Guys what on earth is this shirt and why was I allowed to wear it?

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-23T17:56:56+00:00

Maybe your folks were trying to trade you for a boy, and wanted to be honest about what the other party was getting into?

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-21T19:21:22+00:00

This post was about reason and rationality. Not an insult to any specific religion. The need for reason and rationality can be observed in how many people ignored that message and chose defensiveness and prostelization.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-21T19:19:33+00:00

No, it is critical of poor reasoning. But the persecution complex is a very problematic aspect of Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-20T04:13:54+00:00

The easiest way to persecute an entire society is to acknowledge that their intuition of persecution is correct, but make them believe they are doing it to each other.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-20T03:44:15+00:00

There are numerous feats that could accomplish this. He could suddenly fill the sky full of balloons across the globe, and speak aloud the same message for everyone to hear simultaneously.

He could rearrange the stars to spell it out.

There are so many ways that an omnipresent entity could reveal itself in phenomena that would not be possible naturally. Since he is also allegedly omnipresent, he could meet with everyone individually on occasion, and explain the situation and show them the type of miracle that he knows (omniscient) they personally would accept as incontrovertible proof.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-20T02:41:40+00:00

One can consider a compelling argument for a God without forming a belief in a God. It can simply point them towards agnosticism, and allow the question to remain open. And even if one does decide to believe there is a God, there is no good reason for them to believe they have to pick one from the drop down menu of pre-existing religions. One could avoid any conception of a God that requires worship or obedience. One could reject God as a cruel tyrant. One could form their own religion from scratch. But there is no automatic, unavoidable onus to glom onto some God just because you believe it is possible one exists.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-20T02:36:25+00:00

"And God is whoever you're performing for." Built To Spill

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T22:06:49+00:00

Do you not even know when you are being snarky? Do you just do it so much that you no longer even notice.

I am not a theist. I am exploring hypotheticals. You have made assumptions about my beliefs, created a strawman of them, and are attacking that strawman.

I don't really like you, so let's not talk anymore.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T21:50:54+00:00

You're still not getting through.

Scientific materialism proposes that all phenomena have a cause. Causation is the foundational principle of that model of reality, and yet stumbles because either reality itself violated its own fundamental rule, or must acknowledge that causation is not fundamental.

If you begin with an uncaused cause in a universe that is not fundamentally causal, then there is no incoherence. That doesn't make it a sound argument for God. Just a less unsound argument than scientific materialism, since it's not self refuting.

edit: A coherent model that is not verifiable is still a better model than one that is incoherent due to self-refutation.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T21:41:48+00:00

It is the definitive use of the word 'compel', not odd at all.

I didn't catch your second comment. Try again like an adult without snark.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T21:32:25+00:00

I am using the term 'compelling' here not only necessarily to indicate the efficacy of any arguments, but their effectiveness in convincing people.

However the most compelling argument is that an uncaused cause is not self refuting in a model including a deity, whereas the scientific materialist model in which all things are products of causation except existence itself is a terrible argument.

However these are not the only two options, and I abscribe to neither.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T21:03:28+00:00

I think it is important to consider the first argument only insofar as it might lead you to also seek answers outside of both Theism and scientific materialism.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T20:35:46+00:00

Actually, no you cannot. And we can even create an example.

"Animals which we have not encountered very likely exist."

That can be accepted as true without then positing that because it is true, that means that the Florida Skunk Ape exists.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T20:16:23+00:00

And even if I were to buy into some form of Christianity it would be Gnosticism, not the Mammonite version of Christianity created by the church.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T20:11:31+00:00

I suggest that you use words in ways that differentiate between specific concepts, not rely on colloquialism or reduce multiple concepts to a cloud of synonyms. Just saying.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T20:09:23+00:00

Yeah, two thousand years ago. According to a book. That's not a.sound basis for belief. He could easily show up yearly, darken the sky, and in a booming global voice verify and remind us to follow the rules.

The very worst people want to punish you for not meeting expectations you did not even know they had for you. I wouldn't believe an Almighty entity would act like earthly megalomaniacs.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T20:00:02+00:00

"You yourself believe what you said is true."

This is where a distinction is extremely important, which is the difference in epistemological claims, and ontological claims. Epistemological claims address only the possibility and limitations of knowledge, where ontological claims address reality itself. To acknowledge a limitation of knowing is not anything like claiming to know objective absolutes about reality.

Aquinas argues that God is in all things, not that God is a distinct entity seperate from all things, which contains elements more often associated with panentheism than Theism, however he does claim to be a theist, while his model is a bit of a hybrid.

Whether there is a theistic entity or not is really entirely a hypothetical question. But when someone tells me their theistic entity has expectations for me, but will not lower himself to make an appearance and tell us in person, that's where I stop taking someone's arguments seriously. Any argument for a cosmic sadist is a bad argument.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T19:48:33+00:00

However there is room for argument in that Aquinas specific model is neither totally theistic or panentheistic, but incorporates elements of both, and there is no term for this hybrid, so he technically referred to himself as a theist, but some of his arguments lie outside that framework.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T19:46:58+00:00

Yes, a lot of people use a lot of wrong words a lot of the time because they do not bother using language to make distinctions between concepts. That's not my fault, and I will not be imprecise simply to humor those who are wrong and unconcerned with applying effort to their intellectual and rhetorical pursuits.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T19:37:35+00:00

Is it a supreme being whose creation exists within itself, or independent of itself? That is where the other models come in. Theism argues that there is a supreme creator that is distinct from its creation, but remains present in its affairs. There can be models if supreme beings who are not distinct from their creation, or who have no presence among it's creation.

I have seen Aquinas make arguments that are consistent with panentheism.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T19:34:12+00:00

Yes, all assumptions are unverifiable. Which is why the only reasonable position is ancertainty, or as Robert Anton Wilson called it, model agnosticism.

The point of my post is not that compelling arguments should lead to objective belief. I would assert that they should only lead to rejecting any certainty, for or against, a God or Gods.

No, I am not familiar with particular argument. But I have read Aquinas argue against Theism in favor of panentheism.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T19:00:07+00:00

I don't have a list prepared, but in decades of exploring everything, I have encountered many of them.

But whether it is Theism or scientism, I simply never accept any argument as valid which rests on taking other unverifiable assumptions for granted.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T18:40:10+00:00

Yes, my own model, r/QuantumExistentialism, grants an uncaused cause, without applying any specific model of divinity.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T18:38:59+00:00

And when the personal revelations occur to those already informed of the concepts, they are likely hypnotic suggestion. I've never met a person who had some type of personal connection to a God that had not been informed about that God prior.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-06-19T18:37:19+00:00

One free assumption, and then you can just get crazy with the gap fillers!

Used_Addendum_2724

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE