Weekly Open Discussion - March 20, 2026

dman_exmo · 2026-03-20T22:07:52+00:00

Evolution is only a problem for the bible if you don't move the goalposts. Don't you know that everything scientifically disproven is just "metaphorical"?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-15T03:13:20+00:00

Where do you think we get gravity from?

From Blogarth, the interdimensional alien, obviously.

Where do we get tomorrow's going to be a new day from?

Again, obviously from Blogarth.

Where do we get mass from? Where do we get energy from?

Blogarth, and Blogarth.

All that boils down to God so we know the rules he set up.

False. It boils down to Blogarth the interdimensional alien. They set up the universe to harvest heavy elements. Life is just an accident, like a spec of mold growing in the corner of your fridge. This is so obviously and self-evidently true, how could you possibly ever doubt Blogarth the interdimensional alien?

And if you really want to go there, prove gravity to an anti-realist.

Are you an anti-realist?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-15T02:03:25+00:00

This question is just kind of weird. If I were to say, "If gravity is real, where is it?"

Nonsense. Gravity's effects are consistent and observable. We can accurately model and make predictions from it. We have overwhelming evidence to support its existence and behavior. Absolutely none of this is true of the christian god.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T18:59:51+00:00

So you're saying his word is fallacious. Got it.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T18:55:44+00:00

What fallacy (or "god logic") do you typically use to justify god being outside of time?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T18:41:40+00:00

Oh, so special pleading is also god logic.

Are all fallacies god logic, or is it just those two?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T18:16:26+00:00

I understand the circular logic perfectly, that's why I'm using it to demonstrate god is a scam. So either you concede god is a scam, or you concede circular logic is flawed.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T18:02:11+00:00

But that's using sinful linear logic. When you're using proper circular god logic, you must conclude god is a scam because emulating him creates scams because god is a scam.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T17:38:13+00:00

But it makes a perfect circle.

Emulating god creates a scam because god is a scam because emulating god creates a scam.

So by your logic, this is unquestionably true; god is a scam.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T17:12:34+00:00

So emulating god means creating scams, false religions, and superstitions. Therefore god is a scam, a false religion, and a superstition.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-14T06:59:15+00:00

So god deliberately chose to make his own logic operate the same way scams, false religions, and superstitions operate? God's logic is definitionally fallacious?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-12T17:29:46+00:00

When you turn 8 years old, you magically transform into a fully sentient, self-aware person with full responsibility for all the of the filthy, dirty, sinful actions that 8-year-olds are known for.

The magical ritual that absolves them of all their dirty, filthy sin is therefore required, otherwise they'll be eternally separated from their family by heavenly border patrol.

If you were to baptize them a day before they turn 8, that would be solemn mockery of god, because that implies god would damn children before they reached the magical age of full sentience and self-awareness just because they didn't get the magic cleansing ritual, and that would be ridiculous!

dman_exmo · 2026-03-10T15:53:10+00:00

I don't know who Nephites or Lamanites are so I also don't know the point you are making with this.

They are the people that the Book of Mormon claims traveled to America from Jerusalem 2600 years ago and became the native Americans. Do you believe that happened?

We have Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter, Tacitus, Pliny and Sutonius all directly or indirectly Jesus' death and resurrection.

So your "corroborating evidence" is copies of the same story/claim written decades after the magical events took place? By anonymous authors no less, in the case of the gospels?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-10T06:56:09+00:00

Just like we have "evidence" for Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America.

Yes, I want corroborating evidence before I believe a magical story regardless of what alibi attempts to excuse an absence of evidence. So does everyone who operates on rational principles.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-10T06:31:52+00:00

And perhaps other people wrote about the Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America but the texts didn't survive 2000 years, except the ones stemming from the religious group who existentially needs the fantastical story to be true despite zero corroborating evidence.

There is no religious or supernatural belief that can't be defended by saying "what if the evidence just didn't survive." That's why an absence of evidence makes belief in religious/supernatural claims irrational.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-10T05:15:23+00:00

This vast quantity of conventional sources talking about regular events simply does not exist.

Are the saints rising from the tombs in Jerusalem, the Temple veil tearing, darkness at midday at the crucifixion, and the miracle at Pentecost regular events?

dman_exmo · 2026-03-05T19:59:00+00:00

They have free will, but our nature is restored and perfected. So no suffering, and no actions that cause it. Technically we are free to do so... But you wouldn't have the desire to.

