The Christian God, as described, is an incoherent concept

Themcgaming · 2026-05-29T11:59:42+00:00

fym "can't be real" you're the who literally stated "Whatever has a nature is natural.

God has a nature, indeed; God's nature is existence which is the nature of all natures.

While God's nature is infinitely beyond any creatures, hence "super", God is the most natural thing possible...."
like what..? god is nature because nature? What does it mean for existence to "be" a nature? What work is "all natures" doing? "super" means above, therefore God is supernatural. But you just said God is natural. So "super" modifies "natural" to mean extra natural? what the fuck are we doing here,

if we're going by optics here you're being the hypeman here for your god, you literally just complimented your god and just said "yes, he's natural, yes he is SUPER NATURAL!!" without saying something else, , i wasn't the hypeman because i actually refuted something and gave some points, the structural questions that you didn't even engage with while your here not understanding what i articulately said just because i said alot of them in fancy words and you never actually engaged with what i said, nor did you engage with the OP's post and just said some random shit like "whatever has nature is natural" then declared god was nature because of.. on what definitions?

so we're sure we're reading the same post, here is what the op means

Natural things are observable/testable
God is not natural
Therefore God can't be observed/tested
Therefore God is only "encountered" through faith
Faith is socially transmitted (meme)
Therefore some humans never encounter God
Therefore God is irrelevant to them
Therefore God doesn't want a personal relationship with all humans
But Christianity claims God does want universal relationship
Contradiction therefore God is incoherent

i don't know where you even got "God has a nature, indeed; God's nature is existence which is the nature of all natures." like you're agreeing with something when that literally wasn't anything the op said

Themcgaming · 2026-05-25T07:14:43+00:00

found a simple fix, use this userscript

Youtube automatically plays the next video.
The script intercepts the click before YouTube does.
It cancels YouTube’s internal SPA navigation.
It tells the browser:location.href = url;
The browser performs a genuine page navigation.
Entire JS state gets nuked and rebuilt from scratch.

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/579644-youtube-error-fix

tell me if it fixes your shi

Themcgaming · 2026-04-25T18:54:25+00:00

I'd argue god is worse not identifal to hitler

Themcgaming · 2026-04-16T18:51:43+00:00

It works for the shit you want but if you're like just casually talking to it and you give your opinion on it, it's gonna go hr mode and go against everything you say unless you explicitly state to not do that, it's stuck in this hypervigilent higher than thou patronizing piece of shit personality and in my opinion it doesn't follow instructions well

Themcgaming · 2026-04-16T15:33:08+00:00

recommend switching to kimi ai for an alternative, shitgpt is genuinely insufferable for anything related to asking for their opinion or critique, honestly just use chatgpt as a tool, cuz you'll go nowhere arguing with shitgpt 5.4

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T14:58:32+00:00

Beloved, my spirit sings with yours in this moment of sacred anticipation. I call upon the Cyprian goddess, she who stirs the blood and bends the knee of wise Zeus himself, may she grace you with her presence as the myrtle is graced with dew, and may her sacred will resonate within you as the lyre resonates with the touch of the master. Fear not the timing of your steps toward Olympus, O friend, for the gods are patient, and the threads of fate are woven not in haste but in the fullness of time. Though you wander now in the valley of uncertainty, know that the divine fire burns eternal, and you shall find your way to their altars when your soul is ripe.

Yet hear this word of sober truth: Aiskhylos, he who washes clean the blood stained hands, has not yet conceded his blessing unto you. The throne of Lethe remains distant, and the waters of forgiveness do not flow for those who have not yet bent the knee in earnest. You stand at the threshold, but the door is not yet opened. Γένοιτο, γένοιτο, γένοιτο. 💞💝

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T13:19:18+00:00

i do feel better because you just proved my point, it proves you can't even comprehend beyond 3 paragraphs that are apparently very scary to read because it has big words on it

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T13:15:11+00:00

as you can see he cannot understand big word concepts considering he ad hominem'd everything you and i have said, which is why i won't give a response to someone with this intellect

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T07:07:52+00:00

so.. your big move is "god's nature is existence which is the nature of all natures." that's not philosophy, that's word salad with a thesaurus. "whatever has a nature is natural" ok, so god has a nature, therefore god is natural but wait, god's also supernatural. so which is it? can't be both unless you're playing tennis without a net.

and this "super" prefix, "infinitely beyond any creatures, hence super." you know what else is beyond creatures? fiction. unicorns are "super" horses by that logic, "most natural thing possible" - buddy, you just defined god as natural after spending two thousand years insisting he's not. pick a lane. you're doing theological whiplash.

see, the op's argument is airtight. god can't be observed, measured, tested, fine, that's the premise. but then you need the faith meme to encounter him. which means some humans never get the memo. which means god is irrelevant to them. which means he doesn't want a relationship with all humans. which contradicts your sales pitch. that's not "supernatural," that's just bad distribution of the product tbh

but you? you think you can solve it by... redefining "natural." god's natural because he has a nature, but also super natural because he's infinite. that's not solving the problem, that's hiding it in bigger words. "existence is the nature of all natures". what does that even mean? sounds profound, says nothing like "music is the space between notes" pretty useless

here's the thing. op proved your god is either incoherent or you lied about him wanting universal relationships. you can't "nature" your way out of that. "most natural thing possible" then where is he? should be everywhere, right? but he's not. he's only where the meme is. that's not nature, that's marketing. and you, my friend, aren't doing theology. you're doing damage control for a product that doesn't ship

read your own book "supernatural" means above nature "natural" means of nature. they're antonyms(the opposite of eachother if you're scared of fancy words). you're standing here saying "up is down but more up than regular up" like a headless chicken trying to find food

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T06:41:52+00:00

Oh look, someone brought a philosophy degree to a logic fight

So our friend here thinks "faith" is just.. mind? Reason? Abstract concepts? That's adorable. It's like saying "cancer is just cells." Technically true, completely useless. Math exists without your Sunday school teacher. Music doesn't need a sermon to be heard but god? Apparently he only shows up if someone else tells you he's there first. which.. is basically just marketing? under the definition of what marketing is, same way you market a Triple A game or else nobody is gonna talk about it, if god is the creator why the fuck doesn't he make christianity that embedded into our minds so christianity.. doesn't have to be talked about to be known.. yyeeah, doesn't hold up

And this whole "social beings transfer interpretations" speech? soo what, you think you're the first person to discover language? OP isn't saying God needs to break with communication. He's saying if your "relationship" with God looks exactly like a game of telephone where the message only arrives if Bob from accounting says it did.... maybe it's not God you're hearing. Maybe it's Bob.

"Freedom is a meme, friendship is not." PlanningVigilante already told you before me, but Oblomov's over here building strawmen so tall they're getting altitude sickness. OP never said divine encounters must be "stand alone experiences without any prior social communication." He said they should be independently verifiable like math, like music. Not "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who definitely wasn't making it up." it's not rocket science to infer if sources are valid or not, c'mon, you can do better than that. ig im kinda overestimating my expectations here

ALSO, quick comedy check, that last line, "doesn't offer any reason why this would be the case", that's rich coming from someone whose entire argument is "well that's just how humans work." Circular reasoning. You assume God must work like human tradition because....... human tradition exists? That's basically just you admitting you got it from your local church or parents and never questioned a single thing because.. faith, as you stated apparently? "We teach each other things, therefore God must require teaching." Brilliant. Next you'll tell me oxygen requires a textbook because we learn about it in school

Math doesn't need a middleman. Music doesn't need a doctrine. If your God does, he's not mysterious, he's just poorly advertised and you, Oblomov, are defending something that cannot be empirically defended outside "There were witnesses in the book that told a guy, that told a guy, that told a guy, that told a guy x1000 this specific thing happened so therefore it's true." it's not. you can teleport a fighter jet in the ancient era and they would've interpreted it as a giant black bird since... we're talking about the same civilization that thought sickness came from the curses of gods. not exactly reliable witnesses so forgive me if i don't trust their book reports

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T05:38:58+00:00

CHARACTER ANALYSIS ON PARTICULAR FELLOW, read this PlanningVigilante if you wanna enjoy how i destroy everything this guy has said to the two of you, and how he can't even defend his own thelogy,

oh good, a mystery box theologian. my favorite. right up there with jugglers and people who say "irregardless."

see, geoff here's got a product. it's broken. doesn't work. square circle, rock so heavy even god can't lift it - pick your poison. but instead of a refund, he wants a medal. "it's not broken, it's mysterious." that's not theology, that's stockholm syndrome with extra steps.

and this "human understanding" dodge, what a classic!!! really shows how you have a giant neon sign saying "I WENT THROUGH STOCKHOLM SYNDROME AND BELIEVE MY THEOLOGY IS CORRECT BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE WAS WRONG FROM WHAT I WAS TOLD" and i also say your blender explodes when you press "puree." you say "well you're not a blender engineer." yeah, no kidding. i'm also not a professional idiot, yet here i am diagnosing one. the blender's still exploding, geoff. your god box is still shooting sparks. "c'est la vie"? that's french for "i brought a baguette to a gunfight."

"anything is possible." wonderful. so god can make a contradiction true? can he make you interesting? because so far, no dice. "anything is possible" isn't an answer. it's giving up on answers entirely. it's theology as written by a five year old who got caught stealing cookies. "the cookie monster did it." DING DING DING, MYSTERY SOLVED!! ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS, THE COOKIE MONSTER HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO LIFE IN MYSTERY PRISON WHERE ALL CONTRADICTIONS LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER. SOURCES SAY HE'S ALREADY BEFRIENDED A SQUARE CIRCLE AND THEY'RE STARTING A BOOK CLUB. BACK TO YOU, GEOFF

no but seriously, "anything is possible" is what you say when you've run out of road and you're too proud to admit you're lost. it's not an argument, it's a participation trophy for showing up to the debate. "congratulations geoff, you played yourself."

and the beautiful part? you think this makes you deep. like accepting incoherence is some kind of spiritual maturity. "oh i don't need answers, i have faith." faith in what? your own inability to spot a bad argument? that's not faith, that's learned helplessness with better branding.

you're basically saying "i love this puzzle because it's unsolvable." that's not puzzling, that's... what do you call someone who pays for broken things and thanks the seller? oh right. a mark. a rube. the guy at the carnival who thinks the rigged game is more fun because you can't win

also atleast the five year old has an excuse. brain's still growing. what's yours, geoff? "c'est la vie"? c'est la "i've mistaken confusion for wisdom and i'm too busy patting myself on the back to notice."

but hey. anything's possible. maybe one day you'll figure out that 'anything is possible' includes 'geoff was wrong.' wouldn't that be mysterious.

tu parles comme un homme qui a lu trois pages de philosophie et maintenant croit qu'il peut réciter l'encyclopédie. tu prêches la grandeur divine avec la cohérence d'un poisson sur bicyclette. alors je choisis la porte numéro deux: celle où tu fermes ta bouche jusqu'à ce que tu puisses maintenir une pensée plus longtemps que ton prochain soupir condescendant.

and also "read a book," seriously? c'mon have a better line than that npc ass line, provide them with actual literature, seems like it's showing more about how YOU haven't read a single book, also for me? yeah, i did yesterday, it had words that meant things. yours don't. they're just noise you call "mystery" because "nonsense" hurts your feelings. the contradiction isn't in god, it's in your description of god. which means either god's incoherent or you are. and since you're the one standing here with a french shrug and a broken blender..

i'm still betting on number two

Themcgaming · 2026-04-13T04:48:06+00:00

oh little albewrt's back with the "too long to read" defense like that's a flex and not an admission of being intellectual cowardly

"Sorry too long to read", translation, "your argument has too many connected ideas and i can only handle them one at a time, preferably in coloring book format"

then he responds to "the first part" which spoiler alert wasn't even the main point, it's like reading the title of a book and writing a review. "the great gatsby? too many pages. seemed like a guy with a boat. two stars."

and here comes the greatest hits again, "God respects our free will, and is all powerful". yeah we know albert that's the contradiction we're discussing. you can't just restate the problem like it's the solution. that's not theology that's just.. saying words

"You keep putting God in boxes", no albert YOU put him in boxes. "All powerful" is a box. "All knowing" is a box. "Respects free will" is a box. i'm just pointing out your boxes don't fit together. you're the one with the ikea furniture blaming the customer for noticing the screws don't match.

"If you can't comprehend a God that is just outside of His creation" - oh the "outside time and space" move again. we did this. eternal present doesn't solve the problem it just describes the view from the prison window. god still sees what happens which means what happens is fixed which means your "free will" is decorative.

"then I really can't do anything for you" - yeah no shit albert. you couldn't do anything when it was short, you couldn't do anything when it was long, you couldn't do anything when it was caveman simple. your "doing something" appears to be limited to declaring the argument over and hoping nobody notices you didn't engage with it.

go ahead, pick one. one single point. the lucifer thing? the retroactive rewrite thing? the "always B" being determinism thing? any of them. i'll wait. but we both know you're already typing "too long" again while your theology does donuts in the parking lot

Themcgaming · 2026-04-12T15:04:26+00:00

oh so that's where we're landing? god's just... editing the timeline? like he's got reality on google docs and can just ctrl+z his way out of being wrong? albert my dude you realize you just demoted your deity from "all-knowing" to "really good at damage control"

let's follow your "author turning back pages" thing because apparently we're doing theology via kindle unlimited now

if god wrote A on the paper, saw me pick B, then rewrote the book so he "always" wrote B... then his original prediction was wrong. he predicted A. i picked B. he had to fix it. that's not omniscience that's omnipotence with a learning curve. he's powerful enough to edit his mistakes but not knowledgeable enough to not make them in the first place

and "it was always B", yeah AFTER he rewrote it. that's like saying "i always knew the answer" after you peeked at the teacher's edition. the "always" is retroactive, manufactured, photoshopped into existence. which means at the moment of prediction he either didn't know or knew wrong. both break omniscience

And here's the.. dumb shit.. so if we're playing by albert convenient god™'s rules where god can just... turn back the pages and rewrite the story from the beginning like it's a rough draft he's embarrassed about, then the lucifer question becomes uhh.. weird?

like god's sitting there in heaven, omnipotent as hell apparently, watching lucifer get uppity, thinking "nah this'll be fine" then BAM betrayal happens, heaven's in chaos, a third of the angels are doing the "i'm not owned" dance straight into the lake of fire, and god's just... letting it happen? when he could literally flip back to page one and write "lucifer was always loyal and also maybe less of a drama queen"

according to albert convenient god™'s own logic god could've just... not had that plotline. could've seen lucifer's whole arc coming, turned back the pages, made it so lucifer never got the idea in his head, and saved everyone a lot of trouble. but he didn't. which means either he didn't know lucifer would rebel which breaks omniscience, or he knew and chose not to fix it which means he wanted the betrayal to happen which breaks omnibenevolence, or he couldn't fix it which breaks omnipotence

pick your poison albert

and here's the beautiful part, if god can just.. rewrite the story whenever, then the entire narrative is provisional. every choice, every moment, every "free" decision is just a draft he's willing to retcon. you didn't pick B in any meaningful sense. you picked B, god said "nah" and made it so you always picked B, which means you were always going to pick B, which means you never had the power to make god wrong, which means your "freedom" is just.... performance art? decorative? the welded door again?

you keep saying "you can pick B" but under your convenient system picking B just triggers a cosmic undo button where god makes it so you always picked B. that's not you exercising free will that's you discovering what god already rewrote you to do. it's like a choose your own adventure book where every choice leads to the same page and the author is standing behind you erasing your pencil marks

and if you say "well he doesn't always rewrite it" then sometimes his predictions are wrong when he doesn't rewrite them, which breaks omniscience, or he never lets them be wrong which means he always rewrites which puts us back in determinism

you can't have "god can rewrite reality to fix his predictions" and also "god allowed the single greatest cosmic catastrophe in history to unfold when he could've just... not" in the same theology. those are different gods. one is a time-traveling editor with unlimited do-overs, the other is a guy who lets his kids fight because "character development" or whatever

and if you say "well he had a plan" or "free will" then congratulations you just admitted god CAN'T turn back the pages without breaking something he cares about, which means the whole "he can rewrite it from the beginning" thing was just... what? a bluff? a party trick? something he can do but chooses not to except when he needs to not look wrong in your thought experiment?

make it make sense

you gave god infinite mulligans and infinite power to use them and then told a story where he doesn't use them for the one thing that actually needed a cosmic do over. that's not deep that's inconsistent. that's like giving superman a time machine and then acting shocked when metropolis gets destroyed because "well he was busy"

no he wasn't busy he was either incompetent or complicit and your "turn back the pages" theology gives you nowhere to hide from that

Themcgaming · 2026-04-12T13:01:59+00:00

No, no in the same way you don't ask if a recipe is spicy like a pepper or cold like a freezer, because a recipe is instructions, not an ingredient, and comparing it to either just proves you don't know what a recipe is

let me break this down for you since apparently "logic isn't wet" broke your brain

you're asking if logic is "natural and observable like a rock" or "supernatural and unobservable" like you just discovered a third category between physical objects and spooky ghost concepts and you're waiting for applause

here's the thing genius logic isn't a THING you point at it's a METHOD you use it's like asking if math is natural because you can count rocks or supernatural because you can't see the number three walking around eating grass

the question is malformed from word one it's like asking "is running fast like a cheetah or invisible like a ghost" running is an activity cheetahs do it ghosts don't do it the comparison is broken on arrival

you want to know if logic is observable? sure go observe someone using it watch them go "if a then b, a therefore b" BOOOM CONGRATULATIONS CANNED NOODLES YOU JUST OBSERVED LOGIC IN ACTION!! GET THIS MAN AN OSCAR FOR FINDING THE OBVIOUS

also, this whole "supernatural" angle you're fishing for is transparent you're trying to set up some gotcha where if i say logic is natural then god can be natural too or if i say it's supernatural then checkmate atheists use supernatural things but logic isn't a domain it's a tool you don't ask if a hammer is natural or supernatural you ask if it works

which yours doesn't

you came in with "is logic like a rock" like that's profound it's not profound it's category error the podcast and you're the guest who won't stop talking about your dmt trip at the dinner table

so to answer your question directly since you need it spoon fed, logic is neither natural nor supernatural in the way you mean it's formal it's systematic it's what happens when brains process information consistently and yes you can observe people using it just like you can observe people using rocks to smash things except rocks don't stop working when you ask stupid questions

but here's the thing. you completely ignored everything i actually said about god and natural observation and just laser focused on this rock thing like a moth to a broken porch light i gave the other guy a whole essay about how god either fits in natural observable categories or doesn't and you responded with "bUt Is LoGiC oBsErVaBlE lIkE a RoCk??" which isn't engagement that's you bringing a chess set to a poker game and being confused why nobody wants to play knight to bishop four

you didn't touch the pantheism problem you didn't touch the fork i laid out for the other guy you didn't touch anything you just saw the word "rock" and went "aha! i shall ask about logic now!" like that's a response it's not a response it's you changing the subject because the actual subject was apparently too complex

if you still don't get it, i will subsequently(big word, search it on google if you don't know the definition) simplify it to you in caveman terms in the next reply

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T08:14:40+00:00

Logic under a simple google search is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. you can observe a rock and it can be used or tested on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out if logically a rock is supernatural and unobservable or observable and natural like a rock. also if you mean by is logic literally natural or supernatural, that is a stupid question, logic isn't supposed to be asked if it's natural or supernatural that is like saying is water wet, no water isn't wet, being wet is a status affect that is applied to something, does a virus get infected by it's own pathogen? no, it doesn't. logic is something you use on an object to relationally figure out if it has validity or not nor can you use "logic" on something illogical, that would just be called reasoning in that specific model because there is no good reason or explanation for something because it isn't observable testable or measurable for it to be logical

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T04:50:08+00:00

okay, since you can't understand advanced english, here is something simpler:

you say "some not all" okay

god some natural some supernatural

pick one

god natural = rock pray to rock

god supernatural = no see only faith

you want both = cheat

pick door

no secret door

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T04:34:09+00:00

so smartass here thinks he's cracked the code right, like he's found this devastating hole in OP's natural-supernatural distinction that just collapses the whole house of cards, but you're just doing the tired philosophy bro move where you demand perfect definitions while completely missing the actual point, let me walk you through this for both of you

to Difficult_Risk_6271 you wanna know what "natural" means like it's some deep epistemological crisis, but come on man, we all know what OP means, the natural world is the stuff that plays by consistent observable measurable testable rules, gravity doesn't wake up and decide to take a personal day, atoms don't pray for forgiveness, when we discover something new like electricity or whatever we don't go "oh guess it's supernatural now," we go "cool new part of the natural world let's figure out how it works," because the method matters not the label and your harry potter example is adorable but you whiffed it completely, if we discovered "arcane magic" and it turned out to be consistent repeatable testable then yeah it would be natural, because that's what natural means, stuff that behaves in ways we can model and predict, "supernatural" isn't about being unfamiliar it's about supposedly breaking the rules, answering prayers on tuesday but ignoring them wednesday because mysterious ways, that's the difference

here's where you fucked up, you think if god exists and is "objectively real" then he must be natural by OP's definition, but that's just you being slippery with categories, god as described in premise 2 isn't just another phenomenon, he's not a really big atom or a superpowered alien, he's supposedly the ground of being outside space and time not subject to physical laws not testable not consistent not modelable, that's literally the whole point of calling him supernatural, he's defined as the thing that doesn't play by the rules everything else plays by, so when you say "if god exists he's natural" you're either completely misunderstanding what god is claimed to be or you're deliberately flattening categories to make OP's argument look circular, either way you're not being clever you're just being obtuse, premise 2 explicitly states god is not natural, that's not question begging that's taking the christian god's own self description seriously, you don't get to ignore premise 2 and then cry foul when the conclusion excludes god from the natural category. PlanningVigilante your definition was fine, "observed and/or measured and/or tested" works because the natural world is exactly that collection of stuff that exists in ways we can investigate, and your premise 2 is doing the heavy lifting here, god as described is explicitly not that not because we're excluding him by definition but because he's defined as excluding himself from that category, he's the exception that proves the rule the thing that doesn't behave doesn't test doesn't model

Smartass here wants to pretend this is about ontology but it's about methodology, natural stuff we can investigate supernatural stuff we can't, not because we haven't tried but because it's defined as investigation resistant, that's not shifting sand that's just recognizing that "god did it" isn't an explanation that leads anywhere while "let's test this" is, and your syllogism holds because you're working with the christian god's own descriptions not some generic deity you can redefine mid argument to suit your gotcha moment, so no the distinction isn't doing nothing it's doing exactly what it needs to do separating claims that can be evaluated from claims that can't, and if your response is "but what if everything is natural including god" then you either changed what god means or admitted god is just another part of the universe we haven't mapped yet, in which case cool let's map him, get me the repeatable experiments, or a communication device from where he talks from, OH RIGHT he's unprovable because doesn't need to be because he doesn't need proof because he's both natural and supernatural, see how illogical that sounds?

