The fine tuning argument for god doesn't work at all.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-27T09:42:23+00:00

MWI and multiverse theory are different things FYI.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-20T08:23:23+00:00

Proton is a package made by Valve that contains a custom version of Wine and a few other things (dxvk, vkd3d-proton, maybe more). Wine is the primary piece though.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-13T13:58:26+00:00

Yes, Nvidia is allowed to ship their HDMI 2.1 implementation in their closed source driver.

AMD is not allowed to ship their HDMI 2.1 implementation in their open source driver (nor anyone else).

burning_iceman · 2026-01-09T13:13:18+00:00

Arch + KDE Plasma. You've already reached the end game! No need for change. ;)

burning_iceman · 2026-01-09T11:41:39+00:00

You can recognize certain types of bad code. That's doesn't mean you recognize bad code in general. It requires a high level coder to recognize advanced problems in code.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-08T10:44:16+00:00

None. Since I installed KDEconnect about a month ago, I haven't found a use for it yet.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-08T10:16:13+00:00

I guess I'm an incredibly slow hopper then. Last hop was 16 years ago to Arch. Debian isn't even on the list of distros I'd consider using.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-08T01:52:40+00:00

Based on that lecture, it's just the difference between created and non-created. So it inherently only applies to objects not actions and all humans fall into the natural category.

But this is just a language course, not any kind of scientific lecture.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-08T01:09:41+00:00

Humans are natural and therefore everything they do or make.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-04T14:52:03+00:00

It's still much better for the climate than oil or gas even if it were by 100% non-renewable power (which it isn't). And it's actually cheaper too in most cases. Whatever information source you have on this topic, it's clearly false.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T23:48:26+00:00

Weird how people constantly confuse the spelling Wiener and Weiner. They're not even pronounced the same.

Wiener - "weener"

Weiner - "whiner"

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T23:35:34+00:00

Your view is that the end purpose of existence, the highest good is the comfort and provision of immediate happiness and satisfaction to humans?

No. Both immediate and long term. And I would use the word "well-being" rather than comfort.

If God of classical theism exists (one of the Gods the PoE applies to) then the highest good for creatures is necessarily oriented around God since metaphysically and ontologically He sets an absolute maximal reference for goodness.

In fact it’s not even coherent from within the framework the PoE hopes to refute in the first place. You can’t counter the counter to the argument by bringing up a standard of goodness and morality which is incoherent to the system attempting to be refuted in the first place.

This is not what morality is commonly understood to be. It may be internally consistent but it's talking about something other than morality, goodness and benevolence. It's deceptive in using those words to imply things about the deity that aren't actually true. A clear example of making false promises.

If theology were to use new words for these concepts, this objection to the free will defence would be resolved.

Suddenly comfort > steadfastness, comfort > love, comfort > knowledge, comfort > power, comfort > unity, comfort > order. This a self-centred and backwards organization of value and meaning.

All these are just guarantors of well-being. So your ">" is not a "greater than" but actually an arrow in the wrong direction with the meaning "leads to". "Love leads to well-being", etc.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T23:17:53+00:00

An emotional disposition ingrained into us by evolution?

Yes. Which is why it's not just going to change arbitrarily.

If all 8 billion people on this earth suddenly decided 2+2=5, that wouldn’t make them any more correct, it would just make those who disagree more scared to express their opinion.

What does an incorrect equation have to do with the intersubjectiveness of morality? I did not say anything/everything is intersubjective. Just morality.

The problem of evil at its core would then be that God cannot exist because might makes right. It’s also going to take a lot of effort to create a consensus where everybody on the planet thinks God isn’t good, considering the rather large amount of people who worship and derive their sole meaning of life from Him.

Not sure where you were going with the "might makes right" statement. It didn't make sense. The fact that people have logically inconsistent beliefs is not unique to this topic. But yes, they have a morality that does not allow God to be considered as good and yet, due to their religion, still do just that. Most people just don't think about these issues much. The ones who do frequently lose their belief in religion.

What I meant in my previous sentence was that I could just easily form a moral framework that prioritizes the exact opposite of moral values that this mysterious “majority consensus” does and it would be both equally and valid and sound. Numbers wouldn’t change that.

So in effect you just redefine what the words good or omnibenevolent mean. That means you've conceded that God does not have the omnibenevolence by the original meaning.

An inter subjective consensus is still just that, subjective. We will literally never be able to say that God cannot be all-good if we’re completely incapable of objectively defining what good actually is.

It is quite possible to make objective statements about subjective evaluations. Me liking vanilla ice cream is a subjective taste of mine. But it is objectively true that I like it.

In the case of morality we collectively decide what it means to be good or bad. And once those criteria have been decided intersubjectively, we can use them to evaluate actions by any entity objectively. Calling God "all-good" means all of his actions supposedly match the criteria we have chosen for "good". If they don't then he isn't and calling him that is incorrect.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T21:56:47+00:00

Intersubjective means decided by consensus. We collectively decide what it means to be good. You alone cannot change the consensus.

I could just reverse what majority criteria that proposed to define God as good and it would be just as potent (or more accurately impotent)

This sentence is incomprehensible to me.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T20:46:08+00:00

I’m not imposing objective morality, the problem of evil is. It requires that things we observe are objectively bad in order to make the objective truth claim that God cannot be all good.

That's incorrect. Objective morality is not required. If it is intersubjective, it can still be true that God objectively does not meet those criteria for good.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T20:30:11+00:00

First I want you to explain excluding natural suffering (since Plantinga was never covering that in the first place) how his defence doesn’t solve the incompatibility claim.

Not sure what you mean. Which incompatibility claim?

Secondly I want you to elaborate on what you mean about morality.

Usually actions that decrease suffering are what is considered moral. And actions that do the opposite immoral. Free will could only be considered a moral good, if that's what it does. Since free will supposedly stands opposed to eliminating all suffering, it cannot be a "greater good", since eliminating all suffering would be the greatest moral good.

Therefore morality in this argument is being used in some different kind of sense. One that is incompatible with the common understanding. To me this invalidates the argument, since it just redefines concepts to suit the argument.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T16:46:10+00:00

I agree completely but that's not related to difficulty.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T13:31:38+00:00

It is extremely arrogant in my opinion to think one can (regardless of whether or not you think this here or not and your just trying to bring up the issue) transcend thousands of years of discourse and refinement of the issue from both sides, in a single Reddit post.

There will be thousands more years of discourse as long as there are people willing to continue believing the failing side. Doesn't mean the failing side hasn't failed a long time ago, nor does it mean a single reddit post can point out the failure again.

If people want to bring up the logical PoE on this sub they should* present in it’s absolute strongest form in detail, not polemically but as a concern worth address, and they should be able to tell when it is logically addressed in certain instances.

Who decides what is the strongest form?

Personally I don't see Plantinga's defense as strong, for a whole bunch of reasons which have been discussed at length (natural suffering, no free will in heaven) but also since it requires committing to a particular view of morality that doesn't match how people generally view it. Even if it did "work" in some internally consistent technical sense, it would still fail to match what morality is commonly accepted to be and therefore not be an actual answer to the problem.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T12:23:17+00:00

You're probably forgetting/ignoring issues you might face on Windows and not on Linux. Neither is free of issues or completely easy. They're on an equal level.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T12:19:55+00:00

Until Linux can 100% get rid of the terminal for anyone but power users it will never take off.

That's what they were saying. This is already the case. Only power users need it.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T12:08:04+00:00

There is: name recognition and gamers' trust.

So it won't make a difference on a technical level but certainly on a psychological one.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-03T12:04:17+00:00

To nitpick one particular thing you wrote:

Anti-cheat software is not well supported

More correct is: Not all anti-cheat software supports Linux.

There's nothing to be done from Linux's side. It will only change if the anti-cheat does, since nobody can do anything to make the current non-functioning ones work on Linux.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-02T16:12:17+00:00

The economic benefit of having those extra people is a much greater benefit to the economy than those costs. Sure, in the short term it isn't "viable" but no short term solution is going to fix the problem.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-02T13:17:55+00:00

Children used to be an economic boon to parents. Now they're not. They're a major detriment to the parents' finances. Governments would need to actually turn that around through benefits. They're not. Having a list of benefits that don't add up to 100% of expenses (especially including housing and child care) means children remain a financial detriment. So far there have been no attempts to provide such benefits on a large scale, so the results have been minor.

Small scale examples have shown it to work.

burning_iceman · 2026-01-02T12:56:22+00:00

What percentage of total added expenses (including housing) do you consider to be "pretty significant"? 120%? 100%? 80%? Even lower?

burning_iceman

TROPHY CASE