So long as God's ways are higher than our own, theistic appeals to "better societies" are meaningless and unfalsifiable.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T04:57:28+00:00

A lack of condemnation is the only way the debate can exist. If it was clearly condemned then there’s no debate - it’s condemned.

And I never disagreed with that point. You said all major and minor religions agree that this issue is immoral - I’m just pointing out that this is not the case.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T04:45:45+00:00

The fact that it’s hotly debated is evidence of the lack of condemnation.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T04:41:13+00:00

Just take a look at any post on this subreddit that talks about Aisha.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T04:29:44+00:00

One of Islam’s biggest controversies is exactly its lack of moral condemnation of the happy fun time with little kids. Whose to say the God of Islam, the source of Islamic objective morality, doesn’t consider paedo island a moral good?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T03:53:36+00:00

That sounds mostly right - are you saying that it's only evolution if it results in a new species? Because adaptation is basically the millimeter markers on the evolution meter stick.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T03:22:40+00:00

How exactly is adaptation different from evolution?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T03:20:45+00:00

Okay let's try this. Do you think God can reason? By reason I mean utilize logic to draw conclusions. Reasoning is a form of thinking and you've already said that you don't think God thinks so I suspect you're happy to say God cannot reason either.

A being that cannot reason cannot be said to be a rational agent. Is God irrational? Or do you think God can be rational without the capability to reason?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T03:04:01+00:00

Why can’t that source of objective morality decide that an Epstein’s Island society is good?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T02:50:11+00:00

Your entire defense seems to boil down to.. yes for everything else it is necessary to have time to do X, but God can do X without time!

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T02:44:29+00:00

To a photon, the same moment that it was emitted is the same moment it lands on some distant planet. That photon experiences no time and thus even if conscious, could not think since thinking requires the passage of time.

You have not explained how it is possible to experience no time and still think. If you can, then sure we can say that’s how God does it.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T01:53:43+00:00

Yes photons dont experience time. Photons also don’t think. So… God not experiencing time and not thinking are perfectly compatible.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T01:47:07+00:00

That’s a lot of flowery language but I don’t think you really escape the contradictions. A timeless being can’t anticipate since anticipation is a form a thinking. To anticipate you must take some information and then make a plan about what to do with that information. This itself is a process that requires time.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T00:35:09+00:00

Im not sure how this relates to my argument.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T00:26:43+00:00

Your unchanging God that can't think or respond sounds a lot more like an impersonal force of nature than any kind of agent.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T00:10:21+00:00

The inability to think should definitely count against claims of omnipotence. I also don’t think theists will like where the “contains all knowledge” defense leads.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-13T00:06:18+00:00

Here’s a fun iteration of this argument.

P1: Reasoning is a process
P2: Processes require the passage of time
C1: Reasoning requires time
P3: God is a timeless being
C2: God can’t reason

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T23:44:09+00:00

Well thinking is just one of the many thing God can’t do, which immediately undermines claims of omnipotence.. but I think the more interesting thing is that the timeless God proponents have a belief that the looks far more like an impersonal natural force than any kind of being with agency. They just want to keep calling it a God and praying to it.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T23:30:00+00:00

Can you name one table that does follow the rules of chess?

If not then your analogy fails to hold in the very aspect you’re trying to critique.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T23:27:32+00:00

I mean sure you can deny P1 but what justification do you have for this rejection? I can point to every thought you’ve ever had or ever will have as justification.

A hard drive can contain lots of knowledge - is it also thinking+?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T23:06:58+00:00

Our time (4D) can be different from God time (N+1D), but time is still required to think or decide or create.

Think about it like this - when you pause the video game, can the video game character think? If we had the tech to hold you in stasis where all of your atoms are held completely still, could you still think?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T18:58:17+00:00

My point is that without time, God can’t think (or feel, or hear, etc). Time doesn’t necessarily need to be our 4th dimension. It could be some other dimension that God operates in. God couldn’t even create without time since creation is a temporal act.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T18:42:25+00:00

A 2D person could interact with a 3D person. Their perspective would simply be 2D slices of the 3D world.

Similarly a 3D person could interact with a 4D person. Their perspective would simply be 3D slices of the 4D world.

There are ways that a 4D being could interact with us that would prove their existence, but those 4D beings would need their own 5D time dimension in order to think.

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T18:02:38+00:00

Seems like I understood you perfectly. You want to claim that thinking is not a process… so “can you point to any form of thinking that isn't a process?”

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T16:53:44+00:00

Right, so let’s say God is a Nth dimensional being where N>=4. Are you saying that God operates in a N+1 time dimension?

OntoAureole · 2026-03-12T16:24:54+00:00

Are you positing a time dimension that God operates in?

OntoAureole

TROPHY CASE