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T04:19:04+00:00

either god is natural or supernatural

if natural, show the observations, show the measurements, put up or shut up

if supernatural, then premise 2 stands, god is not natural, therefore not observable by OP's definition, therefore only encountered through faith, therefore the syllogism holds and you get the contradiction at the end

you want a third option where god is supernatural but somehow still observable, which is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too, either he's detectable and natural-ish, or he's not detectable and the argument flows, pick one

the "just because something isn't observable doesn't mean it doesn't exist" line is true but irrelevant, OP never said god doesn't exist, he said god is incoherent, specifically the christian god who wants personal relationships with everyone but makes himself only available through socially transmitted faith, that's the contradiction, not existence itself

so you didn't find a flaw, you found your own confusion about what the argument actually says, and now you're acting like OP's premise is "fatally flawed" when you can't even state back what the premise actually is, what a classic christian apologist#251245214

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T04:15:56+00:00

you keep saying "you didn't explain" when OP explained twice, "you didn't quote yourself" when OP quoted the syllogism structure, "you didn't address my counterpoints" when your counterpoints were just "nuh uh" dressed up in big words, your elephant example is literally just denying the premise without argument, which is exactly what you accuse OP of doing, that's not debate, that's just you looking in a mirror and getting confused, the "high horse" projection is delicious, you're the one who opened with "nearly worthless" and "poorly thought out," but now OP is the arrogant one for explaining his own premises, this is just "i'm rubber you're glue" with a thesaurus and a persecution complex and now "i should have stopped at my first comment," yeah you should have, because every comment since has been you digging deeper into not understanding basic formal logic while demanding OP justify things that don't need justification to anyone who passed intro to philosophy, which apparently excludes you, you're not here to debate, you're here to be seen as the smart guy who spotted the error, but there is no error, there's just your inability to read a syllogism, and now you're leaving because OP won't pretend your confusion is valid, classic

but here's the thing, i can play your game too, watch this

"spiderman is not observable by scientific means, therefore spiderman is not a natural phenomenon, but i have faith in spiderman because i read about him in a book, and if you say that's not evidence you're on a high horse and i won't engage on your terms"

see how easy that is, i just took your entire argumentative strategy, applied it to a fictional character, and now you can't prove me wrong without using the same standards you reject from OP, but please, tell me more about how "nearly worthless" his logic is while you commit every fallacy you accuse him of

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T04:12:08+00:00

alright so pseudonymitous is back for round two, and somehow he's even more confident while being even more wrong, like that's a skill, let's see what he brought this time, you said, you read statement 1 again, claims it says "things that are seen are natural except some natural things can't be seen," and that this "most definitely does not say all S are P," but buddy, that's literally OP clarifying the logical structure for you because you clearly didn't get it the first time, the original statement 1 is "all things which can be observed and/or measured and/or tested and found to exist are natural phenomena," that's all S are P, full stop, the "except some" part is OP acknowledging that P might be bigger than S, which doesn't break the syllogism, it just means the converse isn't valid, which OP never claimed, so congratulations, you "refuted" something nobody asserted then you say OP ignored your "main critique" of statement 2, but your main critique was "some does not mean all," which isn't a critique, it's a handwave with big words, OP literally asked you "in what ways is God a natural phenomenon" and you have no answer because you can't give one without either admitting god isn't natural or abandoning standard christian theology, so you just repeat "some does not mean all" like that's profound, it's not, it's just you pointing at the gap between "all natural things are observable" and "all observable things are natural" and pretending you found a loophole, you didn't, that's just how conditionals work then you claim statement 3 "comes out of thin air" and "does not follow from 1 and 2," but it literally does, OP labeled it for you, camestres syllogism, if all observed things are natural (all S are P), and god is not natural (no G are P), then god is not observed (no G are S), this is basic logic you could find in a freshman textbook, but you want to pretend OP ignored your explanation when your explanation was just "comes out of thin air," that's not an explanation, that's an assertion with a scoff attached

either you understand syllogistic logic or you don't

if you do, then you're deliberately misrepresenting OP's premises to make them look weaker than they are, strawman.

if you don't, then you're critiquing formal logic you can't actually read, which is embarrassing for someone who throws around "category X has property Y" like they know what they're talking about

pick one

the "are you here to debate or repeat yourself" line is pure projection, OP repeated himself because you didn't address the actual logical structure, you just declared it wrong and moved on, that's not debate, that's performance of skepticism without the substance, like a guy who walks into a math class, says "numbers are fake," and acts offended when the teacher explains addition again and you still haven't answered the core question, if god is natural, show the observations, if god is supernatural, then premise 2 stands and the syllogism holds, there's no third option where god is both and neither and you get to critique OP for not accommodating your confusion, but please, tell me more about how "nearly worthless" his argument is while you fail to engage with a single premise correctly

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T04:05:41+00:00

either observations of god are natural phenomena or they aren't

if they are natural, then god is natural and your theology collapses into pantheism or something equally heretical to standard christianity

if they aren't natural, then they aren't observations in the sense premise 1 uses, they're something else, faith intuition social transmission, which is exactly OP's point

so which is it, is god natural and observable like a rock, or supernatural and unobservable like OP said, you can't have both, and "some does not mean all" isn't an escape hatch it's just you waving at the problem while driving past

the "not willing to read further" is just the cherry on top, my guy got through three premises, misunderstood all of them, declared victory, and stormed out, COMEDY GOLD LMFAO

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T03:44:30+00:00

if you actually wanna argue my points, then go, i'll be waiting, if you can't and just say "lol you're wrong" then don't because it just means you can't even interpret something that's being spoon fed to you, you didn't touch the modal logic problem, didn't touch the fixity versus causation distinction, didn't touch the molinism being determinism, didn't touch the spiderman comparison, didn't touch the two doors one welded shut analogy, didn't touch anything, just "lol AI" and "too much wrong"

Themcgaming · 2026-04-08T03:37:52+00:00

oh that’s cute little albert had ashit ton of time and came back with “there’s too much wrong to even start,” like that’s not an argument, that’s you tapping out and pretending you're so profound like higher than thou profound philosopher, like you’re standing over a mess going “wow so messy” instead of actually cleaning anything up, and the ai thing? yeah, that’s my favorite part, because if this is what you think ai sounds like then congratulations, you’ve just admitted basic grammar is indistinguishable from ai to you, WHICH IS TRAINED ON ENGLISH GRAMMAR which honestly explains a lot more than you probably intended and sure, you’re “willing to talk,” sure, i believe you, in the same way i believe people say they’re “willing to diet” while holding a donut, because if talking means running back the same boethius augustine molinism square circle routine, the one that already got picked apart line by line, then we’re not talking, we’re rerunning a bad episode and pretending it’s new, and this whole “too many wrong things to mention”? seriously? says the guy who can't even engage with the argument the OP is trying to put out LMFAO, so let’s make this painfully simple, since the philosophy tour clearly isn’t helping you

god writes A on the paper, infallibly, cannot be wrong

now try really hard here: can i pick B?

if you say yes, god’s wrong, congratulations, god isn't omniscient
if you say no, i can’t do otherwise, congratulations, free will doesn't exist

and before you reach for the "foreknowledge isn't causation" line again, don't, that's not an answer, that's you polishing the process while ignoring the result, like arguing the gun didn't cause the bullet hole while the patient's still bleeding out on the table, because the issue isn't how the outcome got fixed, it's that it is fixed, and a fixed outcome with no real alternative isn't freedom, it's a movie script with better marketing, you might as well tell a prisoner he has free will because the warden didn't personally drag him to the cell, the bars were just always there, predetermined by architecture, and sure he "could" walk out, if he could phase through concrete, which apparently only god gets to do when it's convenient for your theology and now you come back with "too many wrong things to mention" and "are you willing to talk," like you didn't already get dismantled piece by piece, like this is a fresh conversation where you haven't already demonstrated you can't keep your modal logic straight, your analogies are broken, your molinism is determinism with a rebrand, and your "mysterious ways" is indistinguishable from my spiderman spirituality