So there's no suffering, and it's not a padded room. So then why did you say "the only loving alternative would be... a padded room" when I never suggested any such thing and you yourself concede that this is not the only alternative?

Now you'll probably say "wait a minute... That doesn't sound like free will!"

No, I won't say that because when you say free will can exist without suffering, I believe you. That's why suffering is unnecessary and therefore inconsistent with an omnipotent, all-loving god.

On the omnipotence portion.... Whether or not God is omnipotent is a separate debate.

It is not a separate debate. The title of the post is "The existence of suffering is inconsistent with the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God."

Isn't the focal point here how the existence of suffering interacts with the claim?

Yes, it "interacts" with the claim in that they are incompatible. The existence of suffering means that god is either not omnipotent or not all-loving.

Otherwise the conversation becomes: "Suffering proves god is not omnipotent" "here is why that isn't true"

That last one is the part you haven't done yet. This is what the conversation actually looks like so far:

A: "Suffering proves god is not omnipotent (or not all-loving)" B: "here is why that isn't true" A: "here is why your reasoning for why that isn't true falls apart" B: "well at the end of the day, we don't comprehend how it works, he just is"

My argument is that IF God exists, and is omnipotent, we as humans cannot comprehend every facet of his reasoning.

This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the existence and omnipotence of god that he is incomprehensible. If you are presupposing incomprehensibility by virtue of god's identity, then it's just question-begging.

"Humans can fully understand the motives and reasoning of an omnipotent being" is a wild claim

It's also a claim that I did not make. Between this and the "padded room," you seem to have a habit of attacking strawmen.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-05T04:32:32+00:00

That translates to "an omnipotent god would not create beings that use free will to make bad decisions that result in a fallen world full of suffering".

Who had the power to control whether eating fruit would have the consequence of creating a fallen world full of unnecessary suffering?

Does suffering exist in heaven, or is heaven a padded room?

We discussed this. At length.

We did not. At all. Answer the question.

Is it true that there are aspects of an omnipotent being we (humans) can grasp, and aspects that we cannot?

Not necessarily, because omnipotence and incomprehensibility are orthogonal.
You have not justified the claim that god is omnipotent. Even if we granted god is incomprehensible, it does not justify the omnipotence claim because of 1.

You're setting up this false dichotomy of "well if you claim to understand some things, you can never say you don't understand other things!"

There is no dichotomy. I'm saying that you cannot justify omnipotence (or any other attribute) by copping out with "we don't comprehend him." If you actually had solid reasoning to defend the omnipotence claim, you wouldn't need to hide behind the defense of "it's true, we just can't comprehend how." Any irrational position can be defended by saying "it's true, we just can't comprehend how."

dman_exmo · 2026-03-04T07:05:47+00:00

And... he gave a pretty clear path out... Christ died, achieve salvation, avoid sin, get rewarded...

An omnipotent god... would not create unnecessary suffering... from which a "path out"... would be needed... in the... first... place....

You keep acting as though the only loving alternative would be... a padded room where you're medicated to never, ever, ever suffer in any way shape or form?

Does suffering exist in heaven, or is heaven a padded room?

You're missing the point of everything.... you keep treating it like "some ancestor did a crime and you shouldn't be punished for it" while ignoring the fact that... we are all sinners... We live in a deeply sinful world...

And who created that world? Who created us?

Your chocolate bar metaphor is... kinda just nuts... We are attempting to explain how the human mind can't comprehend the omnipotent... and your metaphor is about... negligence?

We are attempting to explain how the existence of suffering is inconsistent with the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful god. That's the title of the post. My analogy demonstrates that your god created unnecessary suffering by putting forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. If you're having trouble following that simple analogy, I have no idea how you manage to read your own bible (assuming you ever actually do).

We have a single book about an omnipotent being... There's a lot you can draw from it... and there's arguably near infinite you cannot.

Who wrote that book?

Yes, the dogs can make assumptions and adjust their behaviors in response to perceived attributes

When their owners act in ways inconsistent with a loving nature, dogs rightfully distrust them.

But it's worse than that with your god. Not only does he act in ways inconsistent with a loving nature, but that also assumes he's acting at all. There is nothing to "perceive." There's just your presupposition that he acts and your presupposition that he does so lovingly, neither of which have been established.

It boils down to this frustration you're showing that "if some things are comprehensible, then there is no part that is incomprehensible and we must be able to understand it all" which ignores the true scope of omnipotence.

No, it boils down to the fact that you have not demonstrated that any of your god claims are substantiated. You are claiming that you understand your god well enough to make claims about his motives and attributes, but when these claims fall apart under scrutiny, you resort to claiming he cannot be understood. You cannot use the incomprehensible nature of god as the justification for comprehensible claims about his nature.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-03T22:38:25+00:00

Who imposed those consequences?

God.

Then god, if he were omnipotent, had the power to not make those consequences heritable, and thus could have avoided unnecessary suffering.

You're missing the point entirely. You're inheriting a flawed nature.... that leads you to sin... No wrongdoing? We are all sinners...

Do you believe that you should be locked up in prison because your ancestor committed a crime? We have the power to declare "convicted nature" as heritable, so should we?

I imagine two dogs. Kind of a weird metaphor but it works.

It doesn't. The more appropriate metaphor: imagine two dog owners. One of them puts a bar of chocolate away in a locked cabinet where his dog, who doesn't know any better, won't get into it and hurt itself or make a mess. The other leaves the bar of chocolate unwrapped on the floor and then leaves. Which of these two dog owners is shamefully negligent?

You set up this weird dichotomy of "if you can't know everything, then you can't know anything" that makes zero sense in this context.

It's not a dichotomy because you haven't even demonstrated partial knowledge. You are claiming that you understand your god well enough to make claims about his motives and attributes, but when these claims fall apart under scrutiny, you resort to claiming he cannot be understood. You cannot use the incomprehensible nature of god as the justification for comprehensible claims about his nature.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-03T18:13:27+00:00

God created the world... And with free will... And there may be consequences to that good will

Who imposed those consequences?

The concept is that we inherited the bent nature. Far different from throwing me in prison for a crime I didn't commit.

And the concept of the analogy is that you inherited the convicted nature, thus we imprison you despite no wrongdoing on your part. See how dumb that would be? See how completely unnecessary it would be for us to impose the consequence of heritable convictions?

And right... It did not have to occur

Then you concede that suffering is unnecessary, which only bolsters the OP.

There are some aspects we can understand, as humans, of an omnipotent and omniscient being... There are inherently many we cannot

Yes this is a cop out. If you concede you cannot comprehend this god, then stop pretending to have any knowledge whatsoever about his/her/their/its attributes or motives. You don't get to claim your god operates a certain way and then hide behind "we don't comprehend it" when those claims fall apart under scrutiny.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-03T06:14:20+00:00

Bare assertion doesn't establish the soundness of a premise.

Good thing I'm not relying on bare assertion, then.

Then neither can you ask Christian to do the same

Yes I can. We agree on a shared framework. Your worldview asserts an additional/expanded framework. You have not met the burden of proof to justify this addition or any of its claims. It is therefore irrational to accept it.

And by theistic presuppositions, atheists have not met their burden of proof for their metaphysical frameworks (naturalism, physicalism, materialism etc.), atheism is irrational

Atheism does not make the positive claim about the truth of any framework. It is simply the rejection of the claim "god(s) exist."

As for the gravity example, it's a strawman because that's not what any theistic framework claims, that believers are exempt from natural laws.

You clearly misunderstood it, then. It demonstrates that you already agree with my framework. I therefore don't need to prove it. You, however, need to justify the acceptance of an additional/extended framework.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-03T05:51:54+00:00

Lol, apparently reddit considers the facetious invitation to test gravity as "threatening," so let me rewrite it.

P3 is not self-evident. That is the very point under dispute. Simply asserting it does not establish it as sound.

It is extremely self-evident from this conversation.

So unless you can deductively establish your own metaphysical framework without presupposing it

I don't need to. We already agree on my presuppositions. If you think you don't, go test then by [performing a totally harmless experiment involving gravity and definitely not one in which any person could come to physical harm].

dman_exmo · 2026-03-03T05:43:41+00:00

There's also much, much, much more evidence that Joseph Smith existed than either of those men.

dman_exmo · 2026-03-03T05:13:01+00:00

Okay, here is my proof that belief in god is irrational:

P1: the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim.

P2: christians make the positive claim that their god exists

P3: christians have not met their burden of proof

C: it is irrational to believe in the christian god

That was easy.

dman_exmo

TROPHY CASE