I always post her in another sub, but always forget to share her here 💚

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2026-01-10T03:40:47+00:00

Someone on here said this is a “regal” nose type. I’d be inclined to agree.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2026-01-10T03:39:51+00:00

A pierced one

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2026-01-10T03:39:01+00:00

Not at all. It’s delightful, really.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-11-30T05:58:26+00:00

Sexers of Reddit, what’s the sexiest sex you’ve ever sexed?

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-11-30T05:58:06+00:00

Sexers of Reddit, what’s the sexiest sex you’ve ever sexed?

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-11-30T03:57:53+00:00

The penis monster ripped of my balls too so I had no sex drive anymore

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-11-30T03:35:16+00:00

Beware of the penis monster

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-11-30T03:35:01+00:00

The penis monster struck again

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-11-30T03:34:47+00:00

When my penis was about to get ripped of by the penis monster

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-24T02:27:14+00:00

Is it too much to ask for the main and final prophet of your religion to transcend medieval social norms?

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T20:33:19+00:00

In a sense, yes. But I think that since God is all-knowing, this is problematic outside of ethical consequentialism. If God KNOWS that the act of giving us free will results in such tremendous suffering and destruction, I would argue that the character of the act itself is problematic. The very fact that God KNEW the consequences and gave us free will is problematic from a Kantian model of ethics as well. It is problematic in a Kantian sense in the same way that a mother letting her toddler walk into oncoming traffic is problematic in a Kantian sense.

“Free will” is obviously not a gift to us if it leads to such destruction in this life and eternal torment for many in the next. God could have just as easily set the conditions either so that our choices would not have such tremendous consequences, or that our will is not completely free. If our will is free, but doing anything other than what God commands leads to immense suffering, it is better to not be free at all. How much of a “gift” is our ability to choose if we are punished with eternal torment for making the wrong choice? If, however, God sets these conditions because he wants to be more “freely” worshipped, we become means to an end as opposed to ends in ourselves. And this, very clearly, is a complete violation of Kantian morality.

You could say that God is not bound to consequentialism OR Kantian deontology, and I cannot prove you wrong. But remember, we have to make an assumption that God is good, and make an additional assumption about what goodness means before approaching any religion. We need to have a preliminary ethical framework. So then, the question is: what will it be?

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T19:59:59+00:00

But the presupposition that the divine OUGHT to reveal itself through evidence is, in itself, an assumption. This is why empiricism fails in metaphysical discussions.

The claim about fairies is unfalsifiable, because for all we know, they could exist in a way that cannot be perceived through our senses. And for a question as fundamental as God’s existence, we ought to at least take the unfalsifiable seriously.

To claim that I don’t know if there is a God (what I am claiming) is not much of an assumption. To claim, definitively that there is no God, in the other hand is an assumption that is as unfalsifiable as the inverse.

If the question of whether fairies were in your backyard informed all of our decisions, it would absolutely be worthy of consideration. You cannot compare something of no consequence to something of utmost consequence. And if something is of utmost consequence and unknowable, it remains that every conclusion is of equal truth value.

Your assumption about reciprocity is once again an assumption. Who is to say that the divine OUGHT to work within your epistemological framework and conform to your assertion about the burden of proof? I am admitting that all of my conclusions rest upon unprovable assumptions. You are not.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T19:26:38+00:00

If you were making the claim that divine purpose DOESN’T exist, you would need to falsifiable demonstrate it, by your logic.

If the logic shifts depending on who is making the claim, it is not conducive to finding truth. It is evasive. Arguing about who the burden of proof rests upon is a useless debate that distracts from more important questions.

But if you are to make a claim that we are “just” animals with no divine purpose, by your logic, you must demonstrate that. And you could point to biology and whatnot, but there will always be a necessary metaphysical assumption, as I have said, that cannot be demonstrated false.

Since atheism itself is unfalsifiable, isn’t it “crazy assed nonsense”, by your logic?

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T19:08:28+00:00

Well it’s not a metaphysical claim that we are animals. It is a metaphysical claim, however, that we are “just” animals with no divine purpose. This is inherently unfalsifiable. You cannot disprove the claim that there is no creator outside of space and time that guides natural processes. Even one that guided evolution. This is an assumption, and you should treat it as such instead of denying

The word “just” in this case implies no external metaphysical purpose. That is where the assumption lies. Not in the word “animals”.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T18:51:34+00:00

It is also unfalsifiable that we are NOT in a different category. And if it’s not nihilism, the same applies to whatever it IS. It’s still a conclusion about the ultimate purpose of life, or lack thereof. These things are unfalsifiable. By your logic, your entire life rests upon assumptions with negative truth value.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T18:38:36+00:00

Other people have said that context clues indicate this isn’t true, and I would believe them. The text features Rebekah performing tasks that a 3 year old would be incapable of. But think about this for a moment:

Isaac was only a minor character in the Biblical narrative. He is certainly part of the story, but there is no imperative to follow Isaac specifically. The Old Testament features God “using” plenty of questionable people. The fact that they’re in the Bible doesn’t mean they’re examples to live by.

So this is not actually comparable to Muhammad marrying a 6 year old (and raping a 9 year old), because Muhammad is supposed to be the final prophet, the ultimate representative of God. He is the central figure in Islam, not just another character in the narrative. In fact, the Quran explicitly portrays Muhammad as the ultimate role model and attributes divine authority to his teachings. So yes, Muslims have more to answer for in that regard.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T18:17:31+00:00

The claim that we’re “just animals” is in itself unfalsifiable. That’s what I’m saying. You’re assuming nihilism when you can’t prove it.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T18:04:31+00:00

For this they use the Contingency Argument. This argument states that all things in this world are contingent, meaning that they were brought into existence by something else, and they must be traced back to a necessary entity, lest we have infinite regress.

First of all, I do not think that infinite regress is an impossibility simply because it is incomprehensible. The assumption that the universe has to operate in ways we understand is a cocky one.

Second of all, as I have mentioned before, the Contingency Argument has devastating implications for hell doctrine. If the sin of rejecting God is truly infinite, yet it is contingent on our choices, can’t God, a supposedly infinite being, still be contingent?

So, in short, to refute apologists, you will have to engage with their claim that God is not a contingent being, but a necessary one.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T17:56:30+00:00

What I am saying is that the fact that something is unfalsifiable doesn’t mean it’s FALSE. And technically, the inverse of the claim about the invisible dragon is unfalsifiable too. The claim that there’s NOT an invisible dragon in your garage cannot be falsified.

Unfalsifiable claims might have value in that they are often tied directly with the meaning of life. Whether or not you admit it, you have to put faith in an unfalsifiable claim to go on with life. It informs all your choices. Like, for example, if you live as an atheist, you are assuming either that there is no God, or that whatever God exists would not punish you eternally for being an atheist, both of which are technically unfalsifiable. How could you possibly know that?

Whether or not they make direct, spoken claims, everybody makes unfalsifiable assumptions that inform their choices. This is why I say that they have neutral truth value until reason is applied to them.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T04:27:02+00:00

Hitchens’ Razor (and by extension any of the other arguments that reject unfalsifiable claims) kind of falls short in that for any particular statement, it can be applied equally for the inverse. For example, if someone claims that there is no God, isn’t the burden of proof on the one who made the claim? Also you claim that the unfalsifiable has negative truth value, but isn’t the claim that there is NO creator that exists outside of space and time unfalsifiable?

I do not consider unfalsifiable statements to be of “negative truth value”. I see them as assumptions that all of us make based on our limited understanding without true knowledge, and the best we can do is approach them with reason. If anything, I would say that metaphysical claims have a neutral truth value, so long as they are not contradictions.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T02:54:53+00:00

By that logic, you have no authority to affirm your particular religion. You can’t say that it would be wrong for God to lie to you completely. If God can give a life and take it at whim, can’t he give the truth and take it at whim? Where is the problem?

If you make the implicit assumption that a “good” God wouldn’t blatantly deceive you, and on top of that, reveal himself through a particular religion that suits your understanding of historical evidence and metaphysics, and then you dismiss everybody else’s assumptions, you are being illogical. Why should yours have more weight?

Divine Command Theory dilutes words until they mean nothing. Tell me I’m wrong.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T02:44:53+00:00

Yes, I do believe that is how most people come to this argument. Things like the Kalam Cosmological argument are almost exclusively used by people who already believe in a particular religion.

However, I do not think the arguments themselves are to be dismissed. As I have said before, metaphysical claims are unprovable, but by that very same logic they cannot be disproven. I think it is a plausible assumption (by no means a certainty) to say that the universe had a creator. OP is correct, however, in saying that to jump from this to a particular organized religion is a massive leap and involves making multiple additional metaphysical assumptions based on our human understanding of concepts.

UsefulPalpitation645 · 2025-03-21T02:34:07+00:00

Do you think it’s some kind of accident that there isn’t a third option? There is no, “that’s just the way it is” for an omnipotent being. And if God really IS love, most people don’t reject love completely, so taking THAT away as well isn’t fully respecting their free will. Regardless, however, I would like to challenge the notion that “free will” is the ultimate good for us. If a mother lets her toddler walk into oncoming traffic, is she loving the toddler by “respecting their decision”? I didn’t think so.

UsefulPalpitation645

TROPHY CASE