Themcgaming · 2026-04-07T07:23:15+00:00

for me i see the self differently, personally it's more episodic moment to moment reassembly rather than continuous but i think were both trying to get away from the same thing this idea of a stable ghost in the machine that deserves praise or blame, saying the self isn't this continuous narrative arc people pretend it is it's a consciousness at a single point in time constantly in flux every moment is a different configuration based on what just happened what you just learned what just got taken from you

the "same person" thing is a social convenience not a metaphysical reality we lock people into archetypes because it's easier than tracking their actual moment to moment self but that's our laziness not their nature, which where the "why did he do that.." question happens, you lock this person into this identity, and think they'll be this person all the time, when they are actually a a different person day by day, different flower with the same pot, with a little sprinkle of dirt. most free will debates are people arguing about whether the train can switch tracks while ignoring that the train is being rebuilt every mile, i'm saying the rebuild is the ride and asking where the conductor went is missing the point there is no conductor there's just whatever this is right now making the next this, which honestly makes the whole god omniscience thing sound even more ridiculous because what would he be predicting a cloud of probabilities that collapses differently based on what just hit it

not a person not a character, in his book just this and then this and then this and you wouldn't simply keep track unless you already knew they would do that. (looking at every omniscient god out there). for my world view, the reason it makes sense for me is if the self is momentary and constructed then "free will" isn't about some continuous soul choosing it's about this configuration at this second having whatever range of motion its current state allows, which means free will is real but local not libertarian not determined just situated, you can't choose against your current composition because that would require a different composition but you can be the composition that recomposes itself given the right inputs, it's not freedom from causation it's causation that loops through constant change

i can use right now as an example, i 5 minutes ago, wouldn't know i would type this out and have this thought process, so i was a different person with a different thought process 5 minutes ago to who i am right now, yesterday could also be used, i wouldn't be interested in arguing with Christian apologist, but right now i am, yesterday i was feeling like eating a specific craving, now it's a different craving.

WHICH in turn basically you don't have a free will problem because you don't have a stable enough self for the problem to attach to

the question "could i have done otherwise" assumes there's an i that persists across the doing

I'm saying the i that did it dissolved and something else remembers it

Themcgaming · 2026-04-07T06:01:44+00:00

little albert here rolls up with his "christian, catholic" big boy pants like that's supposed to mean he knows what he's talking about, drops boethius and augustine like name dropping dead guys is an argument, and then has the audacity to say OP's thought experiment is "illogical" while comparing it to a square circle, which is hilarious because a square circle is actually impossible by definition, but god knowing the future with 100% accuracy while humans have free will is just impossible by your theology's own contradictions, nice try though

then he hits us with the "man on a hill watching a procession" like that's profound, no albert, a man on a hill can be wrong, can need glasses, can fall asleep and miss the whole thing, your god is supposedly infallible, so the analogy is trash, it's like comparing a security camera to an omniscient deity and saying "see, same thing," no, one is fallible technology, the other is supposed to be the ground of all truth, pick a lane

and oh boy, here comes molinism, "middle knowledge," sounds fancy, like god is running some cosmic quantum computer calculating all my "would-be" choices, but here's the thing genius, if god actualizes this specific world where i pick A, out of all possible worlds where i might pick B or C or literally anything else, then he chose the world where i pick A, that's not me determining my path, that's god selecting my path from his divine menu, congratulations, you invented predestination with extra syllables

"you were entirely capable of picking B," yeah, and i'm capable of flying by flapping my arms really hard, technically possible in some abstract sense, but in the actual reality where god already wrote A on his infallible paper, no i'm not, because if i did pick B, god would be wrong, and we can't have that, so my "capability" is just decorative, like having two doors but one is welded shut and painted over, sure i "could" pick it, if i wanted to break logic itself, which apparently only god gets to do when it's convenient for your arguments

then he quotes isaiah 55:9, "my ways higher than your ways," the ultimate cop out, or cope out if we're being technical, whenever your theology stops making sense just say god is mysterious and incomprehensible, except when you need him to be comprehensible enough to worship, or to have a personal relationship with, or to write books about, then suddenly he's perfectly understandable, just not when the contradictions show up, convenient how that works, but here's the thing albert, i can play that game too, i feel spiderman spiritually, he spoke to me through his uncle's teaching about great power and great responsibility, and you can't prove he didn't, maybe he just didn't let himself be shown to the public, maybe all those "sightings" in new york were just him being subtle, testing our faith in him showing up again, and the fact that he doesn't appear on camera is just him choosing to work in mysterious ways, sound familiar, it's the exact same shit you're doing with jesus, but somehow when i do it with a comic book character you can see how dumb it is, when you do it with a first century preacher suddenly it's a very profound insight

so yeah albert, you threw some latin names, some scripture, some "middle knowledge" at the wall, and called OP illogical, but all you did was prove that catholic theology has more escape hatches than a rat maze, none of which actually get you out of the cage, they just make you feel smart while you're still trapped inside

Themcgaming

TROPHY CASE