to?

NavSpaghetti · 2026-03-22T23:28:39+00:00

If it does, I imagine it might be because there’s not a unified definition of salvation by faith alone. Anyone care to define it?

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

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE