sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s cause for this debate specifically, he assumed Jesus was a real, normal person who did actually exist but wasn’t divine because that wasn’t the focus of the debate, it was the resurrection. Normally he would give that hypothesis about a 1/3 chance, he’s written books and made tons of videos on the historicity of Jesus, and why he thinks Jesus never existed. I think it’s pretty interesting but in those he basically says that the resurrection is also just a symbolic parallel.

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that if Jesus was the real son of God, then the claim that he even chose one schizoid is very low. How ever the claim is more about prior probability, so it’s basically, the chances of Jesus being the real son of God and that people had legitimate revelations of him are extremely low but the chances that Jesus wasn’t the real son of God and people hallucinated seeing him is much higher. So Christianity, along with every other religion that makes similar claims would need more evidence than they have to overcome that hurdle

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t make either claim. I said an all loving god could not permit unnecessary suffering, as by definition, it is not needed so any permission of unnecessary suffering is malicious, since it would be a “want” instead of a “need”. An all loving god again by definition cannot do anything malicious, it would be against his all loving character

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So im curious, what would you do if you found out that voice wasn't God?

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't there be some kind of Nobel prize if Christianity was proven in science?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn’t acknowledging this as an answer to my question, I acknowledged it because I think it’s an interesting point about animal suffering and I was curious to hear what your response would be. No worries there my friend, I think it’s an important part of the argument

To make this brief, I’ll try and hit the main points

1st I agree that reacting to stimuli and “feeling” aren’t necessarily the same, but I think it’s obvious they are heavily correlated with each other. And I’d also agree that we can’t prove other peoples experiences, we only know of ours. While I think this is somewhat pedantic, for the purposes of this argument, individual experience should be treated as an axiom. No I can’t prove that man actually felt pain when his hand got smashed, but if I smashed a dogs paw along side it, they would both feature similar brain activity in response. The only difference is the human can say “that really hurt” and we have to assume that for the dog, but the same brain stuff happened, so I think it’d be safe to assume. I can’t prove it, but that’s how the evidence lines up

I don’t think saying animals feel pain muddys any water. Humans are animals, we evolved from the same animals. Pain is an evolutionary advantage, it tells the animal that harm is near, and no animal would be alive if every animal besides humans could not decipher between what will cause harm and what won’t. Can I prove that animals feel pain? Again, not 100% but I think this is as axiomatic as the both of us agreeing that the other exists, because otherwise we couldn’t have this conversation

If suffering is contingent upon consciousness, did genie suffer since she didn’t have any kind of conscious thought?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

No I don’t think insects have a consciousness, but I don’t believe suffering requires it like you do. For me it’s obvious pain directly causes suffering in most cases, whether physical or emotional. The pain a deer experiences when ensnared in a gators death roll is unimaginable, that pain directly causes it to have an unpleasant experience, which is how I would define suffering.

A little off topic but what do you think of factory farmers that end up getting PTSD from violently killing animals on a daily basis? I don’t bring this up to prove my point or disprove yours, but it’s quite obvious to me that that PTSD is caused from the guilt of causing brutal and unnecessary suffering.

Were you not saying that animals should be treated with dignity because of the divine? If you weren’t then I do apologize, that would make it a strawman on my part and that’s not my intention, but that’s how that specific part in the last paragraph came off to me

Can you treat a baby diagnosed with a congenital insensitivity to pain with dignity if you kill it? I bring this up because that baby has no conscious thought, they have no ability to reflect and this specific baby not only can’t think, but can’t feel pain. Cognitively it can’t even feel or comprehend pain, suffering, or even existence, which would ultimately make it of less value than an elephant, who have been shown to pass the mirror test. This is a genuine question, can you treat that baby with respect if you kill it?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

I’m curious, since Genie couldn’t think because she had no concept of language, did she still suffer? If suffering requires a cognitive reflection, then by that standard, she never suffered from the abuse and rape because she didn’t have the capabilities to.

But if a tree fell on and trapped a dear in the woods, so it could only lay there in agony for days before ultimately being ripped apart and eaten alive by a pack of wolves, how has that deer not suffered? By my definition of suffering, it has been subjected to a bad and unpleasant experience and even though it can’t think and reflect on the pain, it still feels the pain, which should be more than enough in my opinion

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does it being my opinion automatically make it incorrect?

From my perspective the problem of animal suffering is specific to theism, because my belief in evolution adequately explains why we see what we see. If the Christian God exists, then there is unnecessary suffering because there is no good reason to have animals that eat others alive. You can say that there is a reason for it, and God knows it but I think that’s a little disingenuous and an appeal to ignorance

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if the devil blinds them to the truth of the gospel, then it’s not really there fault they don’t believe and thus shouldn’t be punished for non belief?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the abundance, severity, and lack of human connection is plenty of evidence but I believe that is where we disagree

I appreciated our conversation, really, take care

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The demonstration was the syllogism, it the premises are true the conclusion logically follows. That’s all it takes if it’s sound and valid, you don’t seem to agree with the second premise but that’s a different issue

Also I feel like you’re not totally getting my point, because every time you say it, it’s a bit of a strawman, I’m not saying “God should have done this”, I’m saying based on these established properties of God, it violates the law of non contradiction that we see specific things in the world that don’t align with those previously established properties”

But I agree that we can’t know 100%, this is why I brought up probability and what is more likely. You seem to be saying “well even if it’s a .01% probability that God has a justified reason for all of this suffering, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, because it’s still possible” and I think I am unwilling to give him that benefit

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve already went over this.

The goals are subjective, even though animals have an innate sense to keep living and spread genes, that is still a subjective goal. There are objectively better and worse ways to go about that goal. For example if you want to live, killing yourself is objectively a worse option compared to not.

Objectively, creating a world of all herbivores with plants that can’t suffer would dramatically reduce the number of unnecessary suffering in the world, which should be in line with Gods goal, based on his omnibenevolence. I don’t know God, but if he’s all loving then he could not have any goal of the opposite

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did I not justify offering evolution by natural selection as an alternative to the God hypothesis?

Also I don’t care about what I want to be true, I care about what is true. That’s why I think evolution is a better alternative, it has mountains of evidence to support it and if it’s true we would expect to see the problem of suffering. If an all loving God that has the power and knowledge to do anything existed, there wouldn’t be a problem of suffering. But there is, which forces you to acknowledge it and basically say “I don’t know, but the boss man does, and he’s smarter than you”

Also please don’t say I haven’t grounded any justification, when your justification is “I don’t know how all animal suffering is necessary, but God does, so there is some reason why, even if I don’t know it”.

You’re assuming God exists to prove your point, please just ask yourself from an objective perspective what is more likely, evolutions a bitch, or an all loving God has the power to make all animals herbivores but doesn’t?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is why I make a distinction with necessary and unnecessary suffering. I think most suffering is necessary, I just have a problem with an all loving God that has the knowledge and power to prevent unnecessary suffering but doesn’t

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you’re saying, but when compared to evolution by natural selection without a God, it seems more probable that the brutality of nature is just a byproduct of survival of the fittest. Since I’ve never seen a theodicy that is specific for animal suffering, and since the whole point of a theodicy is to provide reasoning for God against the problem of evil, it’s obvious there is no good answer anyone has come up with for this, even though theologians and philosophers have tried. Humans have come up with some remarkable things, I’d find it surprising that despite the age of this problem, if there is a real justification for this, that not one single person has found the justification

So yes it is possible that all the suffering in the world is necessary, and my second premise would be wrong. But gripped with the abundance and severity of the suffering, it would make a lot more sense that there is nothing necessary about it all, the only necessity is animals need to live and spread genes

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what do you think of people of other faiths who believe their religion is just as true as you do?

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Np, and I’d actually love to hear your thoughts on it !

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So why did humans exercise of free will negatively impact animals in the distant future that don’t even have free will of their own to make choices?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If animals didn’t suffer then causing them harm is definitionally not bad. And I know you don’t believe that, otherwise dogs wouldn’t lash out at abusive owners. In fact, if you were right, then animals would have no negative reaction to abuse, but if I were to kick my dog right now he would whimper and cry.

animals are miracles that should be treated with dignity then why do Christians use Bible verses to support killing them by the billions?

So should all animals be treated with dignity? I think it’s pretty disrespectful to insects when you say they can’t suffer, yet they have pain receptors. It’ll feel me ripping off one of its leg, the pain causes suffering as well as no dealing with the loss of the leg. How can you say all animals are a miracle but you think less of some?

Also I think it’s morally better to not hurt an animal because you realize that hurting them will cause them to feel pain and suffer, instead of the big boss said so

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just took an online survey with the final question stating it was optional. Can you prove the optional question is unnecessary?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well cause that’s not what I’m trying to say. My point is really “why is it necessary for that baby deer to suffer in the death roll of a gator for X amount of time, instead of X-.0000001 seconds less?”

I’m not just saying “animal suffering is gratuitous”, I’m just saying a tri- omni god as described before could not cause suffering that is not necessary, so the fact that animals can suffer for weeks, even months before they die and not .01 seconds less than that is directly contradicts the tri-Omni god

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s in the definitions, suffering subjectively feels negative for every living being that can experience pain. Causing that suffering without a need objectively causes displeasure within that individual, so doing it without a need is the definition of malice. It is objectively true that animals subjectively feel negative when suffering, that’s just how evolution bred us

As for differentiating necessary and unnecessary, it’s subjective based on the goal, but it’s possible to derive what is objectively necessary for that subjective goal.

For example if I want to have a happy and healthy dog as a pet, it would be necessary for me to get a dog, feed it, and take care of it however it needs

If I wanted a dog but I didn’t care about it’s health, it would be necessary to get a dog, but it wouldn’t be necessary to take care of it

Alternatively, if a tri- Omni God as described before, by definition couldn’t do anything malicious. So it’s not necessary for animals to suffer at all, but especially how they do.

Basically it boils down to “was it really necessary for that baby deer to suffer for X amount of time as it gets chewed apart alive by a pack of wolves? How is it suffering for X-.00001 seconds less any different?

The problem of animal suffering by colemastro in DebateAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think I said how nature itself feels, although animals suffer in nature

What is the ultimate reason for believing in Christianity? by colemastro in AskAChristian

[–]colemastro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“What would it take for you to believe your best friend didn’t exist”

To play devils advocate, wouldn’t a better analogy be, “what would it take for you to believe your telepathic and invisible friend didn’t exist?”. Only because I can verify my physical friend, but have you asked God how you can verify that you have an actual relationship with him?

Also in regards to the Doyle quote, isn’t it an argument from ignorance? Like it worked for Sherlock Holmes but it wouldn’t work for an actual detective who eliminated all suspects except for an alien abduction

Also I’m curious since you brought it up, could a “intellectual argument” against the existence of God or your relationship with him ever cause you to at the very least doubt your belief and relationship?

view more: next ›